It also shows those additional records information required in companynection with investigation are to be obtained from the Delhi Police.
Riot Cell after a gap of seven years.
By the said order, the Additional Sessions Judge has ordered the framing of charges against the appellant for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 153A, 295, 302, 395, 427, 436, 339 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to as IPC and for the offence under Section 109 read with Sections 147, 148, 149, 153A, 295, 302, 395, 427, 435, 339 and 505 IPC, besides framing of a separate charge for offence punishable under Section 153A IPC and rejected the application for discharge filed by the appellant.
416 of 1984 dated 04.11.1984 of Police Station, Delhi Cantt was re registered by the CBI as case RC 24 S /2005 SCU.I CBI SCR.I New Delhi.
She suspected the involvement of one Congress Leader Balwan Khokhar in these riots but she had number seen him personally.
Pursuant to the said decision, Home Department forwarded the relevant records companynected with the cases against the abovementioned persons.
After fresh investigation, CBI filed charge sheet bearing No.
From the investigation and verification made so far it was revealed that There is numbereye witness to support the version of the companyplaint of Smt.
Jagdish Kaur PW 1, was reopened by the anti Riot Cell of Delhi Police in the year 2002 and after investigation, a Closure Report was filed in the Court on 15/22.12.2005.
In her first statement recorded by local police during the investigation, she did number name any person specifically and also stated that she companyld number identify any one among the mob.
As many as 5 charge sheets were filed by Delhi Police relating to 5 deaths which resulted in acquittals.
416 of 1984 registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt.
At the same time, the appellant has also filed a petition for discharge raising various grounds in support of his claim.
It is further seen that before accepting the closure report, the Magistrate issued summons to the companyplainant i.e, Smt.
In this FIR, 24 companyplaints were investigated pertaining to more than 60 deaths in the area.
Jagdish Kaur number of times and the same were duly served upon her by the officers of the Special Riot Cell but she did number appear before the Court.
Investigation by the C.B.I. Learned Additional Solicitor General has brought to our numberice the letter dated 24.10.2005 from Mr. K.P. Singh, Special Secretary H to Mr. U.S. Mishra, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, North Block, New Delhi.
After filing of the Closure Report in the present case, on 31.07.2008, a Status Report was filed by the Delhi Police before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
The following companyclusion in the status report dated 31.07.2008 filed by the Delhi Police was pressed into service.
2455 of 2007 before the High Court of Kerala.
One supplementary charge sheet about robbery, rioting etc.
The letter further shows that the Government had decided that the work of companyducting further investigation re investigation against the abovementioned persons as per the recommendations of Justice Nanavati Commission should be entrusted to the CBI.
Brief Facts The present case arises out of 1984 anti Sikh Riot cases in which thousands of Sikhs were killed.
The Closure Report was filed by Delhi Police on 15.12.2005/22.12.2005, when a case had already been registered by the CBI on 22.11.2005 and the documents had already been transferred to the respondent CBI.
P.C. during the companyrse of further investigation, the witness Om Prakash stated that he had seen numberhing about the riots.
The letter further shows that based on the assurance on the floor of the Parliament, the Government examined the report of Justice Nanavati Commission, its recommendations regarding investigation re investigation of the cases against a Shri Dharam Das Shastri, b Shri Jagdish Tytler, and c Shri Sajjan Kumar.
After investigation, CBI filed a charge sheet before the Special Judge CBI , Ernakulam on 11.12.2002 wherein all the abovementioned persons were named as A 1 to A 3 respectively for an offence under Sections 302 and 34 IPC.
By an order dated 04.07.2007, learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed his criminal revision petition.
Delhi Police has made this case a part of FIR No.
Jagdish Kaur stayed at his house from 01.11.1984 to 03.11.1984 but she did number mention the name of any person who was indulged in the killing of her husband and son.
The companyplaints and affidavits made by Smt.
Pursuant to the recommendation of Justice Nanavati Commission, the Government of India entrusted the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation hereinafter referred to as CBI on 24.10.2005.
After companymittal, charges were framed on 15.05.2010.
The investigation pertaining to the death of family members of Smt.
He also stated that the appellant was present when the incident occurred.
On receipt of the said companymunication, the respondent CBI registered a formal FIR on 22.11.2005.
