{"id":54579,"date":"2010-09-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-07-18T03:03:02","modified_gmt":"2016-07-17T21:33:02","slug":"sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: P Sathasivam<\/div>\n
Bench: P. Sathasivam, Anil R. Dave<\/div>\n
                                                             REPORTABLE\n\n             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.                    OF 2010\n          (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6374 of 2010)\n\n\nSajjan Kumar                                   .... Appellant (s)\n\n           Versus\n\nCentral Bureau of Investigation               .... Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n                        JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
P. Sathasivam, J.\n<\/p>\n
1)   Application for intervention is allowed.<\/p>\n
2)   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
3) This appeal is directed against the order of the High<\/p>\n
Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 19.07.2010 whereby the<\/p>\n
learned    single   Judge     confirmed     the   order     dated<\/p>\n
15.05.2010 passed by the District Judge-VII\/NE-cum-<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in<\/p>\n
S.C. No. 26\/10, RC SII 2005 S0024. By the said order,<\/p>\n
                                                                    1<\/span>
\nthe Additional Sessions Judge has ordered the framing of<\/p>\n
charges against the appellant for offences punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 120B read with Sections 153A, 295, 302,<\/p>\n
395, 427, 436, 339 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and for the offence under<\/p>\n
Section 109 read with Sections 147, 148, 149, 153A, 295,<\/p>\n
302, 395, 427, 435, 339 and 505 IPC, besides framing of a<\/p>\n
separate charge for offence punishable under Section<\/p>\n
153A IPC and rejected the application for discharge filed<\/p>\n
by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
4)    Brief Facts:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)   The present case arises out of 1984 anti-Sikh Riot<\/p>\n
cases in which thousands of Sikhs were killed.        Delhi<\/p>\n
Police has made this case a part of FIR No. 416 of 1984<\/p>\n
registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt. In this FIR, 24<\/p>\n
complaints were investigated pertaining to more than 60<\/p>\n
deaths in the area. As many as 5 charge-sheets were filed<\/p>\n
by Delhi Police relating to 5 deaths which resulted in<\/p>\n
acquittals.    One    supplementary   charge-sheet    about<\/p>\n
                                                           2<\/span>
\nrobbery, rioting etc. was also filed which also ended in<\/p>\n
acquittal.   The investigation pertaining to the death of<\/p>\n
family members of Smt. Jagdish Kaur PW-1, was reopened<\/p>\n
by the anti-Riot Cell of Delhi Police in the year 2002 and<\/p>\n
after investigation, a Closure Report was filed in the Court<\/p>\n
on 15\/22.12.2005.\n<\/p>\n
(b) After filing of the Closure Report in the present case,<\/p>\n
on 31.07.2008, a Status Report was filed by the Delhi<\/p>\n
Police before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House<\/p>\n
Court, New Delhi.     Pursuant to the recommendation of<\/p>\n
Justice Nanavati Commission, the Government of India<\/p>\n
entrusted the investigation to the Central Bureau of<\/p>\n
Investigation   (hereinafter    referred      to   as   “CBI”)   on<\/p>\n
24.10.2005.     On receipt of the said communication, the<\/p>\n
respondent-CBI registered a formal FIR on 22.11.2005.<\/p>\n
The   Closure    Report   was    filed   by    Delhi    Police   on<\/p>\n
15.12.2005\/22.12.2005, when a case had already been<\/p>\n
registered by the CBI on 22.11.2005 and the documents<\/p>\n
had already been transferred to the respondent-CBI.<\/p>\n
                                                                  3<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
(c)    After fresh investigation, CBI filed charge-sheet<\/p>\n
bearing No. 1\/2010 in the present case on 13.01.2010.<\/p>\n
After committal, charges were framed on 15.05.2010. At<\/p>\n
the same time, the appellant has also filed a petition for<\/p>\n
discharge raising various grounds in support of his claim.<\/p>\n
Since he was not successful before the Special Court, he<\/p>\n
filed a revision before the High Court and by the impugned<\/p>\n
order dated 19.07.2010, after finding no merit in the case<\/p>\n
of the appellant, the High Court dismissed his criminal<\/p>\n
revision and directed the Trial Court for early completion<\/p>\n
of the trial since the same is pending from 1984.<\/p>\n
5)    Heard Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, Mr. H.P. Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor<\/p>\n
General for the respondent-CBI and Mr. Dushyant Dave,<\/p>\n
learned senior counsel for the intervenor.<\/p>\n
6)    Submissions:\n<\/p>\n
(a)   After taking us through the charge-sheet dated<\/p>\n
13.01.2010, statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-10, order<\/p>\n
dated 15.05.2010 framing charges by the District Judge,<\/p>\n
                                                         4<\/span>
\nKarkardooma Courts, Delhi and the impugned order of the<\/p>\n
High Court dated 19.07.2010, Mr. Lalit, learned senior<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant submitted that i) the statement<\/p>\n
of Jagdish Kaur is highly doubtful and later she made an<\/p>\n
improvement, hence the same cannot be relied upon to<\/p>\n
frame charge against the appellant; ii) reliance on the<\/p>\n
evidence of Jagsher Singh PW-2, who gave a statement<\/p>\n
after a gap of 25 years cannot be accepted; iii) the<\/p>\n
statement of Nirprit Kaur PW-10 is also not acceptable<\/p>\n
since the same was also made after a gap of 25 years of<\/p>\n
the occurrence; iv) other witnesses who were examined in<\/p>\n
support of the prosecution specifically admitted that they<\/p>\n
did not see the appellant at the time of alleged commission<\/p>\n
of offence; v) inasmuch as the charge has been framed<\/p>\n
after 25 years of occurrence, proceeding against the<\/p>\n
appellant, at this juncture, is violative of his constitutional<\/p>\n
right under Article 21; vi) after filing of the closure report<\/p>\n
by the Delhi Police, by following the procedure, the<\/p>\n
present   action   of   the   CBI   conducting    further   re-<\/p>\n
                                                              5<\/span>
\ninvestigation and filing charge-sheet based on fresh and<\/p>\n
improved materials is impermissible in law; vii) follow-up<\/p>\n
action based on the recommendation of Justice Nanavati<\/p>\n
Commission is also impermissible at this juncture; viii)<\/p>\n
many remarks\/observations made by the High Court are<\/p>\n
uncalled for and based on conjectures and surmises and<\/p>\n
also without there being any material on record. If those<\/p>\n
