Mr Sajjan Kumar must have done something really wrong for even the Congress Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to testify against him. May be he is falling out of favor from the family’s blessing hands.

While, the victim’s families and everybody else who are aware enough, know that he was one of the masterminds of the ‘the earth -shake after a big tree falls’  phenomenon of the then Gandhi icon, justice may never be handed over since our judicial system specializes in decade long trials ( the recent Anderson of Bhopal fame testifies that).

Meanwhile one may like to ask our astute Home Minister, Mr Chidambaram, whether the anti-Sikh riot of 1984 can qualify as ‘Congress terror’ according to his dictionary.


Police probe a sham to shield top Congmen’

Abraham Thomas | New Delhi

Twenty-six years since the anti-Sikh riots, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Friday admitted that the police probe that allowed top Congress leaders, including Sajjan Kumar, to go scot-free was based on “sham investigations” and “farce prosecutions”.

In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the agency investigating the 1984 riots stated, “It cannot be lost sight of the fact that 24 complaints were investigated in one FIR about scores of deaths…. Because of sham investigations and farce prosecutions, there has been failure of justice, for which victims are aggrieved.”

The affidavit came in response to Sajjan Kumar’s appeal challenging the chargesheet filed against him based on the complaint of two riot victims. The apex court had stayed a trial against Kumar on August 13, and another trial has also been challenged before the Delhi High Court.

Hearing the appeal on Friday, the Bench of Justices P Sathasivam and BS Chauhan justified its stay order. It said, “The High Court (of Delhi) had convicted him without any evidence.” But in light of the CBI affidavit and the victims pleading for an urgent lifting of stay on the trial, the Bench fixed the matter for hearing in September.

The court was referring to the observations passed by the judge, which went beyond the material placed before him. Even to this effect, CBI maintained that all observations were purely “within the confines of the facts of the case” and in no manner prejudiced the case of the petitioner.

Accusing the former Congress MP of delaying the trial, the CBI held him prima facie guilty of the offence he is charged with. Sajjan had maintained that the allegations made against him by one Jagdish Kaur suffered from delay. He gave the impression that the allegations were an afterthought aimed at maligning his political image.

While refusing to agree with the Congress leader, the CBI said, “A perusal of the final report (chargesheet of January 13, 2010) would show that there are direct allegations, which are proved by evidence against the petitioner (Sajjan) about his involvement in the commission of crime in the present case.”

Moreover, the prosecuting agency argued that the trial was currently at the stage of framing of charges and, at this stage, no courts would weigh the alleged infirmities or contradictions in statement of witnesses, delay in recording statements and the reasoning based on probability. Significantly, these grounds have been relied upon by Sajjan in his appeal to set aside his prosecution.

The CBI described the proceedings pending in the Supreme Court as an effort by the petitioner to delay the trial that was prejudicing the prosecution. It even described how the defence counsel was conducting the trial by prolonging the cross-examination of witnesses for over a month. Even on the statement of Kaur, which was under focus before the apex court, the CBI submitted, “It shall be a travesty of justice to prejudge the statement of the witness made in the court by holding a parallel trial in this court.”