CBI defends in SC re-investigation against Sajjan

Last Updated: Tuesday, September 7, 2010 - 23:53

New Delhi: CBI on Tuesday defended in the Supreme Court its decision to re-investigate the case against senior
Congress leader Sajjan Kumar for his alleged involvement in
1984-anti-Sikh riots, saying it was a decision taken by
Parliament.

Appearing for the agency, Additional Solicitor General
Haren Rawal told a Bench of Justices P Sathasivam and A R Dave
that the decision to re-investigate the case against the
Congress leader was announced in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya
Sabha by the Prime Minister after the two House had debated
the recommendations of the Justice Nanavati Commission report.

He said Parliament had in 2005 decided that the matter be
re-investigated as it was felt that the investigation was not
done in a fair manner by the local police, as found out by the
Nanavati panel.

CBI has already filed an affidavit in the apex court
accusing the special anti-riots cell of the Delhi Police of
conducting "sham investigations and farcical prosecutions"
to apparently shield Kumar a former MP.

The agency had also urged the apex court to vacate the
August 13 stay granted by it. CBI is seeking the prosecution
of Kumar for leading the mob during the riots under Delhi
Cantonment police station in which 60 people were killed.

During today`s arguments, Rawal questioned the intention
of the anti-riot cell of Delhi police in filing status reports
on July 31, 2008, in the trial court after the investigation
was taken over by CBI.

"There was no occasion for the Delhi Police to deal with
the case once the entire material was supplied to CBI by the
government of India from the custody of Delhi Police (on
October 10, 2005)," the agency said.

CBI also accused the Delhi police of filing another
status report in the trial court on July 31, 2008, and pointed
out that the trial judge and the Delhi High Court have termed
it as "clandestine attempt to hush up the matter".

Earlier, senior counsel U U Lalit, appearing for Kumar,
contended that the complainants` testimony against him were
unreliable as they were made 16-25 years after the incidents.

He pointed out that two of the witnesses Nirpreet Kaur
and Zaksher Singh had testified against Kumar after 25 years
whereas another complainant Jagdish Kaur had named the
Congress leader 16 years after the incident.

The counsel said Jagdish Kaur had filed a sworn affidavit
before the Ranganth Mishra Commission on September 7, 1995, in
which she named several Congress leaders but nowhere did she
mention Kumar.

But in May, 2000, she filed an affidavit before the G T
Nanavati Commission naming Kumar as the man who led the mob
which killed her husband and son.

However, thereafter in her personal deposition before the
Commission, she did not mention Kumar`s name anywhere, the
appeal had stated.

PTI




comments powered by Disqus