observations are not deleted from the order of the High<\/p>\n
Court, it would amount to directing the trial Judge to<\/p>\n
convict the appellant without proper proof and evidence.<\/p>\n
(b)   On   the   other   hand,     Mr.   H.P.   Rawal,    learned<\/p>\n
Additional   Solicitor   General    appearing     for    the   CBI<\/p>\n
submitted that in view of categorical statement by the<\/p>\n
victims before Justice Nanavati Commission and its<\/p>\n
recommendation which was deliberated in the Parliament,<\/p>\n
the Government of India took a decision to entrust<\/p>\n
further\/re-investigation in respect of 1984 anti-Sikh riots<\/p>\n
through CBI. According to him, the present action by the<\/p>\n
CBI and framing of charges against the appellant and<\/p>\n
                                                                 6<\/span>
\nothers is in consonance with Sections 227 and 228 of the<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as<\/p>\n
“Cr.P.C.”). He also submitted that at the stage of framing<\/p>\n
of the charges, the material on record has not to be<\/p>\n
examined meticulously; a prima facie finding of sufficient<\/p>\n
material showing grave suspicion is enough to frame a<\/p>\n
charge. He pointed out that there is nothing illegal with<\/p>\n
the order framing charge which was rightly affirmed by the<\/p>\n
High Court. He further submitted that the High Court has<\/p>\n
not exceeded in making observations and, in any event, it<\/p>\n
would not affect the merits of the case.\n<\/p>\n
(c)   Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the<\/p>\n
intervenor, while reiterating the stand taken by the<\/p>\n
learned Additional Solicitor General supported the order of<\/p>\n
the District Judge framing charges as well as the order of<\/p>\n
the High Court dismissing the criminal revision filed by<\/p>\n
the appellant. He pointed out that it is not a case for<\/p>\n
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n
No prejudice would be caused to the appellant and he has<\/p>\n
                                                           7<\/span>
\nto face the trial.    He further contended that the delay<\/p>\n
cannot be a ground for interference.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Provisions:\n<\/p>\n
7)   Before considering the claim of the parties, it is<\/p>\n
useful to refer Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. which<\/p>\n
are reproduced below:\n<\/p>\n
     “227. Discharge.- If, upon consideration of the record of
\n     the case and the documents submitted therewith, and
\n     after hearing the submissions of the accused and the
\n     prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that
\n     there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the
\n     accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his
\n     reasons for so doing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     228. Framing of charge- (1) If, after such consideration
\n     and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that
\n     there is ground for presuming that the accused has
\n     committed an offence which-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he
\n     may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order,
\n     transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial
\n     Magistrate or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first
\n     class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief
\n     Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial
\n     Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems
\n     fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence
\n     in accordance with the procedure for the trial of
\n     warrant-cases instituted on a police report;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in
\n     writing a charge against the accused.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b)
\n     of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and<\/p>\n
                                                                  8<\/span>
\n     explained to the accused and the accused shall be
\n     asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or
\n     claims to be tried.”\n<\/p>\n
It is clear that the Judge concerned has to consider all the<\/p>\n
records of the case, the documents placed, hear the<\/p>\n
submission of the accused and the prosecution and if<\/p>\n
there is “not sufficient ground” (Emphasis supplied) for<\/p>\n
proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the<\/p>\n
accused by recording reasons. If after such consideration<\/p>\n
and hearing, as mentioned in Section 227, if the Judge is<\/p>\n
of the opinion that “there is ground for presuming”<\/p>\n
(Emphasis supplied) that the accused has committed an<\/p>\n
offence, he is free to direct the accused to appear and try<\/p>\n
the offence in accordance with the procedure after framing<\/p>\n
charge in writing against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
Statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-8 and PW-10<\/p>\n
8)   Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
pointed   out   that   the   prosecution,     for   framing     the<\/p>\n
impugned charges, heavily relied on the statements of<\/p>\n
                                                                  9<\/span>
\nJagdish Kaur, Jagsher Singh and Nirprit Kaur. He also<\/p>\n
took us through their statements made at various stages<\/p>\n
which are available in the paper-book.       It is true that<\/p>\n
Jagdish Kaur PW-1, in her statement under Section 161<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. dated 20.01.1985, did not mention the name of<\/p>\n
the appellant.   Even in the affidavit dated 07.09.1985,<\/p>\n
filed before Justice Ranganath Misra Commission she has<\/p>\n
not whispered a word about the role of the appellant.<\/p>\n
According to him, for the first time i.e. in the year 2000,<\/p>\n
after a gap of 15 years an affidavit was filed before Justice<\/p>\n
Nanavati Commission, wherein she referred the name of<\/p>\n
the appellant and his role along with certain local<\/p>\n
Congress workers.     According to Mr. Lalit, except the<\/p>\n
above statement in the form of an affidavit before Justice<\/p>\n
Nanavati Commission, she had not attributed anything<\/p>\n
against the appellant in the categorical statements made<\/p>\n
on 20.01.1985 as well as on 07.09.1985 before Justice<\/p>\n
Ranganath Misra Commission.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           10<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
9)   He also pointed out that even after submission of<\/p>\n
Justice Nanavati Commission’s report and entrusting the<\/p>\n
investigation to CBI, she made a statement before the CBI<\/p>\n
officers at the initial stage by mentioning “that the mob<\/p>\n
was being led by Congress leaders”. Only in later part of<\/p>\n
