dc16
- dEsPeraTe cRaNky -
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.
"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.