The materials placed by the CBI show that Justice Nanavati Commission submitted its report on 09.02.2005, its recommendations were discussed by the Lok Sabha on 10.08.2005 and the Rajya Sabha on 11.08.2005, Government of India asked CBI to inquire those recommendations on 24.10.2005 and the F.I.R. No.
Jagdish Kaur.
Leave granted.
In the said writ petition, Constable Ramachandran Nair filed a companynter affidavit dated 11.01.1999 in which he made a companyfession that he had shot Naxalite Varghese on the instruction of the then Deputy Superintendent of Police DSP , Lakshmana.
Accordingly, CBI registered an FIR on 3 3 1999 in which Constable Ramachandran Nair was named as Accused 1, Mr Lakshmana was named as Accused 2 and Mr. P. Vijayan, the appellant, was named as Accused 3 for an offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
The trial Judge, by order dated 08.06.2007, dismissed the said petition and passed an order for framing charge for offences under Sections 302 and 34 IPC.
By pointing out the same, he companytended that the CBI is number justified in re opening the case merely on the basis of observations made by Justice Nanavati Commission.
Jagdish Kaur are having huge companytradictions.
She was told by one Om Prakash who was companyleague of her husband, about the killing of her husband and son.
1/2010 in the present case on 13.01.2010.
was also filed which also ended in acquittal.
Heard Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior companynsel for the appellant, Mr. H.P. Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent CBI and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior companynsel for the intervenor.
It is relevant to numbere that numberone including the appellant has number challenged appointment of CBI to inquire into the recommendations made by Justice Nanavati Commission.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant Vijayan filed Criminal Revision Petition No.
By order dated 27.01.1999, learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala passed an order directing CBI to register an FIR on the facts disclosed in the companynter affidavit filed by Constable Ramachandran Nair.
Submissions After taking us through the charge sheet dated 13.01.2010, statements of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 10, order dated 15.05.2010 framing charges by the District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and the impugned order of the High Court dated 19.07.2010, Mr. Lalit, learned senior companynsel for the appellant submitted that i the statement of Jagdish Kaur is highly doubtful and later she made an improvement, hence the same cannot be relied upon to frame charge against the appellant ii reliance on the evidence of Jagsher Singh PW 2, who gave a statement after a gap of 25 years cannot be accepted iii the statement of Nirprit Kaur PW 10 is also number acceptable since the same was also made after a gap of 25 years of the occurrence iv other witnesses who were examined in support of the prosecution specifically admitted that they did number see the appellant at the time of alleged companymission of offence v inasmuch as the charge has been framed after 25 years of occurrence, proceeding against the appellant, at this juncture, is violative of his companystitutional right under Article 21 vi after filing of the closure report by the Delhi Police, by following the procedure, the present action of the CBI companyducting further re investigation and filing charge sheet based on fresh and improved materials is impermissible in law vii follow up action based on the recommendation of Justice Nanavati Commission is also impermissible at this juncture viii many remarks observations made by the High Court are uncalled for and based on companyjectures and surmises and also without there being any material on record.
Pursuant to the same, on 22.11.2005, investigation was taken up and it revealed that the accused persons companymitted offences punishable under Section 109 read with Sections 147, 148, 149, 153A, 295, 302, 396, 427, 436, 449, 505 and 201 IPC and accordingly filed the charge sheet.
In the statement recorded on 22.01.1993 under Section 161 Cr.
A perusal of the said letter shows that in reply to the discussion held in the Lok Sabha on 10.08.2005 and the Rajya Sabha on 11.08.2005 on the report of Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry into 1984 anti Sikh riots, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister had given an assurance that wherever the Commission has named any specific individuals as needing further examination or re opening of case the Government will take all possible steps to do so within the ambit of law.
Status Report by Delhi Police Mr. Lalit heavily relied on the status report of the Delhi Police and companysequential order of the Magistrate.
She even did number name Shri Sajjan Kumar in her statement recorded by the I.O. of the Spl.
The said order was challenged by Mr. P. Vijayan before this Court.
The appellant P. Vijayan filed a petition under Section 227 of the Code on 17.05.2007 for discharge on various grounds including on the ground of delay.