her statement, she mentioned that “she learnt that Sajjan<\/p>\n
Kumar,   the   Member    of   Parliament   was   conducting<\/p>\n
meeting in the area”. She confirmed the statement in the<\/p>\n
form of an affidavit dated 07.09.1985 filed before Justice<\/p>\n
Ranganath Misra Commission as well as her deposition<\/p>\n
with regard to the appellant before Justice Nanavati<\/p>\n
Commission on 08.01.2002. No doubt, in the last part of<\/p>\n
her statement, it was stated that in the year 1984-85, the<\/p>\n
atmosphere was totally against the Sikh community and<\/p>\n
under pressure she did not mention the name of Sajjan<\/p>\n
Kumar. She also informed that she could not mention his<\/p>\n
name for the safety of her children.\n<\/p>\n
10) The other witness Jagsher Singh, first cousin of<\/p>\n
Jagdish Kaur, in his statement recorded by the CBI on<\/p>\n
                                                         11<\/span>
\n07.11.2007 i.e. after a gap of 23 years, mentioned the<\/p>\n
name of the appellant and his threat to Sikhs as well as to<\/p>\n
Hindus who had given shelter to Sikhs. According to Mr.<\/p>\n
Lalit, this witness mentioned the name of the appellant for<\/p>\n
the first time before the CBI nearly after 23 years of the<\/p>\n
incident which, according to him, cannot be relied upon.<\/p>\n
11) The other witness relied on by the prosecution in<\/p>\n
support of framing of charges is Nirprit Kaur PW-10. It is<\/p>\n
pointed out that she also made certain statements to the<\/p>\n
CBI after a gap of 23 years and she did not mention the<\/p>\n
name of the appellant except stating that one Balwan<\/p>\n
Khokhar who is alleged to be a nephew of Sajjan Kumar,<\/p>\n
came to her house for discussing employment for her<\/p>\n
nephew as driver.\n<\/p>\n
12) The other statement relied on by the prosecution in<\/p>\n
support of framing of charges against the appellant is that<\/p>\n
of Om Prakash PW-8.        He narrated that during the<\/p>\n
relevant time he had given shelter to a number of women<\/p>\n
and children of Sikh community including Jagdish Kaur<\/p>\n
                                                           12<\/span>
\nPW-1. Mr. Lalit pointed out that in his statement, he did<\/p>\n
not even utter a word about the appellant but at the end<\/p>\n
of his statement on being asked, stated that he knew Shri<\/p>\n
Sajjan Kumar, Member of Parliament.          However, he<\/p>\n
further stated that he did not see him in that mob or even<\/p>\n
in their area during the said period. In the last sentence,<\/p>\n
he expressed that he had heard from the people in general<\/p>\n
that Sajjan Kumar was also involved in the 1984 riots.<\/p>\n
13) By pointing out the earlier statement of Jagdish Kaur<\/p>\n
PW-1, recorded by the CBI, her affidavit before Justice<\/p>\n
Nanavati Commission and the statement of Jagsher Singh<\/p>\n
PW-2, Nirpreet Kaur PW-10 and Om Prakash PW-8 before<\/p>\n
the CBI, Mr. Lalit submitted that there was no assertion<\/p>\n
by anyone about the specific role of the appellant except<\/p>\n
the bald statement and that too after 23 years. In such<\/p>\n
circumstances, according to him, the materials relied on<\/p>\n
by the prosecution are not sufficient to frame charges.<\/p>\n
According to him, mere suspicion is not sufficient for<\/p>\n
which he relied on the judgments of this Court in Union<\/p>\n
                                                         13<\/span>
\nof India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another,<\/p>\n
(1979) 3 SCC 4 and Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of<\/p>\n
Maharashtra,<\/a> (2002) 2 SCC 135.\n<\/p>\n
14) In Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra), the scope of<\/p>\n
Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was considered. After adverting<\/p>\n
to various decisions, this Court has enumerated the<\/p>\n
following principles:\n<\/p>\n
     “(1) That the Judge while considering the question of
\n     framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has
\n     the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for
\n     the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a
\n     prima facie case against the accused has been made
\n     out.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose
\n     grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
\n     properly explained the Court will be fully justified in
\n     framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
\n     (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would
\n     naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is
\n     difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By
\n     and large however if two views are equally possible and
\n     the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before
\n     him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave
\n     suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his
\n     right to discharge the accused.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227
\n     of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is
\n     a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a
\n     Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has
\n     to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total
\n     effect of the evidence and the documents produced
\n     before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the
\n     case and so on. This however does not mean that the
\n     Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and<\/p>\n
                                                                  14<\/span>
\n     cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
\n     conducting a trial.”\n<\/p>\n
15) In Dilawar Balu Kurane (supra), the principles<\/p>\n
enunciated in Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) have been<\/p>\n
reiterated and it was held:\n<\/p>\n
     “12. Now the next question is whether a prima facie
\n     case has been made out against the appellant. In
\n     exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of
\n     Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that
\n     the Judge while considering the question of framing the
\n     charges under the said section has the undoubted
\n     power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
\n     purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case
\n     against the accused has been made out; where the
\n     materials placed before the court disclose grave
\n     suspicion against the accused which has not been
\n     properly explained the court will be fully justified in
\n     framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and
\n     large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is
\n     satisfied that the evidence produced before him while
\n     giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion
\n     against the accused, he will be fully justified to
\n     discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction
