Today, Senior Congress leader Sajjan Kumar filed a petition in Delhi High Court against the trial court’s verdict seeking a permission to defend himself from being alleged offences to responsible for 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
The trial court has dismissed his plea to use a 1984 anti-Sikh riots victim Jagdish Kaur’s statements given in past before a judicial commission to defend himself in case.
According to source report, Kumar’s plea was dismissed on June 2 by saying that the witness Jagdish Kaur’s statements to judicial commissions cannot be used for any purpose, including that for discrediting her or to impeach her.
During hearing the petition, source reported, Justice S P Garg told Kumar, “You file a short reply to the petition.” And the over all issue has forward for further hearing on July 3.
Kumar’s move to HC is complete a non-existed activity as it is against the norms for listing of urgent matters during vacations yet before the case hearing is carrying on the trial court.
As per court, there is no need of urgency during the vacation, because the matter has fixed by trial judge on July 13 for next hearing.
Reports suggested, Kumar mentioned in his plea that all the victim’s statements before the G T Nanavati and Ranganath Mishra Commissions should allowed defense to be used to confront her with her recent testimony in the ongoing trial.
He also pointed out the CBI prosecutor R S Cheema’s statement on July 12, 2010 to court that Jagdish Kaur’s statement to judicial commissions, cannot be used against her for the purpose of questioning her testimony under the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act.
“No urgency or happening of any event before July 2 has been alleged in the stay application or in the revision petition….,” the letter said wrote to court by the senior counsel H S Phoolka, representing the victims, as per reportedly said.
Moreover, Delhi High Court, after hearing today Kumar’s petition filed application, has directed the Centre Bauru Investigation to make quick reply over the 1984 Anti Sikh riots case.