New Delhi: Senior Congress leader Sajjan
Kumar Saturday alleged before a Delhi court that CBI's witnesses
in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case against him were not reliable
as they had retracted from their versions.
"All the witnesses, who retracted from their affidavits
before the judicial officers, are liable to be prosecuted for
lying on oath," Kumar's counsel I U Khan told Additional
Sessions Judge Sunita Gupta.
Khan referred to a statement of victim Anek Kaur, whose
husband Vakil Singh was killed in the riots, to claim that she
had first named Kumar before Jain-Banerjee Committee
constituted after the carnage in 1985 and later retracted it
before a court.
"The Metropolitan Magistrate recorded her versions as
court witness on November 13, 1998 and consigned the file to
record room as untraced after she claimed that she did not see
the political leader," he submitted.
Kumar's counsel Khan and AK Sharma contended that the
judicial order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate had
remained unchallenged and was still in operation.
"How can CBI rely on her version to seek prosecution of
Kumar," they asked.
Their argument was, however, objected to by senior
advocate RS Cheema, appearing for CBI, who said her (Anek's)
statement was not part of the records before this court.
The CBI counsel also submitted that it cannot be said
that the trial had already taken place if the file relating to
the case had been consigned to record room.
Khan, on the other hand, claimed that her statement was
made a part of basis for the recommendation of Justice
Nanavati Commission to order registration of fresh FIR even
though Anek had died in March 2000, two months before its
constitution.
The complainant Anek never approached any judicial
authority despite the fact that she had full liberty to file
protest petition, he said, alleging, now the CBI wanted to
revive the case more than two decades after the incident
without having any witness.
Khan's plea was objected to again by another CBI counsel
D P Singh who claimed that the previous prosecution initiated
by Delhi Police on Anek's complaint was "dishonest and
negligent".
During over one-and-a-half-hour long arguments, Kumar's
counsel submitted that framing of charges in the matter would
affect fundamental rights of the accused.
The arguments in the matter in which eight persons were
killed in the riots that followed assassination of then Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, remained
inconclusive and would continue on May 26.
PTI
First Published: Saturday, May 22, 2010, 20:42