\n     under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
\n     the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a
\n     mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the
\n     broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
\n     evidence and the documents produced before the court
\n     but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and
\n     cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
\n     conducting a trial (see Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar
\n     Samal).<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14. We have perused the records and we agree with the
\n     above views expressed by the High Court. We find that
\n     in the alleged trap no police agency was involved; the
\n     FIR was lodged after seven days; no incriminating
\n     articles were found in the possession of the accused and
\n     statements of witnesses were recorded by the police
\n     after ten months of the occurrence. We are, therefore, of
\n     the opinion that not to speak of grave suspicion against<\/p>\n
                                                                 15<\/span>
\n     the accused, in fact the prosecution has not been able
\n     to throw any suspicion. We, therefore, hold that no
\n     prima facie case was made against the appellant.”<\/p>\n
16) It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong<\/p>\n
suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is<\/p>\n
ground for presuming that the accused has committed an<\/p>\n
offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is<\/p>\n
no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.<\/p>\n
The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be<\/p>\n
drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of<\/p>\n
deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed<\/p>\n
with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecution<\/p>\n
proposes to adduce prove the guilt of the accused even if<\/p>\n
fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination<\/p>\n
or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show<\/p>\n
that the accused committed the offence, then there will be<\/p>\n
no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.           A<\/p>\n
Magistrate enquiring into a case under Section 209 of the<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. is not to act as a mere Post Office and has to come<\/p>\n
to a conclusion whether the case before him is fit for<\/p>\n
                                                              16<\/span>
\ncommitment of the accused to the Court of Session. He is<\/p>\n
entitled to sift and weigh the materials on record, but only<\/p>\n
for   seeing   whether   there   is   sufficient   evidence   for<\/p>\n
commitment, and not whether there is sufficient evidence<\/p>\n
for conviction. If there is no prima facie evidence or the<\/p>\n
evidence is totally unworthy of credit, it is the duty of the<\/p>\n
Magistrate to discharge the accused, on the other hand, if<\/p>\n
there is some evidence on which the conviction may<\/p>\n
reasonably be based, he must commit the case. It is also<\/p>\n
clear that in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C., the Magistrate should not make a roving enquiry<\/p>\n
into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the<\/p>\n
evidence as if he was conducting a trial.\n<\/p>\n
17) Exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 & 228 of<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Section<\/p>\n
227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:-<\/p>\n
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the<\/p>\n
charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted<\/p>\n
                                                               17<\/span>
\npower to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of<\/p>\n
finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the<\/p>\n
accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie<\/p>\n
case would depend upon the facts of each case.<\/p>\n
ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave<\/p>\n
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly<\/p>\n
explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge<\/p>\n
and proceeding with the trial.\n<\/p>\n
iii)   The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a<\/p>\n
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad<\/p>\n
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the<\/p>\n
documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities<\/p>\n
etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry<\/p>\n
into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as<\/p>\n
if he was conducting a trial.\n<\/p>\n
iv)    If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could<\/p>\n
form an opinion that the accused might have committed<\/p>\n
offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the<\/p>\n
conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt<\/p>\n
that the accused has committed the offence.<\/p>\n
                                                                18<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
v)      At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value<\/p>\n
of the material on record cannot be gone into but before<\/p>\n
framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the<\/p>\n
material placed on record and must be satisfied that the<\/p>\n
commission of offence by the accused was possible.<\/p>\n
vi)     At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is<\/p>\n
required to evaluate the material and documents on record<\/p>\n
with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at<\/p>\n
their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients<\/p>\n
constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift<\/p>\n
the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage<\/p>\n
to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if<\/p>\n
it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
vii)    If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to<\/p>\n
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial<\/p>\n
Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this<\/p>\n
stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or<\/p>\n
acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                19<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
18) With    the   above        principles,   if   we   discuss   the<\/p>\n
statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-10 as well as of PW-8, it<\/p>\n
cannot be presumed that there is no case at all to proceed.<\/p>\n
However, we are conscious of the fact that the very same<\/p>\n
witnesses did not whisper a word about the involvement of<\/p>\n
the appellant at the earliest point of time. It is the<\/p>\n
grievance of the appellant that the High Court did not take<\/p>\n
into account that the complainant Jagdish Kaur PW-1 had<\/p>\n
