How Netaji plane crash story was grounded

1. The evidence of the witnesses bristles with material discrepancies and contradictions both inter se and between the statements made before the Committee, the earlier Commission and other inquiring\\' authorities of foreign Governments. These discrepancies and contradictions prove that through their (the witnesses\\') ocular versions they were making out a story which had no basis whatsoever. In support of their contention they drew the attention of the Commission to various contradictions and discrepancies in their (witnesses\\') evidence.

2. Their evidence relating to the plane crash is so improbable that no reasonable -person can act upon the same, far less draw a conclusive inference therefrom. In elaborating this contention it was submitted that if the bomber plane had no seats and for that matter no seat belts and all the passengers were squatting on the floor and if, as testified by SW 4 (Habibur Rahman Khan), the plane had nosedived from a "fairly high altitude, possibly over 12-14000 feet" all the passengers and luggage inside the plane would be hurled and then huddled together near the cockpit and in that event even half of the passengers could not have survived or come out of the plane either unhurt or with some minor injuries as claimed by them. For the selfsame reason the story given out by some of the witnesses that as Netaji was seated adjacent to the petrol tank, gasoline flashed all over his body resulting in his sustaining third degree burns cannot be believed for the simple reason that Netaji could not be in his original position on the floor of the plane following the nosedive.

3. Not a scrap of paper - not to speak of any contemporary official document - was forthcoming to corroborate the oral version of the plane crash even though it was expected that in the official course of business there would be record maintained by the authorities concerned to prove the factum of the crash. This aspect of the matter assumes greater importance having regard to the fact that two of the occupants of the plane, who died in the plane crash, were Netaji, the Head of the Provisional Government of Free India which was recognised by the Japanese Government, and Shidei, a General of the Japanese army.

4. The fact that the Government of Taiwan and the Taipei City Government admitted before the Chairman of the Commission that they had in response to the queries made by Shri Anuj Dhar, a journalist working for the on-line version of the English daily newspaper Hindustan Times, replied that they had no document in proof of the fact that there was any plane accident at the material time clearly belied the testimony of the witnesses. The copies of the e-mail and their reply thereto referred to by the learned Counsel are annexed herewith {Annexure-D/1 (collectively)}.

5. Shri Tarakeswar Pal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Government of India, fairly submitted that there were glaring discrepancies in the evidence adduced regarding the accident as also the date and time of death, news of death, death certificate and cremation of Netaji.