Thursday, June 2 2005 17:30 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

Ahmedabad: The cross-examination of a railway employee before the inquiry panel today (Jun 2, 2005) delved in detail into the controversial chain pulling aspect of the Sabarmati express train where 59 kar sevaks were killed inside the S-6 coach just outside the Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002.

Fatehsinh Solanki, a pointsman, who was part of the team that attended to the ill-fated Sabarmati Express, said during his cross-examination that the vacuum pipe (that causes the coach to brake) of the ill-fated S-6 coach was already 'tampered' with when he had arrived at the site.

During his cross-examination before Nanavati-Shah Commission, Solanki said that he was merely following instructions of higher-ups when told to attend to the S-6 and S-7 coaches (that were the most affected).

Admitting that no train (wherein the chain was pulled) could move without the vacuum being brought to normal mode, Fatehsinh said that he was not sure as to how the S-6 and S-5 coaches managed to move and also brought to a halt once they were removed from the tracks and brought to the yard for work.

His statement also added more confusion to the chain pulling theory, as the investigating team has said that there were two instances of chain pulling, which has not yet been proved

According to advocate Mukul Sinha, who conducted the cross-examination Fatehsinh's statement is crucial "as it completely throws off track the prosecution's theory of two chain pulling incidents that occurred onboard the Sabrmati train."

"It (double chain pulling) is not possible because, as per Fatehsinh's statement it clearly indicates that the chain pulling was only once, as the railway officials would have to release the vacuum from all the coaches to know from where the chain pulling was from, which they did not do", Sinha said.

To a question by Sinha, if he had seen the lever (to release vacuum) of the S-6 coach and if it was tampered with or damaged due to the fire, Fatehsinh replied in the negative and said he was just doing his job and that was to shunt the train to the yard.

He also denied even looking towards the coach to observe if the rubber vestibule of the S-6 coach (that the prosecution say was slit open by the rioting mob) was actually torn or not.

The advocate said that Fatehsinh's statement completely rubbishes the prosecutions claim of a second chain pulling incident and said that it appeared that even the first chain pulling occurred from either the S-6 or S-5 coach.