HC orders inquiry into murder at Petlad Swami Sachidanand Ashram

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court has asked a lower court to take action against Swami Sachidanand for offences of murder and possessing arms. This is in connection with the incident on July 17, 2006, when the spiritual leader fired on a group of four people who allegedly attacked his ashram near Petlad.

After the death of one Babubhai Mohania in the firing, his relative lodged a complaint with the magisterial court in Petlad. But the application for investigation in the incident of firing and death was rejected by the magistrate with the observation that the complaint did not mention that Mohania was accompanied by one Rameshbhai Damor, who was a witness to the incident.
The magistrate refused inquiry in this case on the ground that the complainant had not come before the court with “clean hands” and did not disclose full information.
On the other hand, the swami and his followers lodged an FIR against Mohania and his companion, accusing them of attacking the ashram.
During investigation on the FIR filed by the swami, police came to know about the death and collected evidence in regard with the bullet injury to Mohania. In his statement, the swami told the police that he had fired in self-defence.
When the magistrate turned down the plea for an inquiry into Mohania’s death, his kin approached the high court, stating that Mohania and Damor had knocked at the door of the ashram for food but they were insulted and beaten up by residents. While the fight was on, the swami came out with a gun and fired on Mohania, who died after he was brought to Ahmedabad.
When the case was heard by justice Akil Kureshi, he observed that the magistrate “committed a grave error” in dismissing the complaint, for there is sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed against the swami. The lower court was also pulled up for forming an opinion that Mohania died due to the negligence of witness Damor.
“To throw the entire burden of proving the charge on an illiterate adivasi was too much to expect from him,” Kureshi observed.
Directing the lower court to initiate proceedings against the swami under section 204, justice Kureshi said, “Issues like whether the accused had fired in self-defence or even if such defence was valid and whether he exceeded the right of self-defence are questions which can be raised at the time of the trial and not at this stage.”
However, the high court held that the court proceedings will not cover four followers of the swami, who have also been accused by the complainant.