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.”


After reading all these it becomes all blurred. What is the crime? Who is the criminal? Is there an investigation? Who is investigating whom? What is the motive?


Soharabuddin case: Witness says was threatened by CBI



A witness in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case has said he had gone underground as he feared that CBI, probing the case, would force him to make more false statements.
One Noor Mohammad Goghari told this to a court hearing the Popular Builder firing case yesterday in which he is an accused.
According to CBI chargesheet, firing at Popular builder in December 2004 was stage managed by some of the accused in fake encounter case with the purpose of lodging FIR against Sohrabuddin in Gujarat.
Goghari is shown as an witness in the chargesheet in the Soharabuddin fake encounter case and his statement, recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, has been included in it.
As per the statement, he has said he was threatened by IPS officers accused in the fake encounter case.
He told a court hearing Popular builder case that he did not appear during the last hearing as he feared that CBI would pick him up, make false statements on his behalf and implicate him in the fake encounter case.
In his application before additional sessions judge I B Waghela, who had issued warrant against him, Goghari said he was called to the CBI office for questioning in fake encounter case, where he had denied having information about the case.
He said the CBI officials pressurised him to make statements of their choice, saying they would help him out in the Popular Builder firing case.

Surely this is a disappointment for the ‘secular’ media and the Congress Bureau of Investigation (CBI) who would love to propagate the hype of ‘Hindu Terrorism’ to match that of the sinister Islamic counterpart. 


HuJI ban takes no note of ‘Hindu terror’ role

Vishwa Mohan, TNN, Aug 8, 2010, 03.10am IST

NEW DELHI: Contrary to Centre’s growing estimate that alleged Hindu extremists carried out the May 2007 Mecca Mosque blast in Hyderabad, the United States and the United Nations have held the Pakistan-based Harkat-ul-Jihad Islami (HuJI) responsible for it. The UN has, in fact, termed the blast a joint operation of HuJi and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and listed a number of other terror attacks in India in which these outfits were involved.

HuJI’s role in the Mecca Mosque blast was highlighted both by the US and the UN while banning the outfit as a `terrorist organisation’ and designating its top commander Ilyas Kashmiri as a `global terrorist’ having links with al-Qaeda on Friday. Kashmiri had recently been indicted in the US for providing material support to Pakistani-American LeT operative David Coleman Headley.

India had also suspected HuJI’s involvement in the Mecca Masjid blasts before stumbling upon evidence linking the terror act to the group aligned with Abhinav Bharat who are suspect in two other attacks on Muslim targets — the blast at a mosque in Malegaon and at the Ajmer Shrine. It is possible that the UN and US authorities did not check with India for fresh updates on investigation into the crimes, going along with the initial line of Indian investigators.

Their “finding” may trigger a controversy because investigators have uncovered more evidence linking the Mecca Masjid blast which killed 16 people and injured 40 to Hindu extremists.

The US has pointed out that HuJI — which has been operating in India and Pakistan — had carried out this terror attack besides several others including the one in Varanasi in March 2007.

Justifying its determination, the US department of state in its statement said: “These actions were taken in consultation with the department of the treasury and the department of justice…. These actions will give US law enforcement additional tools needed to restrict the flow of resources to both HuJI and Mohammad Ilyas Kashmiri.”

The same day, the UN too imposed sanctions on both HuJI and its commander Ilyas Kashmiri, subjecting both the entity and the individual to “the assets freeze, travel ban and arms embargo”. The world body has also listed a number of terror attacks which were carried out by HuJI. Besides the Mecca Masjid blast, these include the twin explosions in Hyderabad in August 2007 and suicide bombing of the US Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, in March 2006 among others.

Though India had banned the outfit long ago, the UN’s decision may have its implications in Pakistan as all members of the world body would now be required to implement “asset freeze, travel ban and arms embargo” against HuJI and Kashmiri.

