Ghaziabad fake encounter: Bullet fired from Belur’s revolver still remains a mystery | noida | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Sep 20, 2017-Wednesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Ghaziabad fake encounter: Bullet fired from Belur’s revolver still remains a mystery

Belur was the assistant superintendent of police during the incident. The CBI investigation revealed that shots were fired from her revolver.

noida Updated: Feb 23, 2017 11:59 IST
Peeyush Khandelwal
The bullet fired from the revolver of then circle officer and assistant superintendent of police, Jyoti S Belur (above), still remains a mystery.
The bullet fired from the revolver of then circle officer and assistant superintendent of police, Jyoti S Belur (above), still remains a mystery.

Even as the CBI court sentenced the four policemen, the bullet fired from the revolver of then circle officer and assistant superintendent of police, Jyoti S Belur, still remains a mystery. The CBI investigation revealed that shots were fired from revolver number 161-24871 of .38 bore, which was issued to Belur.

Belur was not named in the chargesheet but the Ghaziabad court had summoned her under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as an accused on September 14, 2007.

“The ballistic expert has also opined that the second bullet recovered from the body of Jasbir Singh was fired from the revolver issued in the name of Smt Jyoti Belur, then ASP Modi Nagar. She was not present at the spot when (A-1) Lal Singh fired at Jasbir Singh, according to the eyewitnesses,” the CBI chargesheet stated.

While narrating about the rounds fired by the personnel in the sugarcane field, convict Lal Singh had stated in the FIR that the Belur had fired three rounds. He also mentioned names of other officers and the rounds fired by them.

Belur had moved Allahabad high court in a criminal revision petition against the September 14, 2007, summons issued by the special judge (CBI). Belur was summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under sections 193, 201 and 302 of IPC.

Her petition, filed in 2010 through lawyers, maintained that no case was made against her. “No case for summoning the revisionist said to be made out. The court below has erred in relying upon the deposition of P.W.-7 (prosecution witness) Mukim who has not said a single word in respect of the revisionist (Belur). The depositions of P.W.-17 and P.W.-26 also do not reflect the involvement of the revisionist,” the court had stated.

“The trial court has ignored the fact that at the time of taking the cognizance, the ballistic expert opinion was a part of the record but no cognizance was taken against the revisionist. The court has acted arbitrarily because, after the examinations of 61 prosecution witnesses and court witness, the revisionist has been summoned,” it stated.

However, the court order mentions the CBI reply, which stated, “Learned court below has taken into consideration the statements of prosecution witnesses P.W.-7 Mukim, P.W.17 Randheer Singh, P.W.-26 Chaman Singh, P.W.-29 Navin, P.W.-30 Chandrapal, P.W.-32 Sri Abhijeet, P.W.- 55 Ram Chand and has come to the conclusion that the Revolver No.161-24871 of .38 bore was with the revisionist.”

Belur’s petition was dismissed by the court in 2013. She had filed a recall application but it was also dismissed by the high court in 2013. She later approached the Supreme Court but her petition was rejected. However, Belur has failed to appear at court.

“She is an accused in the case and proceedings can only begin once she appears at the court. The court has also issued non-bailable warrants against her. We will try for her extradition from the UK,” Rajan Dahiya, public prosecutor, CBI, said.