Lucknow: The Uttar Pradesh government is investigating the conduct of a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officer who testified as a defence witness during the trial of slain gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmed in a 2006 abduction case, official sources told ThePrint. Prosecutors have alleged that the officer’s testimony undermined their case against Ahmed.
Speaking to ThePrint Tuesday, Prayagraj additional district government counsel (criminal) Sushil Kumar Vaishya said he has written to Prayagraj district magistrate and the state government stating that the officer’s conduct was against the code of conduct of a public servant and recommended that the government writes to the Union ministry of home affairs seeking action against deputy superintendent of police (DSP) Amit Kumar.
Kumar had told a Prayagraj court that BJP leader Umesh Pal, shot dead in Prayagraj in February, had admitted before him that he had not been an eye witness in the 2005 murder case of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Raju Pal murder case. Ahmed and members of his family and alleged gang were accused in the Raju Pal murder case, the 2006 abduction case of Umesh Pal and his shooting this February.
An MP/MLA court in Prayagraj had on 28 March sentenced Ahmed, his aide Dinesh Pasi and his long-time advocate Shaulat Hanif to life imprisonment in the Umesh Pal abduction case. Though an accused in multiple cases, this was Ahmed’s first conviction.
Days later, the former MP and his brother Ashraf, were shot dead in Prayagraj while in police custody. Three suspects have since been taken into custody for the shooting.
While convicting Ahmed and the other two in the abduction case, the court had said that Umesh Pal was abducted, influenced in an adverse manner, and made to testify in the gangster-turned-politician’s favour in the 2005 Raju Pal murder case. ThePrint has a copy of the judgment.
Noting that the DSP could not say anything about the abduction, special judge Dinesh Shukla had said in the judgment that the evidence provided by Kumar and merely his statement that Umesh Pal had not been abducted, could not be relied upon.
The judgment noted Kumar as having testified that he had been a part of the probe in the Raju Pal murder case.
According to Vaishya, after the media reported about Kumar testifying in Ahmed’s favour in the abduction case, the UP government had last month sought a detailed report from the prosecution in the matter.
He added that he had prepared a detailed report in the matter and drafted a complaint against Kumar, which has been sent to Prayagraj DM Sanjay Khatri and the state government about 15 days back.
“The statement of the public servant not only harmed the prosecution but also cast suspicion over his own investigation (in Raju Pal murder case). The court found that Amit’s [Kumar] evidence was not credible and the prosecution side was strong,” he said.
He further said that he had mentioned in his report that as a defense witness, the officer tried to save gangster-turned-politician Ahmed.
“He had not investigated the case (Umesh’s abduction) and still claimed that Umesh was not abducted. Umesh had said in his statement under CrPC [Code of Criminal Procedure] 164 that he was abducted which the court found reliable and did not find the officer’s evidence as reliable,” Vaishya said.
He further said that in his complaint, it has been recommended that the government complains to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) about the officer’s role in the issue.
ThePrint reached Kumar on calls and text messages, but his number remained unreachable.
The DSP’s testimony
Umesh Pal had been one of the witnesses in the 2005 murder case of BSP MLA Raju Pal, who had been allegedly gunned down by Ahmed’s men on 25 January that year.
A relative of Raju’s wife Pooja, Umesh, later turned hostile and when the CBI took over the case in 2016, he was dropped as a witness by the agency which found him “unreliable”.
In 2007, however, Umesh had alleged that he had been abducted from near Prayagraj’s Fansi Imli area in 2006 and pressurised to testify in Ahmed’s favour.
But according to the judgment in the abduction case, during trial in the abduction case, Kumar told the court that Umesh Pal had admitted before him that he had not been an eye witness in the Raju Pal murder case, and had neither been standing on the spot, nor was he in the car being driven by Raju when he was shot dead.
The court of special judge Dinesh Shukla also noted Kumar as testifing that other witnesses in the Raju Pal murder case who had turned hostile had cited pressure from Umesh Pal as reason.
The judgment further noted Kumar as saying: “They further informed that the cases lodged in connection with their abduction were fake and neither they were abducted nor Umesh Pal was abducted. Due to these reasons, Umesh was not considered a witness in the case (Raju Pal murder).”
However, terming the investigation carried out by Kumar as “faulty”, the judge commented that irrespective of the investigation officer’s opinion, if any witness wants to give his statement in connection with an incident and is present in the IO’s office, the latter should write his statement under CrPC 161.
“If Umesh Pal accompanied by Pooja Pal (Raju’s wife) had arrived at the IO’s office and said that he was not an eye witness in the case, the same statement should have been written by the IO but the latter did not record any statement which reflects a faulty investigation on his part,” the judge said.
(Edited by Poulomi Banerjee)