New Delhi: Despite being cleared for filing by a session's court last year, a Delhi Police chargesheet that names veteran Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in one of the anti-Sikh riots cases has been quietly shelved into cold storage.
The chargesheet had gone "missing" for 18 years after it was clubbed in another case in 1992 (in which Kumar didn't figure as an accused), and it was only in 2010 that a court separated the two, clearing the path for filing of a fresh document.
However, sources told TOI that even as the riot cell of Delhi Police prepared to file the chargesheet or a closure report which the court could then take cognizance of, the top brass in police headquarters decided to send the case to CBI, invoking an old home ministry circular that said all politically sensitive cases be handled by CBI. This means for the past several months, the probe in the said FIR lodged by Delhi Police, has been grounded since CBI is yet to take up the case.
It was after an intervention by Delhi high court, which appointed special prosecutors in anti-Sikh riot cases, that the missing chargesheet was traced by B S Joon, who promptly brought this to the attention of the trial judge and urged him to get it traced.
Joon argued that the chargesheet prepared against Kumar in 1992 cannot be clubbed with another case on which trial was already going on and pointed out how the chargesheet, which cited sufficient evidence to proceed against Kumar, was prepared in 1992 but was never brought before a judge to seek his prosecution. The special prosecutor punched holes in the police version, highlighting that cops were not empowered to club cases as it was the sole prerogative of the court to decide such issues. The chargesheet was prepared in the case based on FIR number 67/87 at Nangloi police station naming Kumar as an accused on April 8, 1992, but it was kept in police files and never brought before the court.
On its part the police took the plea that the FIR was clubbed with another riots case in which the trial was already on but failed to explain why it was clubbed when in the second case Kumar was not named as an accused. The special prosecutor also rubbished claims by cops that two cases relating to the incidents during the riots that took place following assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi were clubbed on the legal opinion provided by the prosecution branch.
An FIR was registered in 1991 with regard to the killing of four persons in Nangloi during the 1984 riots. Kumar, along with five others, was mentioned as an accused in the case but police dropped the name of the politician. The case (FIR no 67/87) with regard to the killings of five persons allegedly involving Kumar was clubbed with the FIR (418/1991) with Nangloi police. In 1994, police filed the chargesheet in FIR no 418/1991 against five accused but did not mention Kumar as an accused.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...sheet-in-cold-storage/articleshow/7731445.cms
The chargesheet had gone "missing" for 18 years after it was clubbed in another case in 1992 (in which Kumar didn't figure as an accused), and it was only in 2010 that a court separated the two, clearing the path for filing of a fresh document.
However, sources told TOI that even as the riot cell of Delhi Police prepared to file the chargesheet or a closure report which the court could then take cognizance of, the top brass in police headquarters decided to send the case to CBI, invoking an old home ministry circular that said all politically sensitive cases be handled by CBI. This means for the past several months, the probe in the said FIR lodged by Delhi Police, has been grounded since CBI is yet to take up the case.
It was after an intervention by Delhi high court, which appointed special prosecutors in anti-Sikh riot cases, that the missing chargesheet was traced by B S Joon, who promptly brought this to the attention of the trial judge and urged him to get it traced.
Joon argued that the chargesheet prepared against Kumar in 1992 cannot be clubbed with another case on which trial was already going on and pointed out how the chargesheet, which cited sufficient evidence to proceed against Kumar, was prepared in 1992 but was never brought before a judge to seek his prosecution. The special prosecutor punched holes in the police version, highlighting that cops were not empowered to club cases as it was the sole prerogative of the court to decide such issues. The chargesheet was prepared in the case based on FIR number 67/87 at Nangloi police station naming Kumar as an accused on April 8, 1992, but it was kept in police files and never brought before the court.
On its part the police took the plea that the FIR was clubbed with another riots case in which the trial was already on but failed to explain why it was clubbed when in the second case Kumar was not named as an accused. The special prosecutor also rubbished claims by cops that two cases relating to the incidents during the riots that took place following assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi were clubbed on the legal opinion provided by the prosecution branch.
An FIR was registered in 1991 with regard to the killing of four persons in Nangloi during the 1984 riots. Kumar, along with five others, was mentioned as an accused in the case but police dropped the name of the politician. The case (FIR no 67/87) with regard to the killings of five persons allegedly involving Kumar was clubbed with the FIR (418/1991) with Nangloi police. In 1994, police filed the chargesheet in FIR no 418/1991 against five accused but did not mention Kumar as an accused.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...sheet-in-cold-storage/articleshow/7731445.cms
