Sharan says that Mahatma Gandhi was hit by three bullets which were fired from the same revolver
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday was told that there was no “substantive material” that can cast doubt on the probe into the assassination of father of nation Mahatma Gandhi, including its conspiracy angle, to warrant any re-investigation.
“No substantive material has come to light to throw any doubt on any of the above requiring either a re-investigation of the Mahatma Gandhi murder case or, to constitute a fresh fact finding commission with respect to the same,” amicus curiae Amarendra Sharan told the top court in his report filed on Monday.
Not favouring any fresh investigation into Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination by Nathuram Godse, the amicus curiae said: “The bullets which pierced Mahatma Gandhi’s body, the pistol from which it was fired, the assailant who fired the said bullets, the conspiracy which led to the assassination and the ideology which led to the said assassination have all been duly identified.”
Referring to evidence that was brought before the trial court, Sharan said that Mahatma Gandhi was hit by three bullets which were fired from the same revolver.
The report says that there is no evidence of any British influence including that of alleged British secret service ‘Force 136’ in the assassination.
“There is no documentary evidence in contemporary literature to prove that, there even existed such a secret service by the name of ‘Force 136’ and that, it was mandated to carry out the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. Thus, any reliance upon such theories would be unwarranted,” says the report submitted by Sharan.
No evidentiary value can be given to the statement made to the then Ambassador to USSR Vijaya Laxmi Pandit by the ambassadors of the various other countries regarding British involvement in the assassination, it said.
Furthermore, the report says that it is difficult to give any evidentiary value to the submissions regarding apprehension of Nathuram Godse by CIA agent named Herbert Reiner at the place of assassination.
Rejecting the material being relied upon by the petitioner Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis for re-investigation into Gandhi murder, Sharan said: “Further, (all) these cannot derogate the solid evidence laid before the court in the Gandhi murder case comprising of oral and documentary evidence and material exhibits.”
The report came in pursuance to the apex court’s October 6, 2017 order appointing him amicus curiae to examine the material produced by the petitioner to ascertain whether there was need for further inquiry into the larger conspiracy behind the assassination.
The court had however on October 6 itself said that prima facie they don’t find the material to be sufficient to order fresh inquiry.
Phadnis moved the top court challenging the Bombay High Court’s June 6, 2016 order junking his plea for the fresh inquiry into larger conspiracy behind the assassination in the wake of fresh evidence that has surfaced now.
Pointing fingers at ‘Force 136’, the petitioner has said that the Indian Ambassador to USSR was informed in February 1948 that the Briton had organised the assassination.