Who caged the CBI?
Just as the skirmishes between CBI and the centre continue, the issue has now turned into a clash between the states and centre Andhra and West Bengal have now insisted that the CBI officers have to seek permission from states before entering them on work. States have to give permission to Delhi Police Establishment to carry out searches or investigation, in any state. If this permission does not come through, the CBI cannot enter the states. Now both states have withdrawn the permission they had given earlier. If more states join this bandwagon, it wouldn’t be too unexpected a move. It is noteworthy that both the states are not ruled by the BJP. Centre has criticized this move by the states. It has mocked that by closing doors on the CBI, states have proved that they are indeed corrupt. But who brought CBI to this sorry state? The central government has to do some introspection on this.
CBI is often criticized as a caged parrot that obeys the commands of its masters in power in Delhi. It works to please any party that rules the country. Any party that assumes power at the centre will most certainly use the CBI to fulfil its agenda. The previous UPA government is no exception either. But there is a limit to this. Central government had never gotten down to fight with the CBI so openly. Its credibility was never brought under a magnifying glass of suspicion or trust. CBI officers had never revolted against the Centre. CBI has lost its credibility after Modi assumed power and the central government is directly interfering with its functioning after Modi became the PM. This has reached such a boiling point that CBI chiefs have stood out openly against the government. Today, the future of CBI is in the hands of Supreme Court.
Under such circumstances, the government can use the officers who have lost trust, to fulfil its own agenda. Hence states cannot be blamed for denying permission to CBI in their jurisdiction. In the past, opposition parties would blame the central government if the latter interfered with its functioning. Some would use this as a pretext to defend their false integrity too. Hence all the accusations within the CBI cannot be taken at face value. But the person who has raised concerns about CBI’s functioning is none other than the headman himself. Government should have taken this opportunity to smoothen the functioning of the agency. This was the duty of ruling dispensation. But, the government acted in haste and sent both warring officers on leave. There are rumours that Rakesh Asthana was working in favour of the central government. He was the mole that would inform the central government about the activities of CBI and the cases that were being investigated. This was the sole reason Asthana was appointed in the agency.
These charges were not made by some opposition party or leader, but by the CBI chairman himself. Instead of checking the veracity of his claims, the government acted in haste and sent both officers on leave. The main reason behind sending Varma in leave was that he had taken Rafale deal investigation very seriously and was putting together major evidences pertaining to the case. The new incharge officer is directly in favour of BJP since long. This is no secret either that his family transferred money to BJP in the past. Also, the Supreme Court has also clipped his wings. He cannot take any decision or discharge duties on his own. Central government may well use every opportunity to engage every favourable officer within the CBI to meet its own requirements. General elections are fast approaching and economic decisions have created an atmosphere of intolerance among people. BJP is trying to face this elections with Ram Mandir as a moot issue. Secular forces are coming together under a single banner with Chandrababu Naidu in the lead.
He is trying to bring others together too by way of talking to them. The Modi government that has used CBI to silence its detractors may not hesitate to unleash the same strategy on dissenting leaders of states and even the states are apprehensive about this. How can the CBI, which has a case pending against itself, carry out raids or arrest leaders when its own credibility is at stake? The central government that feels states should not interfere with CBI’s functioning could have allowed the Rafael investigation to complete as well? Sending Varma who was investigating complaints against Asthana on leave is to interfere with the CBI functioning, isn’t it?
Hence the states to maintain a distance between the CBI and themselves, till the accusations and counter accusations reach a logical conclusion is a safe thing to do. It’s even justified. The Supreme Court needs to reinstate the faith of people on CBI by erasing the blots on its functioning right now and return the trust and glory of a premier investigating agency, sooner than later.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Actress sexual assault: Court says Prosecution 'miserably' failed to prove conspiracy against Dileep
Kochi (PTI): The prosecution had "miserably" failed to prove the conspiracy charge against Dileep in the sensational 2017 actress sexual assault case, a local court has observed while citing inconsistencies and lack of sufficient evidence against the Malayalam star.
The full judgement of Ernakulam District and Principal Sessions Court Judge Honey M Varghese was released late on Friday, and has revealed the judge also pointing out at unsustainable arguments put forth by the prosecution.
"The prosecution miserably failed to prove the conspiracy between accused No.1 (Pulsar Suni) and accused No.8 (Dileep) in executing the offence against the victim," the court held.
It examined in detail, the prosecution's allegation that Dileep had hired the prime accused to sexually assault the survivor and record visuals, including close-up footage of a gold ring she was wearing, to establish her identity.
On page 1130 of the judgment, under paragraph 703, the court framed the issue as whether the prosecution's contention that NS Sunil (Pulsar Suni) recorded visuals of the gold ring worn by the victim at the time of the occurrence, so as to clearly disclose her identity, was sustainable.
The prosecution contended Dileep and Suni had planned the recording so that the actress' identity would be unmistakable, with the video of the gold ring intended to convince Dileep that the visuals were genuine.
However, the court noted that this contention was not stated in the first charge sheet and was introduced only in the second one.
As part of this claim, a gold ring was seized after the victim produced it before the police.
The court observed that multiple statements of the victim were recorded from February 18, 2017, following the incident, and that she first raised allegations against Dileep only on June 3, 2017.
Even on that day, nothing was mentioned about filming of the ring as claimed by the prosecution, the court said.
The prosecution failed to explain why the victim did not disclose this fact at the earliest available opportunities.
It further noted that although the victim had viewed the sexual assault visuals twice, she did not mention any specific recording of the gold ring on those occasions, which remained unexplained.
The court also examined the approvers' statements.
One approver told the magistrate that Dileep had instructed Pulsar Suni to record the victim's wedding ring.
The court observed that no such wedding ring was available with her at that time.
During the trial, the approver changed his version, the court said.
The Special Public Prosecutor put a leading question to the approver on whether Dileep had instructed the recording of the ring, after which he deposed that the instruction was to record it to prove the victim's identity.
The court observed that the approver changed his account to corroborate the victim's evidence.
When the same question was put to another approver, he repeated the claim during the trial but admitted he had never stated this fact before the investigating officer.
The court noted that the second approver even went to the extent of claiming Dileep had instructed the execution of the crime as the victim's engagement was over.
This showed that the evidence of the second approver regarding the shooting of the ring was untrue, as her engagement had taken place after the crime.
The court further observed that the visuals themselves clearly revealed the victim's identity and that there was no need to capture images of the ring to establish identity.
In paragraph 887, the court examined the alleged motive behind the crime and noted that in the first charge sheet, the prosecution had claimed that accused persons 1 to 6 had kidnapped the victim with the common intention of capturing nude visuals to extort money by threatening to circulate them and there was no mention about Dileep's role in it.
The court also rejected the prosecution's claim that the accused had been planning the assault on Dileep's instructions since 2013, noting that the allegation was not supported by reliable evidence.
It similarly ruled out the claim that Suni attempted to sexually assault the victim in Goa in January 2017, stating that witness statements showed no such misconduct when he served as the driver of the vehicle used by the actress there.
The court also discussed various controversies that followed Dileep's arrest and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, ultimately finding that the case had not been proved.
Pronouning its verdict on the sensational case on December 8, the court acquitted Dileep and three others.
Later, the court sentenced six accused, including the prime accused Suni, to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment.
The assault on the multilingual actress, after the accused allegedly forced their way into her car and held it under their control for two hours on February 17, 2017, had shocked Kerala.
Pulsar Suni sexually assaulted the actress and video recorded the act with the help of the other convicted persons in the moving car.