not named him in her first statement filed by way of an<\/p>\n
affidavit dated 07.09.1985 before Justice Ranganath Misra<\/p>\n
Commission nor did she named him in her subsequent<\/p>\n
statements made before the Delhi Police (Riots Cell) and in<\/p>\n
her deposition dated 08.01.2002 before Justice Nanavati<\/p>\n
Commission except certain hearsay statement.               It is the<\/p>\n
stand of Jagdish Kaur PW-1, the prime prosecution<\/p>\n
witness, that apart from her statement dated 03.11.1984,<\/p>\n
she has not made any statement to Delhi Police at any<\/p>\n
stage. However, it is also the claim of the C.B.I. that the<\/p>\n
alleged   statements      of     Jagdish     Kaur      PW-1,   dated<\/p>\n
                                                                  20<\/span>
\n20.01.1985 and 31.12.1992 are doubtful.             Likewise,<\/p>\n
Nirprit Kaur PW-10, in her statement under Section 161<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C., has denied having made any statement before the<\/p>\n
Delhi Police.   At the stage of framing of charge under<\/p>\n
Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. or while considering the<\/p>\n
discharge petition filed under Section 227, it is not for the<\/p>\n
Magistrate or a Judge concerned to analyse all the<\/p>\n
materials   including   pros   and    cons,   reliability   or<\/p>\n
acceptability etc. It is at the trial, the Judge concerned<\/p>\n
has to appreciate their evidentiary value, credibility or<\/p>\n
otherwise of the statement, veracity of various documents<\/p>\n
and free to take a decision one way or the other.<\/p>\n
Investigation by the C.B.I.\n<\/p>\n
19) Learned Additional Solicitor General has brought to<\/p>\n
our notice the letter dated 24.10.2005 from Mr. K.P.<\/p>\n
Singh, Special Secretary (H) to Mr. U.S. Mishra, Director,<\/p>\n
Central Bureau of Investigation, North Block, New Delhi.<\/p>\n
A perusal of the said letter shows that in reply to the<\/p>\n
discussion held in the Lok Sabha on 10.08.2005 and the<\/p>\n
                                                            21<\/span>
\nRajya Sabha on 11.08.2005 on the report of Justice<\/p>\n
Nanavati Commission of Inquiry into 1984 anti-Sikh riots,<\/p>\n
the Prime Minister and the Home Minister had given an<\/p>\n
assurance that wherever the Commission has named any<\/p>\n
specific individuals as needing further examination or re-<\/p>\n
opening of case the Government will take all possible<\/p>\n
steps to do so within the ambit of law. The letter further<\/p>\n
shows that based on the assurance on the floor of the<\/p>\n
Parliament, the Government examined the report of<\/p>\n
Justice     Nanavati   Commission,    its   recommendations<\/p>\n
regarding     investigation\/re-investigation   of   the   cases<\/p>\n
against (a) Shri Dharam Das Shastri, (b) Shri Jagdish<\/p>\n
Tytler, and (c) Shri Sajjan Kumar.          The letter further<\/p>\n
shows that the Government had decided that the work of<\/p>\n
conducting further investigation\/re-investigation against<\/p>\n
the abovementioned persons as per the recommendations<\/p>\n
of Justice Nanavati Commission should be entrusted to<\/p>\n
the CBI. Pursuant to the said decision, Home Department<\/p>\n
forwarded the relevant records connected with the cases<\/p>\n
                                                             22<\/span>
\nagainst the abovementioned persons. It also shows those<\/p>\n
additional records\/information required in connection<\/p>\n
with investigation are to be obtained from the Delhi Police.<\/p>\n
The materials placed by the CBI show that Justice<\/p>\n
Nanavati Commission submitted its report on 09.02.2005,<\/p>\n
its recommendations were discussed by the Lok Sabha on<\/p>\n
10.08.2005      and    the    Rajya    Sabha            on   11.08.2005,<\/p>\n
Government      of    India   asked        CBI     to    inquire   those<\/p>\n
recommendations on 24.10.2005 and the F.I.R. No. 416 of<\/p>\n
1984 dated 04.11.1984 of Police Station, Delhi Cantt was<\/p>\n
re-registered   by     the    CBI     as    case        RC-24(S)\/2005-<\/p>\n
SCU.I\/CBI\/SCR.I\/New Delhi. Pursuant to the same, on<\/p>\n
22.11.2005, investigation was taken up and it revealed<\/p>\n
that the accused persons committed offences punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 109 read with Sections 147, 148, 149,<\/p>\n
153A, 295, 302, 396, 427, 436, 449, 505 and 201 IPC and<\/p>\n
accordingly filed the charge-sheet.              It is relevant to note<\/p>\n
that no one including the appellant has not challenged<\/p>\n
appointment of CBI to inquire into the recommendations<\/p>\n
                                                                      23<\/span>
\nmade by Justice Nanavati Commission.\n<\/p>\n
Status Report by Delhi Police<\/p>\n
20) Mr. Lalit heavily relied on the status report of the<\/p>\n
Delhi Police and consequential order of the Magistrate. By<\/p>\n
pointing out the same, he contended that the CBI is not<\/p>\n
justified in re-opening the case merely on the basis of<\/p>\n
observations made by Justice Nanavati Commission. The<\/p>\n
following conclusion in the status report dated 31.07.2008<\/p>\n
filed by the Delhi Police was pressed into service.<\/p>\n
     “From the investigation and verification made so far
\n     it was revealed that:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)      There is no eye-witness to support the
\n     version of the complaint of Smt. Jagdish Kaur.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)   The complaints and affidavits made by Smt.
\n     Jagdish Kaur are having huge contradictions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (i) In her first statement recorded by local
\n              police during the investigation, she did not
\n              name any person specifically and also
\n              stated that she could not identify any one
\n              among the mob.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (ii) She even did not name Shri Sajjan Kumar<\/p>\n
              in her statement recorded by the I.O. of the
\n              Spl. Riot Cell after a gap of seven years.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                             24<\/span><\/p>\n
         (iii) She   suspected the involvement of one
\n             Congress Leader Balwan Khokhar in these
\n             riots but she had not seen him personally.\n<\/p>\n
             She was told by one Om Prakash who was
\n             colleague of her husband, about the killing
\n             of her husband and son.\n<\/p>\n
         (iv) In the statement recorded on 22.01.1993
\n             under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the
\n             course of further investigation, the witness
\n             Om Prakash stated that he had seen
\n             nothing about the riots.     Jagdish Kaur
\n             stayed at his house from 01.11.1984 to
