Veteran Congress leader Sajjan Kumar, facing trial in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, on Saturday accused the CBI in a Delhi court of playing "hide and seek" as the agency decided not to rely on "contradictory" statements of a victim.
Advocate IU Khan, appearing for former Outer Delhi MP Sajjan Kumar, told District Judge JR Aryan that the probe agency was "playing a game" with them.
"They (CBI) are deceiving us and a fraud has been played upon us. If this is a game (that) the CBI is playing with us, we are the worst sufferer.
"State has much more responsibility than a common citizen. The CBI cannot play hide and seek with us. They cannot say we allow you to use the documents at a particular stage only and not after that," Khan argued.
Khan was arguing on Kumar's plea questioning the CBI's vacillating stand on using complainant and crucial witness Jagdish Kaur's affidavits and statements to various judicial commissions, which probed the 1984 riot cases, in prosecuting the case.
In his application, Kumar had said the CBI had earlier brought on record and even examined Kaur's affidavit and statement to the judicial commissions, but it now says that it is not relying on them.
Sajjan Kumar had added that prosecutor R S Cheema had on July 12, 2010 made a statement to the court that affidavits of the witness in the case cannot be used due to contradictions.
The CBI, however, opposed Sajjan Kumar's plea saying it took objection to Jagdish Kaur's affidavits and statement, filed before Ranganath Mishra Commission and G T Nanavati Commission, in 2010 and this issue was kept open but the accused had not said anything at that time.
"I am sorry to say but my objection is that application of Sajjan Kumar is not bonafide. From July 12, 2010, they had not filed any application. I had addressed the court in 2010 about this issue of contradiction in witness affidavits but no application was moved by the defence. Why was such a gap there?" asked Cheema.
Sajjan Kumar, Balwan Khokkar, Kishan Khokkar, Mahender Yadav, Girdhari Lal and Captain Bhagmal are facing trial in the killings of six people in Delhi Cantonment area during the 1984 carnage which broke after the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984.
They are accused of instigating a mob to attack and kill the Sikhs.
Kumar's counsel added the prosecution cannot be allowed to say that we would use those documents and would not allow the accused to use admissions made in those affidavits.
Khan said witness Jagdish Kaur has been "totally exposed" from her depositions in the affidavits to the commission.
"The prosecution by way of the objection of July 12, 2010 wants to take away the judicial admissions made by Jagdish Kaur because she stands totally exposed from her admissions made through these documents. These documents prove beyond doubt that she did not make a single allegation against accused Sajjan Kumar while filing affidavit before Ranganath Mishra Commission in 1985," the counsel said.
Kumar had also said in his application that Jagdish Kaur had admitted during the trial that she was not under any pressure or coercion when she had filed affidavit before the commission.
"These documents further prove that Jagdish Kaur made allegations qua accused Sajjan Kumar for the first time on January 8, 2002 through affidavit/ statement," Khan said.
During the arguments, the court said the issue can be made a part of final arguments and defence can start them.
"Let it be part of final arguments and I do not think there is any need of filing a separate application for it," the judge said.
Khan, however, continued arguing on the issue and insisted that the application be decided before defence starts its final arguments in the case.
The defence counsel will continue its arguments on May 23, the next date of hearing.
The case against Sajjan Kumar was registered on the recommendation by the G T Nanavati Commission. The CBI had filed two charge sheets against him and others in January 2010.
The trial court had framed charges against Sajjan Kumar and five others in 2010 under Sections 302 (murder), 395 (dacoity), 427 (mischief to cause damage to property), 153A (promoting enmity between different communities) and other provisions of IPC.