Although the American decision gave credence to what Indian investigators had initially suspected on the basis of preliminary findings in the Mecca Masjid blast, it contradicted the recent probe suspecting links of perpetrators of this blast with those of the Malegaon (September 2006), Samjhauta Express (February 2007 in Haryana), and the Ajmer Sharif dargah (October 2007) blasts. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) was recently handed over the probe of the Samjhauta blast case. The investigation will also look into whether all these blasts were actually carried out by Hindu terror outfit Abhinav Bharat or some other Hindu extremists groups.

Though the initial probe had hinted at involvement of Hindu extremist group in the Samjhauta blast, the twist came when the US last year named one Arif Qasmani of Karachi as being involved in the Mumbai suburban train blasts of July 2006 and in the Samjhauta Express blast. The NIA will now have to find out the truth.

Once again a ‘Muslim Victimhood” case has been debunked.

Just like in the Batla house encounter case, CBI has given clean chit to the cops who however have been already accused, humiliated and jailed for reasons that seems nothing more than ‘public demand’.

Earlier the media, journalist and even the state government were implicated in spreading falsehood, fabricating evidence, inciting street violence. Media was accused of inciting communal hatred by reporting, based on the accounts of individuals claiming to be eyewitnesses, that one victim’s forehead had been smeared with sindoor — an allegation that suggested that the rapists were Hindus.

Again the question is how can this nexus of media-journalist-politicians-minority appeasers be broken.

And how does one expect the security forces-police-military to continue working thanklessly in this hostile atmosphere, risking their life and reputation?

Accountability is virtually nonexistent and will remain so until exemplary punishments are implemented to those responsible.

CBI gives clean chit to policemen in Shopian case


Giving a clean chit to four police officials in the mysterious Shopian case, the CBI today said two women who were alleged to have been raped and murdered had actually died due to drowning, and has indicted 14 people including doctors and lawyers for allegedly fabricating evidence.

Seeking to give a quietus to the case that had led to widespread protests for 47 days in the valley during summer, CBI counsel Anil Bhan informed a division bench headed by Chief Justice Bahrin Ghosh that the women had died due to drowning in a stream.

“Rape and murder have not been established, and a report has been filed before the notified court of the CBI, that is the chief judicial magistrate of Srinagar,” Bhan said.

Life in Shopian town, 51 km from here, had come to a standstill after the bodies of 22-year-old Neelofar and 17-year-old Asiya were found in a stream. Protests were held claiming that the two had been allegedly raped and murdered.

The CBI, which has based its finding on the opinion received from experts of AIIMS, Central Forensic and Scientific Laboratory and FSL of Haryana, had told the CJM’s court on December 10 that the women were never raped and had died due to drowning.

In an embarrassment for the State government and the one-man Jan Commission appointed by it, CBI found nothing against the four policemen – superintendent of police Javed Iqbal Mattoo, deputy SP Rohit Basgotra, station house officer Shafiq Ahmed and sub-inspector Gazi Karim.

The four had spent two months in jail following orders from the high court, which had said it was convinced with the findings of the Special Investigating Team constituted by it to probe the incident that they allegedly tried to destroy the evidence.

The CBI has now filed a charge sheet against the six doctors – Nighat Shaheen, GQ Sofi, Maqbool Mir, GM Paul, Bilal Ahmed Dalal and Nazia Hassan – under Sections 167 (public servant framing an incorrect document) and section 194 (giving or fabricating evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence) of the Ranbir Penal Code.

The CBI alleged that the doctors did not carry out the postmortem properly, and gave a false report that the two victims had been raped before being murdered. The medicos were also charged for preparing false vaginal slides.

Ironically, five lawyers, including the former and present as well as the public prosecutor Mushtaq Ahmed Gattoo and Sheikh Mubarak respectively for allegedly conspiring and intimidating witnesses to make false submissions before a magistarte about women cries being heard from a policevan.