\n             03.11.1984 but she did not mention the
\n             name of any person who was indulged in
\n             the killing of her husband and son.”\n<\/p>\n
\nIt is seen from the report that taking note of lot of<\/p>\n
contradictions in the statement of Jagdish Kaur PW-1<\/p>\n
before the Commissions and before different investigating<\/p>\n
officers and after getting legal opinion from the Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor, closure report was prepared and filed before<\/p>\n
the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New<\/p>\n
Delhi on 31.07.2008.       It is further seen that before<\/p>\n
                                                            25<\/span>
\naccepting the closure report, the Magistrate issued<\/p>\n
summons to the complainant i.e, Smt. Jagdish Kaur<\/p>\n
number of times and the same were duly served upon her<\/p>\n
by the officers of the Special Riot Cell but she did not<\/p>\n
appear before the Court.       In view of the same, the<\/p>\n
Magistrate, on going through the report and after hearing<\/p>\n
the submissions and after noting that the matter under<\/p>\n
consideration is being further investigated by the CBI and<\/p>\n
the investigation is still pending and after finding that no<\/p>\n
definite opinion can be given in respect of the closure<\/p>\n
report, without passing any order closed the matter giving<\/p>\n
liberty to the prosecution to move appropriate motion as<\/p>\n
and when required.\n<\/p>\n
21) Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel, by placing copy of<\/p>\n
the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. by Delhi Police<\/p>\n
as well as endorsement therein including the date on<\/p>\n
which the said report was filed before the Court,<\/p>\n
submitted that the action taken by Delhi Police cannot be<\/p>\n
faulted with.   In other words, according to him, till the<\/p>\n
                                                          26<\/span>
\nentrustment of further investigation by the CBI, Delhi<\/p>\n
Police was free to proceed further and there is no error in<\/p>\n
the action taken by the Delhi Police. In view of the order<\/p>\n
dated 31.07.2008 of the Magistrate, declining to give<\/p>\n
definite opinion on the closure report since the same was<\/p>\n
under further investigation by CBI, we are of the view that<\/p>\n
no further probe\/enquiry on this aspect is required.<\/p>\n
Delay<\/p>\n
22) Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
further submitted that because of the long delay, the<\/p>\n
continuation of the prosecution and framing of charges<\/p>\n
merely on the basis of certain statements made after a gap<\/p>\n
of 23 years cannot be accepted and according to him, it<\/p>\n
would go against the protection provided under Article 21<\/p>\n
of the Constitution. Mr. Lalit heavily relied on para 20 of<\/p>\n
the decision of this Court in Vakil Prasad Singh vs.<\/p>\n
State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 355 which reads as under:<\/p>\n
    “20. For the sake of brevity, we do not propose to
\n    reproduce all the said propositions and it would suffice<\/p>\n
                                                               27<\/span>
\nto note the gist thereof. These are: (A.R. Antulay case,
\nSCC pp. 270-73, para 86)\n<\/p>\n
(i) fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article
\n21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to
\nbe tried speedily;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21
\nencompasses all the stages, namely, the stage of
\ninvestigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) in every case, where the speedy trial is alleged to
\nhave been infringed, the first question to be put and
\nanswered is — who is responsible for the delay?;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) while determining whether undue delay has
\noccurred (resulting in violation of right to speedy trial)
\none must have regard to all the attendant
\ncircumstances, including nature of offence, number of
\naccused and witnesses, the workload of the court
\nconcerned, prevailing local conditions and so on–what
\nis called, the systemic delays;\n<\/p>\n
(v) each and every delay does not necessarily prejudice
\nthe accused. Some delays may indeed work to his
\nadvantage. However, inordinately long delay may be
\ntaken as presumptive proof of prejudice. In this context,
\nthe fact of incarceration of the accused will also be a
\nrelevant fact. The prosecution should not be allowed to
\nbecome a persecution. But when does the prosecution
\nbecome persecution, again depends upon the facts of a
\ngiven case;\n<\/p>\n
(vi) ultimately, the court has to balance and weigh
\nseveral relevant factors–`balancing test’ or `balancing
\nprocess’–and determine in each case whether the right
\nto speedy trial has been denied;\n<\/p>\n
(vii) ordinarily speaking, where the court comes to a
\nconclusion that right to speedy trial of an accused has
\nbeen infringed the charges or the conviction, as the case
\nmay be, shall be quashed. But this is not the only
\ncourse open and having regard to the nature of offence
\nand other circumstances when the court feels that
\nquashing of proceedings cannot be in the interest of
\njustice, it is open to the court to make appropriate
\norders, including fixing the period for completion of
\ntrial;\n<\/p>\n
(viii) it is neither advisable nor feasible to prescribe any
\nouter time-limit for conclusion of all criminal
\nproceedings. In every case of complaint of denial of right
\nto speedy trial, it is primarily for the prosecution to<\/p>\n
                                                               28<\/span>
\n    justify and explain the delay. At the same time, it is the
\n    duty of the court to weigh all the circumstances of a
\n    given case before pronouncing upon the complaint;\n<\/p>\n
    (ix) an objection based on denial of right to speedy trial
\n    and for relief on that account, should first be addressed
\n    to the High Court. Even if the High Court entertains
\n    such a plea, ordinarily it should not stay the
\n    proceedings, except in a case of grave and exceptional
\n    nature. Such proceedings in the High Court must,
\n    however, be disposed of on a priority basis.”<\/p>\n
After adverting to various decisions including Abdul<\/p>\n
Rehman Antulay and Ors. vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr.,<\/a> this<\/p>\n
Court further held:\n<\/p>\n
    “24. It is, therefore, well settled that the right to speedy
\n    trial in all criminal persecutions (sic prosecutions) is an
\n    inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
\n    This right is applicable not only to the actual
\n    proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep
\n    the preceding police investigations as well. The right to
\n    speedy trial extends equally to all criminal prosecutions
\n    and is not confined to any particular category of cases.
