CBI stumped by HC posers

Bhadra Sinha / TNN / Sep 27, 2006, 00:06 IST

Share

AA

Text Size

Small
Medium
Large

Why didn't CBI list Priyadarshini Mattoo's brother, Hemant, as a prosecution witness? Was Kuppuswamy planted as a witness?

NEW DELHI: Why didn't CBI list Priyadarshini Mattoo's brother, Hemant, as a prosecution witness? Was Kuppuswamy planted as a witness? Why did Safdarjung hospital mention January 25, 1996 as the date on which the victim's samples were handed over to the CBI when this was done four days later? Why wasn't Santosh Singh's friend, who confirmed that the accused had reached late for class on the day of the incident, asked about the injury sustained by Singh when his statement was recorded?
The CBI faced some searching questions from the high court on Tuesday over the manner in which it had investigated the rape-cum-murder of Priyadarshini Mattoo.The division bench of Justices R S Sodhi and P K Bhasin left the CBI stumped on various occassions, even leaving their counsel fumbling for words.
CBI's rebuttal on Tuesday began with their plea that Kuppuswamy was not planted as a witness. The judges wanted to know why the man who saw the accused outside Mattoo's residence on the day of the murder had not given his statement to the local police. The defence had argued that Kuppuswamy was a neighbour, and senior police officers were present in his house, and yet he had never informed the police about Singh's presence.
In fact, inspector Lalit Mohan of Delhi Police had initially spoken to Kuppuswamy and recorded it in his diary entry. It was mentioned that Kuppuswamy had seen a vendor of utensils entering Mattoo's house.

Blaming the inspector, who was probing the case before it was transferred to the CBI, additional solicitor general Amarendra Sharan said:"Kuppuswamy's statement was recorded as soon as the victim's brother raised his suspicion to the CBI's investigating officer."
But when the court asked whether this brother was listed as a prosecution witness, Sharan looked towards his juniors colleagues, only to reply in the negative. And CBI's reasoning for not citing him as a witness was that he had immediately gone abroad and did not even get his statement recorded under Section 161 of the criminal procedure code.

While Sharan avoided the court on this subject, he reiterated Kuppuswamy's testimony as the last seen evidence to link Singh to the incident. But Justice Sodhi said: "This is not the last seen evidence." Evading a reply to this, Sharan continued his argument on the next circumstance, purportedly against Singh.
According to him, the statement given by Mattoo's mother was another piece of circumstantial evidence against Singh. The judges, however, felt that it was merely a suspicion raised by her. "Her statement was a needle of suspicion pointing towards the accused," the judges said.
The CBI was once again on the backfoot when it tried to garner support from the statement of Singh's friend, also an advocate, who had confirmed in the trial court that the accused had reached 5-10 minutes late for class. During his cross-examination, the friend had also said that Singh had sustained his hand injury a week before the incident. The judges then asked CBI: "Why din't you inquire about the injury when his statement was recorded by your investigating officer?" Sharan had no reply.
It was even tougher for the CBI to prove that Singh had sustained the injury on account of an altercation between him and the victim. The judges said the documents to prove the accused's medical treatment had been produced before the trial court by the CBI itself.
Sharan, however, tried to impress upon the court stating that their medical evidence before the trial judge has consistently supported the fact that Singh's injury was fresh. Not convinced with CBI's explanation, the judges said:"Who says he did not sustain an injury on January 14? He has medical certificates. You collected it."
"But there is nothing to prove that this X-ray belongs to him since the name mentioned in the records is Santosh Singh while he writes as Santosh Kumar Singh," replied Sharan. Naseem quitely pitched in during this heated exchange: "Even Priyadarshini Mattoo has written Santosh Singh in her documents."
On Wednesday, CBI would resume its rebuttal and is likely to finish the arguments pertaining to the DNA evidence on which it is heavily relying upon.

End of Article

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA