HC stays 1984 riots case proceedings on plea to transfer case

Some victims of the 1984 anti- Sikh riots today sought transfer of a related case to another court alleging that the evidence was not being recorded properly, leading the Delhi High Court to stay till next month the trial court proceedings allegedly involving Congress leader Sajjan Kumar.
Justice Siddharth Mridul also issued notice to the CBI and accused Sajjan Kumar on the plea by complainant Joginder Singh, who said "transfer of the case is imperative for meeting the ends of justice".
Singh's contention was supported by senior advocate H S Phoolka, who through an affidavit supporting the petition, gave instances where the correct version of the witness was allegedly not being recorded.

Taking note of the contention that a fair and impartial trial cannot be held in this circumstances, the High Court observed that "justice should not suffer" because of such allegations.
"Notice to all respondents. Reply be filed within two week. In view of the above and terms of the dictum, justice should not only be done, but should be seen to have been done. It would be just, necessary and expedient to stay the trial in sessions case ... Pending before the trial court till the next date of hearing, October 12," the court said.
The court passed the order on Singh's plea alleging that the presiding officer "on his own interpreted" what prosecution witness Sheela Kaur had said during recording of her evidence.

"If a situation arises where what the witness is stating is open to two interpretations, the Presiding Officer ought not to supplement what the witness is saying, especially without affording an opportunity to explain what the witness is stating.
"Even an illiterate witness deserves the right to state what she chooses to say in her statement and the statement should not be open to change at hands of anyone," the petition said.
Supporting Singh's contention, Phoolka claimed when he had objected that the witness' statement was not being correctly recorded by the court, he was told that he has no right to raise objections being the victim's counsel.