Security personnel patrol near burned and damaged residential premises (AFP, file photo)
NEW DELHI: Delhi police on Saturday denied media reports that it had appointed CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury, Swaraj abhiyan Leader Yogendra Yadav, economist Jayati Ghosh, Delhi University professor and activist Apoorvanand and documentary filmmaker Rahul Roy as co-conspirators in supplemental charge sheet filed in the Northeast Delhi riots case, even when a political dispute broke out on the subject.
Yechury criticized the Delhi police, saying that their “illegitimate and illegal actions” were a “direct result” of the policy carried out by top BJP leaders. Referring to a PTI tweet on the matter, a Delhi police spokesman said: “In a case related to the Jafrabad riots … it has been mentioned in one of the online news agency reports that the names they are part of the disclosure statement of one of the defendants. ” in relation to the organization and handling of protests against the CAA “.
“The disclosure statement has been truthfully recorded as narrated by the accused person,” the statement added. “However, a person is not prosecuted as a defendant solely on the basis of a disclosure statement. It is only on the existence of sufficient corroborating evidence.” that more legal action be taken. The matter is currently sub judice. ”
Yadav was quick to call the report “factually incorrect.” He clarified that his name, and Yechury’s, were mentioned only in passing. “The supplemental charge sheet does NOT list me as a co-conspirator, not even as a defendant. A passing reference to me and Yechury, in an unauthenticated (not admissible in court) police statement by a defendant, ”he tweeted. However, he later alleged in another tweet that the Delhi police were in fact trying “very hard” to drag all the anti-CAA protesters into the ring of conspirators. “My only clarification is that so far the Delhi police have not formally named me or Yechury as conspirators or defendants,” he tweeted.
Disclosure statements or confessions are recorded by the police under Section 161 of the CrPC during the investigation. However, they are not admissible as evidence in a court of law. Naming a person on a charge sheet as a defendant is different from their name on a defendant’s confession.
The individuals whose disclosure statements have been cited were detained a few months ago and their statements recorded at that time. However, so far, Yechuri, Yadav or Ghosh have not been questioned. The police had questioned Professor Apoorvanand, but not on the basis of a disclosure statement. They claimed to have done so after obtaining electronic evidence, including conversations and other technical evidence against him.
The PTI report referred to the alleged confessions of three students – members of Pinjra Tod and JNU students Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, and Gulfisha Fathima of Jamia Milia Islamia – in the Jafrabad violence case. All three face charges under various sections of the Illicit Activities (Prevention) Act, according to the report.
The report says that Delhi police have claimed that Kalita and Narwal admitted not only their complicity in the riots, but also named Ghosh, Apoorvanand and Roy as their mentors, who allegedly asked them to carry out the protests against the Act. Citizenship Amendment and go to “Any extreme”
They also told police, according to the agency report, that the three coordinated with the Islamist group. Popular Front of India (PFI) and the Jamia Coordination Committee to guide the members of Pinjra Tod to carry out their campaign against CAA.
The PTI report said police had used the statement from Jamia’s student Fathima to corroborate subsequent events. In his statement, Fathima said he was told to organize the protest to “smear the image of the Government of India,” police said.
In his statement, he said that “great leaders and lawyers began to arrive to provoke and mobilize this crowd, including Umar Khalid, Chandrashekhar Ravan, Yogendar Yadav, Sitaram Yechury and lawyer Mahmood Pracha, etc.”
While Yadav was cautious in addressing the accusation, Yechury claimed that the BJP was “scared” of legitimate and peaceful protests by the main political parties and, as a result, was “misusing state power” to attack the opposition. “Illegal BJP bullying will not stop people from opposing discriminatory laws like CAA. Affirming that all Indians are equal regardless of religion, caste, color, creed, region, gender and political affiliations is not only our right but our duty. We will exercise it, ”he said.
“The BJP government is afraid of questions, in Parliament, in the media and at RTI. PM cannot hold a press conference or respond to RTI on his private background or display his title. They believe they can silence political opposition through a blatant abuse of state power. We fight Emergency, we will defeat this too, ”he tweeted.
Referring to the development as an assault on democracy and reflecting the true “chaal, charitra, chehra” of BJP, Yechury said the hateful videos of those who instigated the violence and left 56 dead in Delhi are on file. “The person who led violent mobs at JNU is also on video. The BJP government and Delhi police cannot see them because they are hell-bent on destroying our democracy, ”he tweeted.
Supreme Court attorney Prashant Bhushan said the Delhi police action “demonstrated” the “mala fide nature of the Delhi police investigations” into the riots. “Nothing could be more absurd than accusing Sitaram Yechury, Yogendra Yadav, Jayati Ghosh and Professor Apoorvanand of instigating riots. His speeches are available on video. This while Kapil Mishra & Co are leaving, ”he tweeted.
Congressman Shashi Tharoor tweeted: “I’m amazed to see this. While those who actually incited and perpetrated the violence can go free? What is happening to our country? ”
Meanwhile, Lok Sabha MP and former Delhi BJP chair Manoj Tiwari said that several opposition leaders had made divisive comments during the Delhi riots, raising suspicions about their role in inciting violence. “If the police have appointed any particular leader, it must have been done after a thorough and impartial investigation,” he said, adding that the law will continue to run. He said there are several instances of some leaders making comments that have the potential to cause communal conflict. “Let the police do their job.”
.
