Ashish Kumar, the complainant in an abduction and murder case against Punjab Police chief Sumedh Singh Saini, has accused the DGP of trying to mislead a Delhi court by digressing from the main issue to prolong trial that has already been pending for more than 20 years.
The case pertains to the abduction and elimination case of three members of a Ludhianabased business family in 1994. In his written submissions to the court of CBI special judge AK Mendiratta, Kumar alleged that “the accused persons have intentionally fabricated records of the debt recovery tribunal” to mislead the court into believing that Amar Kaur, Kumar’s mother, is dead.
The court has fixed July 28 to hear arguments in the case.
The case dates back to March 15, 1994, when Ludhiana-based businessman Vinod Kumar; his brother-in-law Ashok Kumar and their driver Mukhtiyar Singh were taken into custody in Ludhiana. All three have been missing since.
In 2006, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had charged Saini and the other accused under Sections 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 342 (wrongful confinement) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Earlier, Saini had sought a transfer of the case from the court of judge Mendiratta on the ground that during the crossexamination, the court did not record certain observations against the public prosecutor, whom he accused of manipulating witnesses against him.
{{/usCountry}}Earlier, Saini had sought a transfer of the case from the court of judge Mendiratta on the ground that during the crossexamination, the court did not record certain observations against the public prosecutor, whom he accused of manipulating witnesses against him.
{{/usCountry}}The special CBI court had earlier cancelled the exemption to Saini from personal appearance and asked him to remain present during the cross-examination of prosecution witness Ashish Kumar.
On November 28, judge Mendiratta had expressed strong displeasure over Saini’s conduct of “questioning the court’s impartiality” because an effort had been made to expedite the trial after almost two decades.
The special CBI judge had said he could not turn a blind eye to the “vexatious conduct of Saini’s counsel observed during the recording of the witnesses’ statements. It was part of Saini’s delaying tactics,” the court had noted.