\n    In every case, where the right to speedy trial is alleged
\n    to have been infringed, the court has to perform the
\n    balancing act upon taking into consideration all the
\n    attendant circumstances, enumerated above, and
\n    determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial
\n    has been denied in a given case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    25. Where the court comes to the conclusion that the
\n    right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed,
\n    the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, may
\n    be quashed unless the court feels that having regard to
\n    the nature of offence and other relevant circumstances,
\n    quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of
\n    justice. In such a situation, it is open to the court to
\n    make an appropriate order as it may deem just and
\n    equitable including fixation of time-frame for conclusion
\n    of trial.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                   29<\/span><\/p>\n
Considering the factual position therein, namely, alleged<\/p>\n
demand of a sum of Rs.1,000\/- as illegal gratification for<\/p>\n
release of payment for the civil work executed by a<\/p>\n
contractor, a charge was laid against Assistant Engineer<\/p>\n
in the Bihar State Electricity Board and taking note of<\/p>\n
considerable length of delay and insufficient materials,<\/p>\n
based on the above principles, ultimately the Court after<\/p>\n
finding that further continuance of criminal proceedings<\/p>\n
pending against the appellant therein is unwarranted and<\/p>\n
quashed the same. Though the principles enunciated in<\/p>\n
the said decision have to be adhered to, considering the<\/p>\n
factual position being an extraordinary one, the ultimate<\/p>\n
decision quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be<\/p>\n
applied straightaway.\n<\/p>\n
23) In P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and Another,<\/p>\n
(2010) 2 SCC 398, this Court while considering scope of<\/p>\n
Section 227 of Crl.P.C. upheld the order dismissing the<\/p>\n
petition filed for discharge and permitted the prosecution<\/p>\n
to proceed further even after 28 years. In that case, from<\/p>\n
                                                        30<\/span>
\n1970 till 1998, there was no allegation that the encounter<\/p>\n
was a fake and only in the year 1998 reports appeared in<\/p>\n
various newspapers in Kerala that the killing of Varghese<\/p>\n
in the year 1970 was in a fake encounter and that senior<\/p>\n
police officers were involved in the said fake encounter.<\/p>\n
Pursuant to the said news reports, several writ petitions<\/p>\n
were filed by various individuals and organisations before<\/p>\n
the High Court of Kerala with a prayer that the<\/p>\n
investigation may be transferred to the Central Bureau of<\/p>\n
Investigation (CBI). In the said writ petition, Constable<\/p>\n
Ramachandran     Nair   filed   a   counter   affidavit   dated<\/p>\n
11.01.1999 in which he made a confession that he had<\/p>\n
shot Naxalite Varghese on the instruction of the then<\/p>\n
Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Lakshmana. He<\/p>\n
also stated that the appellant was present when the<\/p>\n
incident occurred. By order dated 27.01.1999, learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala passed an order<\/p>\n
directing CBI to register an FIR on the facts disclosed in<\/p>\n
the counter affidavit filed by Constable Ramachandran<\/p>\n
                                                             31<\/span>
\nNair. Accordingly, CBI registered an FIR on 3-3-1999 in<\/p>\n
which Constable Ramachandran Nair was named as<\/p>\n
Accused 1, Mr Lakshmana was named as Accused 2 and<\/p>\n
Mr. P. Vijayan, the appellant, was named as Accused 3 for<\/p>\n
an offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34<\/p>\n
IPC. After investigation, CBI filed a charge-sheet before the<\/p>\n
Special Judge (CBI), Ernakulam on 11.12.2002 wherein<\/p>\n
all the abovementioned persons were named as A-1 to A-3<\/p>\n
respectively for an offence under Sections 302 and 34 IPC.<\/p>\n
The appellant – P. Vijayan filed a petition under Section<\/p>\n
227 of the Code on 17.05.2007 for discharge on various<\/p>\n
grounds including on the ground of delay. The trial Judge,<\/p>\n
by order dated 08.06.2007, dismissed the said petition<\/p>\n
and passed an order for framing charge for offences under<\/p>\n
Sections 302 and 34 IPC.       Aggrieved by the aforesaid<\/p>\n
order, the appellant – Vijayan filed Criminal Revision<\/p>\n
Petition No. 2455 of 2007 before the High Court of Kerala.<\/p>\n
By an order dated 04.07.2007, learned Single Judge of the<\/p>\n
High Court dismissed his criminal revision petition. The<\/p>\n
                                                           32<\/span>
\nsaid order was challenged by Mr. P. Vijayan before this<\/p>\n
Court. Taking note of all the ingredients in Section 227 of<\/p>\n
the Criminal Procedure Code and the materials placed by<\/p>\n
the prosecution and the reasons assigned by the trial<\/p>\n
Judge for dismissing the discharge petition filed under<\/p>\n
Section 227, this Court confirmed the order of the trial<\/p>\n
Judge as well as the order of the High Court.        Though,<\/p>\n
there was a considerable lapse of time from the alleged<\/p>\n
occurrence and the further investigation by CBI inasmuch<\/p>\n
as adequate material was shown, the Court permitted the<\/p>\n
prosecution to proceed further.\n<\/p>\n
24) Though delay is also a relevant factor and every<\/p>\n
accused is entitled to speedy justice in view of Article 21 of<\/p>\n
the Constitution, ultimately it depends upon various<\/p>\n
factors\/reasons and materials placed by the prosecution.<\/p>\n
Though Mr. Lalit heavily relied on paragraph 20 of the<\/p>\n
decision of this Court in Vakil Prasad Singh’s case<\/p>\n
(supra), the learned Additional Solicitor General, by<\/p>\n
drawing our attention to the subsequent paragraphs i.e.,<\/p>\n
                                                            33<\/span>
\n21, 23, 24, 27 and 29 pointed out that the principles<\/p>\n
enunciated in A.R.Antulay’s case (supra) are only<\/p>\n
illustrative and merely because of long delay the case of<\/p>\n
the prosecution cannot be closed.\n<\/p>\n
25) Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
intervenor has pointed out that in criminal justice “a<\/p>\n
crime never dies” for which he relied on the decision of<\/p>\n
this Court in Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar<\/p>\n
Mohanty,<\/a> (2007) 7 SCC 394. In para-14, C.K. Thakker, J.<\/p>\n
speaking for the Bench has observed:\n<\/p>\n
    “It is settled law that a criminal offence is considered as
\n    a wrong against the State and the society even though it
\n    has been committed against an individual. Normally, in
\n    serious offences, prosecution is launched by the State
\n    and a court of law has no power to throw away
\n    prosecution solely on the ground of delay.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In the case on hand, though delay may be a relevant<\/p>\n