Besides these two lawyers, others include Abdul Majid Dar, Mohammed Yusuf Bhat and Altaf Ahmed. They all have been charged with section 194, 342 (wrongful confinement) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy).

The five lawyers have been charged with entering into a criminal conspiracy with Ali Mohammed Sheikh and Zahoor Ahmed Ahnger in pressuring two – Abdul Rashid and GM Lone – in giving false statement under oath before a magistrate that they had heard women cries coming from a police vehicle.

The CBI questioned Rashid and Lone who spilt the beans and told the agency sleuths that they had been pressurised by the lawyers through Sheikh and Ahnger. The CBI got their fresh confessional statement registered before a chief judicial magistrate.

A police constable Mohammed Yaseen Ganai has also been charge sheeted for allegedly giving false information and false charges made with an intent to injure.

The CBI took over the investigation into the case on September 17 and a team headed by deputy inspector general Satish Golcha has been camping here since then. The agency’s special director SC Sinha had also visited the place to take stock of the situation.

Ahead of the CBI investigations, the state government had appointed one-man commission headed by Justice (retd) Muzzafar Jan who, among other things, had recommended a detailed questioning of the relatives of the victims including Neelofar’s husband Shakeel and her brother Zirar Shah.

Chargesheet filed in Kerala nun murder case


VR Jayaraj | Kochi

The CBI on Friday filed a chargesheet in the sensational case relating to the murder of a 21-year-old Christian nun, Sr Abhaya, in Kottayam, Kerala, after 17 years of probes by various agencies. The country’s premier investigating agency, which filed the 50-page chargesheet in the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, listed two senior priests and a nun of the Catholic Church, and a former assistant sub-inspector of police, who committed suicide some months ago, as accused in the case.

However, AX Vargehse, counsel for Thomas Aikkarakkunnel, father of the murdered nun, said that the CBI act of submitting the chargesheet and its contents were mysterious. He suspected that there was an effort on the part of the agency to save some people. The Church had from the very beginning argued that the CBI’s conclusions were weird and that priests and nuns were being victimised.

In the chargesheet, the agency submitted that the first three accused, Fr Thomas M Kottoor, Fr Jose Puthrukayil and Sr Seffi, dumped Sr Abhaya in the well of the St Pius X Convent, Kottayam after killing her. The CBI had arrested the three senior Knanaya Catholic Church personalities on November 19 last. Justice K Hema of the Kerala High Court had granted bail to the three accused on January 1.

In a rare development, the CBI also listed VV Augustine, former ASI of police, Kottayam, who was found dead near his residence on November 25 last, as an accused for destroying crucial evidences. Augustine was one of the first police officials to reach the convent to take the details of the death of the nun. It was said that Augustine had committed suicide as he could stand the anxieties the case generated in him. The body of Sr Abhaya was found in the well of the convent on the morning of March 27, 1992. The 17-year-long probes by various agencies had been filled with uncertainties, stories of immoral acts of the clergy and trespassing into convents for nuns and mysteries over recordings of narco-analysis procedures.

The local police, who first probed the case, termed the death of the nun as a case of suicide. The Kerala Police Crime Branch, which took up the case later, upheld the finding of the local police. The CBI which came on the scene later admitted that the nun was indeed murdered but they wanted to wind up the case as all evidences had been lost.

The present CBI team, which was the fifth agency group to probe the case, showed some concrete action by arresting three of the accused. This team concluded that Fr Kottoor, Fr Puthrukayil and Sr Seffi killed Sr Abhaya after they were convinced that she had seen them in indulging in immoral acts at an unearthly hour of the night in a corner of the convent.

The chargesheet said that the agency wanted to subject KT Michael, former CySP, Crime Branch, Achamma and Thresiamma, servants at the convent, and nun Sr Sherly, who was a room-mate of the murdered nun, to narco-analyses. The court had already given permission to subject the three women to narco-tests and the CBI had asked it for permission for the procedure on Michael.

