1984 riots case: Sessions Judge asked to explain recusal
The Hindu : News / National : 1984 riots case: Sessions Judge asked to explain recusal
A District Judge asked Sessions Judge V.K. Goyal to state the reasons for recusing himself from hearing a 1984 anti—Sikh riots case allegedly involving senior Congress leader Sajjan Kumar.
District Judge Bimla Makin asked Additional Sessions Judge Goyal to spell out the reasons for expressing his inability to adjudicate the case and forward his reply in a sealed cover on May 31.
Goyal was to, on May 21, pronounce the order on an application of the prosecution seeking direction with regard to a chargesheet prepared by police against Kumar but never submitted before a judicial officer.
The judge, who was to deliver the order on whether directions could be issued to the police to file the chargesheet before a competent court, had then decided to send the file to the district judge for transferring it to another court.
“Due to some personal reasons, I do not want to try and adjudicate this matter. Let the file be placed before learned District Judge VIII with a request to transfer the same to some other court of competent jurisdiction,” ASJ Goyal had said.
The court was told on April 21 that the chargesheet against the former outer Delhi MP in the 1984 anti—Sikh riots case allegedly stating that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against him was prepared but never brought before a judge to seek his prosecution.
Meanwhile, another court, which was to formally frame charges against Kumar and others in a different 1984 anti—Sikh riots case, deferred the matter to May 28.
The adjournment of the case came after Anil Kumar Sharma, counsel for accused Krishan Khokhar, submitted that his client was indisposed due to heat stroke.
The case relates to the killing of five persons in the riots that broke out in Delhi Cantonment following the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984.
The formal framing of charges paves the way for initiation of trial in a case and the presence of all accused is required because they have to express their willingness either to contest the charges or admit them.
The court had on May 15 ordered framing of charges against the Congress leader and others in the anti—Sikh riot case relating to murder and spreading enmity between two communities after finding prima facie evidence against them.
Besides Kumar, other accused in the case are Balwan Khokhar, Krishan Khokhar, Mahender Yadav, Captain Bhagmal and Girdhari Lal.
The CBI had filed two chargesheets against Kumar and others on January 13 in as many cases registered in 2005 on the recommendation of Justice Nanavati Commission which inquired into the sequence of events leading to the communal riots.
The Hindu : News / National : 1984 riots case: Sessions Judge asked to explain recusal
A District Judge asked Sessions Judge V.K. Goyal to state the reasons for recusing himself from hearing a 1984 anti—Sikh riots case allegedly involving senior Congress leader Sajjan Kumar.
District Judge Bimla Makin asked Additional Sessions Judge Goyal to spell out the reasons for expressing his inability to adjudicate the case and forward his reply in a sealed cover on May 31.
Goyal was to, on May 21, pronounce the order on an application of the prosecution seeking direction with regard to a chargesheet prepared by police against Kumar but never submitted before a judicial officer.
The judge, who was to deliver the order on whether directions could be issued to the police to file the chargesheet before a competent court, had then decided to send the file to the district judge for transferring it to another court.
“Due to some personal reasons, I do not want to try and adjudicate this matter. Let the file be placed before learned District Judge VIII with a request to transfer the same to some other court of competent jurisdiction,” ASJ Goyal had said.
The court was told on April 21 that the chargesheet against the former outer Delhi MP in the 1984 anti—Sikh riots case allegedly stating that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against him was prepared but never brought before a judge to seek his prosecution.
Meanwhile, another court, which was to formally frame charges against Kumar and others in a different 1984 anti—Sikh riots case, deferred the matter to May 28.
The adjournment of the case came after Anil Kumar Sharma, counsel for accused Krishan Khokhar, submitted that his client was indisposed due to heat stroke.
The case relates to the killing of five persons in the riots that broke out in Delhi Cantonment following the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984.
The formal framing of charges paves the way for initiation of trial in a case and the presence of all accused is required because they have to express their willingness either to contest the charges or admit them.
The court had on May 15 ordered framing of charges against the Congress leader and others in the anti—Sikh riot case relating to murder and spreading enmity between two communities after finding prima facie evidence against them.
Besides Kumar, other accused in the case are Balwan Khokhar, Krishan Khokhar, Mahender Yadav, Captain Bhagmal and Girdhari Lal.
The CBI had filed two chargesheets against Kumar and others on January 13 in as many cases registered in 2005 on the recommendation of Justice Nanavati Commission which inquired into the sequence of events leading to the communal riots.