ground, in the light of the materials which are available<\/p>\n
before the Court through CBI, without testing the same at<\/p>\n
the trial, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on<\/p>\n
the ground of delay.      As stated earlier, those materials<\/p>\n
                                                                  34<\/span>
\nhave to be tested in the context of prejudice to the accused<\/p>\n
only at the trial.\n<\/p>\n
Observations by the High Court<\/p>\n
26) Coming to the last submission about the various<\/p>\n
observations made by the High Court, Mr. Lalit pointed<\/p>\n
out   that    the    observations\/reference\/conclusion    in<\/p>\n
paragraphs 64, 65, 69, 70, 72, 73 and 50 are not<\/p>\n
warranted.    According to him, to arrive such conclusion<\/p>\n
the prosecution has not placed relevant material.      Even<\/p>\n
otherwise, according to him, if the same are allowed to<\/p>\n
stand, the trial Judge has no other option but to convict<\/p>\n
the appellant which would be against all canons of justice.<\/p>\n
He further submitted that even if it is clarified that those<\/p>\n
observations are to be confined for the disposal of the<\/p>\n
appeal filed against framing of charges and dismissal of<\/p>\n
discharge petition and need not be relied on at the time of<\/p>\n
the trial, undoubtedly, it would affect the mind of the trial<\/p>\n
Judge to take independent conclusion for which he relied<\/p>\n
on a judgment of this Court in Common Cause, A<\/p>\n
                                                           35<\/span>
\nRegistered Society vs. Union of India & Ors. (1999) 6<\/p>\n
SCC 667. He pressed into service paragraph 177 which<\/p>\n
reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
  “177. Mr Gopal Subramaniam contended that the Court has
\n  itself taken care to say that CBI in the matter of investigation,
\n  would not be influenced by any observation made in the
\n  judgment and that it would independently hold the
\n  investigation into the offence of criminal breach of trust or any
\n  other offence. To this, there is a vehement reply from Mr
\n  Parasaran and we think he is right. It is contended by him that
\n  this Court having recorded a finding that the petitioner on being
\n  appointed as a Minister in the Central Cabinet, held a trust on
\n  behalf of the people and further that he cannot be permitted to
\n  commit breach of the trust reposed in him by the people and
\n  still further that the petitioner had deliberately acted in a wholly
\n  arbitrary and unjust manner and that the allotments made by
\n  him were wholly mala fide and for extraneous consideration, the
\n  direction to CBI not to be influenced by any observations made
\n  by this Court in the judgment, is in the nature of palliative. CBI
\n  has been directed to register a case against the petitioner in
\n  respect of the allegations dealt with and findings reached by
\n  this Court in the judgment under review. Once the findings are
\n  directed to be treated as part of the first information report, the
\n  further direction that CBI shall not be influenced by any
\n  observations made by this Court or the findings recorded by it,
\n  is a mere lullaby.”\n<\/p>\n
\nOn the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General<\/p>\n
highlighted that these observations by the High Court are<\/p>\n
based on the materials placed and, in any event, it would<\/p>\n
not affect the interest of the appellant in the ultimate trial.<\/p>\n
In view of the apprehension raised by the learned senior<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant, we also verified the relevant<\/p>\n
                                                                         36<\/span>
\nparagraphs. In the light of the fact that it is for the trial<\/p>\n
Judge     to   evaluate    all   the    materials    including    the<\/p>\n
evidentiary value of the witnesses of the prosecution such<\/p>\n
as Jagdish Kaur PW-1, Jagsher Singh PW-2, Nirpit Kaur<\/p>\n
PW-10 and Om Prakash PW-8, alleged contradictory<\/p>\n
statements, delay and the conduct of the Delhi Police in<\/p>\n
filing   Status   Report     and       on   the   basis   of   further<\/p>\n
investigation by the CBI, we clarify that all those<\/p>\n
observations of the High Court would not affect the<\/p>\n
ultimate analysis and final verdict of the trial Judge.<\/p>\n
Conclusion:\n<\/p>\n
27) In the light of the above discussion, we are of the<\/p>\n
view that it cannot be concluded that framing of charges<\/p>\n
against the appellant by the trial Judge is either bad in<\/p>\n
law or abuse of process of law or without any material.<\/p>\n
However, we clarify that de hors to those comments,<\/p>\n
observations      and     explanations      emanating      from   the<\/p>\n
judgment of the learned single Judge, which we referred<\/p>\n
in para 26, the trial Judge is free to analyse, appreciate,<\/p>\n
                                                                    37<\/span>
\nevaluate and arrive at a proper conclusion based on the<\/p>\n
materials being placed by prosecution as well as the<\/p>\n
defence. Inasmuch as the trial relates to the incident of<\/p>\n
the year 1984, we direct the trial Judge to take sincere<\/p>\n
efforts for completion of the case as early as possible for<\/p>\n
which the prosecution and accused must render all<\/p>\n
assistance.   Interim order granted on 13.08.2010 is<\/p>\n
vacated.   With the above observation and direction, the<\/p>\n
appeal is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                               ……………………………………J.
\n                               (P. SATHASIVAM)<\/p>\n
                              ……………………………………J.
\n                               (ANIL R. DAVE)<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI;\n<\/p>\n
SEPTEMBER 20, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                          38<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, Anil R. Dave REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6374 of 2010) Sajjan Kumar …. Appellant (s) Versus Central Bureau of Investigation […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54579","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-17T21:33:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-17T21:33:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":7183,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-17T21:33:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-17T21:33:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-17T21:33:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010"},"wordCount":7183,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010","name":"Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-17T21:33:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajjan-kumar-vs-c-b-i-on-20-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54579","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54579"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54579\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54579"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54579"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54579"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}