SC quashes Sajjan plea for reprieve from riot chargesfor
Posted by
Suman Patel
on Monday, September 27, 2010
Labels:
Nation News
A last gasp effort by Congress leader Sajjan Kumar to preempt his 1984 anti- Sikh riot trial failed on Monday with the Supreme Court dismissing his petition to quash charges framed against him by a Delhi trial court.
Saying Kumar’s trial could not be quashed merely because of delays, a bench presided over by justice P. Sathasivam gave the go- ahead to the criminal proceedings by vacating its August 13 order staying the trial.
The apex court had stayed the trial without hearing the CBI or the victims.
While the ex- parte stay had brought cheers to Kumar’s camp, the victims later informed the court that it had caused great inconvenience to the elderly complainant in the case whose crossexamination ended abruptly.
Though Kumar had been questioning his trial on the grounds of delay, the CBI alleged that he was attempting to impede the process.
With Kumar getting the trial stayed, Jagdish Kaur, an old and infirm witness who lost her husband, son and cousins in the riots, had to return to Amritsar after one- and- half- month of grilling, the CBI said.
Though Kumar had managed to convince the court to pass an interim order in the absence of opponents, the bench finally decided to dismiss his petition.
The bench rejected Kumar’s contention that the delayed trial had to be quashed to protect his fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
While the court accepted that the delay was sufficient grounds to quash proceedings, it stressed that the principle could not be applied to this case considering its extraordinary nature.
Though every accused was entitled to speedy justice, the decision to put an end to a case ultimately depended upon “ various factors/ reasons and materials placed by the prosecution”, the bench said.
The court also rejected his argument that proceedings should not be allowed to continue as the witnesses were unreliable and had given statements after a gap of 25 years.
Addressing Kumar’s contention that the trial court had wrongly framed charges against him without ascertaining the reliability of witnesses, the court said a judge framing charges was not supposed to analyse materials placed by the prosecution.
Noting that the materials questioned by Kumar could be “ tested in the context of prejudice to the accused only at the trial”, the court said: “ It is at the trial, the judge concerned has to appreciate their evidentiary value, credibility or otherwise of the statement, veracity of various documents and free to take a decision one way or the other.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment