Apex court quashes Sajjan Kumar’s plea to drop charges (Second Lead)

NEW DELHI - The Supreme Court Monday rejected Congress leader Sajjan Kumar’s appeal to quash the framing of charges against him in a case of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

“We are of the view that it cannot be concluded that framing of charges against the appellant by the trial judge is either bad in law or abuse of process of law, or without any material,” said the bench of Justice P.Sathasiivam and Justice Anil R. Dave.

The court vacated its interim order of August 13, 2010, by which it had stayed the framing of charges against the Congress leader.

Writing the verdict for the bench, Justice Sathasivam said: “At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible”.

The trial judge would proceed with the trial without being influenced by the “adverse comments, observations and explanations” emanating from judgment of the Delhi High Court, the apex court said.

“We clarify that all those observations of the high court would not affect the ultimate analysis and final verdict of the trial judge,” the court said.

A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court in his judgment had made strong adverse observations and comments against Sajjan Kumar while declining his plea that he be discharged in the case.

Sajjan Kumar has been named the main accused in a case in which Jagdish Kaur of Palam Colony (near Delhi Cantonment) lost her husband, son and three brothers during rioting and arson by mobs in the aftermath of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination Oct 31, 1984.

The apex court in its ruling said: “The trial judge is free to analyse, appreciate, evaluate and arrive at a proper conclusion based on the material being placed by prosecution as well as the defence”.

Dealing with Sajjan Kumar’s plea that the case against him was 23 years old, the court said the delay was also a relevant factor and every accused was entitled to speedy justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.

However, “ultimately it depends upon various factors/reasons and materials placed by the prosecution,” the court said.

It said the delay in trial may be a relevant ground but without testing the materials provided to the trial court by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the proceedings could not be quashed merely on the grounds of delay.

The court said since the trial relates to the incident of 1984, “we direct the trial judge to take sincere efforts for completion of the case as early as possible for which the prosecution (CBI) and the accused (Sajjan Kumar) must render all assistance”.