The SIT closure report, which gave a clean chit to Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in post-Godhra riots, has found faulted the supreme court-appointed amicus curiae's finding that he can be charged with certain offences related to the riots.

The amicus curiae (one who assists the court) has "erred" by relying solely on the statements given by suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt and concluding that certain offences can be made out against Modi, the SIT report said.

Raju Ramchandran, a supreme court lawyer and amicus curiae, has in his report held Modi can be prosecuted for offences under IPC Section 153 A (1) (a) & (b) (for promoting enmity among different groups).

He has said Modi can also be tried under Sections 153 B (1) (assertions prejudicial to national integration), 166 (public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person) and 505 (2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes).

"This recommendation of amicus curiae is based on the sole testimony of Sanjiv Bhatt, the then DCI (Security) who has claimed to have attended a meeting called by the chief minister on 27.02.2002 night (day of Godhra train carnage) at his residence," said the SIT report made public today.

"It may be mentioned here that seven other participants of the said meeting, who are senior officers, have categorically stated that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt did not attend the said meeting."

The view of the amicus curiae that it does not appear very likely that a serving police officer would make such a serious allegation without some basis appears to be erroneous as Bhatt had been all along a delinquent in his career and trying to bargain with the government, the report said.

Ramchandran based his conclusion about Modi on Bhatt's deposition. The suspended IPS officer claimed that at the meeting, Modi had given instructions to officials to "allow Hindus to vent their ire and teach Muslims a lesson in the wake of the Godhra train burning incident".

The report by Ramchandran was in response to a complaint filed by Zakia Jaffrey, whose husband, former Congress MP Ehsan Jaffrey, was among the 69 people killed in the riots at Gulberg Housing Society in Ahmedabad in 2002.

The SC-appointed SIT had probed the complaint which had alleged involvement of Modi, his ministers and other officials in the riots in which over 1,000 people were killed.

Jaffrey was yesterday handed over the SC-appointed panel's report, along with that of the amicus curiae.

"The observation made by Amicus Curiae - that Bhatt cannot be disbelieved because his statements were motivated and he has an axe to grind against the Government over issues concerning his career and, also that his statement was not supported by other officers - is absurd," the SIT said.

The SIT had conducted further inquiry on the report of Ramchandran, who submitted his final finding on February 8.

The SIT's closure report, which runs into 541 pages, has said all seven top officers of the state administration had denied Bhatt's presence at the February 27 meeting.

These police officers and bureaucrats of the Home Department had denied that Modi had made any such statements (about giving free hand to rioters), it said.

"The claim of Shri Bhatt has been dismissed by K D Chakravarthi, the then DGP, who has denied that Bhatt accompanied him in his staff car to chief minister's resident.

Significantly, in the log book of the vehicle of Shri Chakravarthi, there is no mention of Sanjiv Bhatt."

"The Amicus Curiae has agreed with the findings of the SIT on all the major issues. Whereas the complainant (Zakia) has made an allegation the chief minister sponsored the riots, the amicus curiae has come to the conclusion that sufficient steps were taken by the chief minister to control the riots.

The Amicus Curiae did not allege any conspiracy or abetment on the part of chief minister," the SIT report noted.

The SIT is of the view the offences under the aforesaid (IPC) Sections of law (listed by amicus curiae) are not made out against Modi, it said.

"In the light of aforesaid facts, a closure report is being submitted for favour of perusal and orders," the report said.