THE COURT SAID THAT THE CBI’S THEORY AND CHARGE SHEET ARE “RIDDLED WITH UNEXPLAINED GAPS”.

CBI requested the court not to discard entirely the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
THE COURT SAID THAT THE CBI’S THEORY AND CHARGE SHEET ARE “RIDDLED WITH UNEXPLAINED GAPS”.

The Central Bureau of Investigation said that the killings of Sohrabuddin, his wife Kausar Bi and his assistant Tulsiram Prajapati–in 2005 and 2006–were theatrical and if some defect exists in the prosecuting agency's investigate, it can't be a ground in itself to grant benefit or release to the accused.

A total of 92 out of 200 witnesses examined in the case have turned hostile. Special public prosecutor BP Raju, who was making his final arguments on behalf of the CBI before Special Court Judge SJ Sharma here, said that it was "regrettable" that so many important prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and gone back on their statements given to the CBI and the magistrate courts. He argued that the Supreme Court had ruled in many instances that courts could take cognizance of the testimonies given by those witnesses who eventually turned unfriendly.

Jadeja and Singh, both constables of Gujarat police, were the CBI's "star witnesses" in the case who turned unfriendly during the trial.

Sohrabuddin and Kausar Bi were abducted by the Gujarat ATS (Anti-Terrorism Squad) on November 26, 2005, when they were traveling to Sangli in Maharashtra from Hyderabad in a private bus along with Prajapati. While Sohrabuddin was killed near Ahmadabad some days after the abduction, Kausar Bi met the same fate on November 29. Prajapati, who was a witness to the incident, was allegedly killed by the Rajasthan and Gujarat police a year later (2006) in another fake encounter, as per the charge sheet. While Raju said that all the three were killed in fake encounters, Judge Sharma said, "The CBI's theory and its charge sheet were riddled with unexplained gaps".

Prajapati was present on the bus, in which Sohrabuddin and his wife were traveling, was not mentioned by any accuser, witnesses or probe agencies until 2010 when the CBI took over the probe from the Gujarat CID (Crime Investigation Department), the judge said.

"Sohrabuddin Shaikh's brother Rubabuddin wrote a letter to the Supreme Court and filed a writ petition in the Bombay high court in 2006. However, he did not even whisper about Prajapati. The Gujarat police and the CID that initially probed the case made no mention of Prajapati being present at the site or witnessing the incident. "So what dots did the CBI join to conclude that he was the third person traveling with Sohrabuddin and his wife on that bus?" the judge asked.

The judge also noted that the CBI charge sheet was "silent" on Prajapati whereabouts some hours before he was killed in the alleged fake encounter in December 2006.

 "There are several judgments of the Supreme Court which rule that even if some defects exist in the prosecuting agency's probe, such defects can't be a ground in itself to grant benefit or release to the accused person," the special public prosecutor argued.

He said much of the CBI's case depended on circumstantial evidence and that he will accordingly submit previous rulings of the top court on such evidence, besides "other relevant judgments" before the special court Tuesday.

Related Stories

No stories found.
logo
Since independence
www.sinceindependence.com