The case was already mired in controversy due to mysteries over the recordings of the narco-analyses on the first three accused, who had been subjected to the tests in November, 2007. The CBI said in the chargesheet that more arrests were likely as the probe was still continuing.

For CBI, Quattrocchi is no longer most wanted

PTI | April 28, 2009 | 11:50 IST

After figuring in category of people wanted by Interpol for 12 years, the CBI has asked the international agency to take off Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, an accused in the multi-crore Bofors payoff scam, from the Red Corner notice list in which he had been put at India’s behest.

The decision was taken after getting the legal opinion from Attorney General Milon Banerjee.

The case has been under trial in the courts since 1999. The CBI has taken action on the basis of legal advice of the highest order. We will inform the competent court on the next date of hearing (April 30, 2009),” CBI spokesman Harsh Bahal said on Tuesday.

The Attorney General cited the inability of the CBI to seek Quattrocchi’s extradition on two occasions –first in Malaysia in 2003 and then in Argentina in 2007–and opined that the judgments in both the cases indicated that there were no good grounds for extradition.

“….The warrant cannot remain in force forever. Therefore, the warrant of February 1997 would lose its validity, particularly in view of the successive failed attempts of the CBI to get the accused extradited from Malaysia and recently from Argentina,” Banerjee, the country’s top law officer, said.

The decision on the issue was taken by the Government on the basis of the opinion and the CBI informed the Interpol that the CBI case–RC.1(A)/90-ACU.IV/SIG (Bofors case)—and subject of Interpol Red Corner Notice–A-44/2/1997—against Quattrocchi should be cancelled.

The case was registered against him as the agency had alleged that he had received a part of kickbacks in the Bofors gun deal.

The Italian businessman, in his mid-60s, was named by the CBI in 1999 as a proclaimed offender and on the basis of a 1997 non-bailable warrant, the agency had sought a Red Corner notice against him.

Quattrocchi was last arrested on February 6, 2007 in Argentina on an Interpol warrant. The CBI came under attack for putting up a half-hearted effort towards his extradition and India lost the case in an Argentinian court in June 2007.

The judge there had remarked that “India did not even present proper legal documents” and New Delhi was asked to pay Quattrocchi’s legal expenses.

On October 22, 1999, when the BJP-led NDA government was in power, the CBI filed a chargesheet against Quattrocchi, naming AE Services as a front company run by him and his wife Maria.

Based on 500 documents released by Swiss banks after protracted legal procedures, the CBI framed charges against Quattrocchi and his wife.

Attempts to extradite Quattrocchi from Malaysia in 2003 failed owing to lack of “compelling” evidence and in the same year he had returned to Italy from that country.

Extradition request or serving the Interpol warrant on the Italian businessman were turned down by Italy, which had wanted to see the evidence and prosecute Quattrocchi in an Italian court.


‘CBI has proof of Quattrocchi getting $7.32 mn’

PTI | New Delhi

There are documents with the CBI showing that Quattrocchi received $7.32 million. The documents have been given by the Swiss authorities themselves,” the former CBI Director, who brought the documents from Switzerland, told PTI here.

He claimed that the documents were with the Government and the CBI and also part of records in Delhi High Court.

Singh, who had gone to Switzerland in 1997 and brought nearly 500 pages of documents released by Swiss banks, said, “when I took over, I found that the the CBI had a room full of documents relating to Bofors case but no one had touched them.”

Singh said after bringing back the documents he had sent a report to the Government in three months.

Asked why the Government did not do anything, he said, “It is up to the Government to accept it or not. I don’t regret because I did my job.”

Asked if the decision of dropping the name of Quattrocchi from the Interpol’s Red Corner notice was wrong, he said “the Government has all the rights…The CBI is not an independent agency. It has to carry out whatever the Government says. You may not agree with it but there is option than to carry out whatever they say.”