Court pulls up CBI for delay in recording witness’ statement
›
I am surprised that the IO does not seem to be concerned that the key witness received a written threat immediately before the polygraphy test was to be conducted.
HS BHALLA, chief metropolitan magistrate
NEWDELHI: A Delhi court on Monday pulled up the CBI for delay in recording of statements of controversial arms dealer Abhishek Verma, who is a witness in a case related to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in which Congress leader Jagdish Tytler is an accused.
The court asked the investigating officer (IO) to file within 15 days a report on the lapses in the probe pointed out during the hearing and posted the matter for hearing on December 20.
“Thirty-five years after the incident whereby citizens of this country were burnt alive, the investigating agencies have tried to show that they will ensure justice to the victims. The record, which reflects the conduct of the agencies, in my view, speaks otherwise,” chief metropolitan magistrate Harjyot Singh Bhalla said.
The judge asked why, even though 35 years have elapsed since the incident and directions for further investigation have been passed many times and witnesses have come forward after much hesitation and efforts, the investigating agency is satisfied with the statement under section 161 (recording of witnesses’ statements) of the CrPC which is neither signed by the witness (Verma), over which the witness has no control.
“Why does the investigator not want the witness to depose under section 164 of CrPC under which statement is recorded by a magistrate and duly signed and definitely can be considered at a higher pedestal when compared to a statement under section 161 of CrPC?” the court asked.
The court noted that despite an order passed on December 4, 2015 to conduct a polygraphy test of Verma, who is a witness in the case, the CBI could not conduct the test for the next three years and it was finally conducted on December 4, 2018. After going through a purported letter submitted by Verma that as a witness he was threatened, the court said there was no doubt that the language of the letter qualified as a death threat.