’84 riots: Delhi Police probe a sham, says CBI
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Friday slammed the Delhi Police for conducting “sham investigation and farce prosecutions” into the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case involving former MP from Delhi, Sajjan Kumar.delhi Updated: Aug 27, 2010 23:43 IST
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Friday slammed the Delhi Police for conducting “sham investigation and farce prosecutions” into the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case involving former MP from Delhi, Sajjan Kumar.
Opposing Kumar’s appeal before the Supreme Court, the CBI, in a detailed affidavit, requested the court to vacate its August 13 stay as it was delaying the trial that began in July on a day-to-day basis.
Terming Sajjan’s petition as an attempt to delay the trial, the CBI claimed the accused had not yet completed the cross-examination of even one witness who is also the complainant in the case against the senior Congress leader. Jagdish Kaur, the first witness in the case, gave her statement to the court on two dates. However, the defence has cross examined her 17 times and it hasn’t completed it.
Taking the agency’s affidavit on record, a bench headed by Justice P. Sathasivam said it would hold the petition’s final hearing on September 7. It also agreed to hear an intervention application filed by the victims of the anti-Sikh riots.
When senior counsel Dushyant Dave, appearing for the victims, said the matter pertained to a section of the society striving for justice since 1984 and he opposed the stay as it involved the emotions of several persons, the bench replied: “Mr Dave, nobody is insensitive.”
The agency further said in its affidavit that Delhi Police had wrongly filed a closure report on December 15 and 22, 2005 before the court, even as it had handed over the case papers to the CBI that had already registered a case. The agency had filed its chargesheet against Sajjan on January 13, 2010.
The CBI attacked the defence for dragging the trial and claimed that on the last hearing, when SC issued a stay order, the defence continued to cross-examine the “aged” witness until the judge presiding the court intervened. As per the agency, none of the parties were informed of the SC hearing till then.
When the judge concerned asked the defence to complete the evidence, the counsel apparently took another day’s time. But, due to the SC’s stay order, the witness couldn’t depose and had to return to Amritsar after one-and-a-half months of grueling session.
Kumar has approached SC challenging the trial court and Delhi High Court judgment framing criminal charges against him in the anti-sikh riots case that was registered following a report by the G T Nanavati Commission. Sajjan has been slapped with murder and rioting charges.