Sitaram Yechury, Yogendra Yadav not accused in Delhi riots case, clarify police
The charge-sheeting on Delhi riots mentioning the names of Sitaram Yechury, Yogendra Yadav and Jayati Ghosh among others has triggered a controversy but police on Sunday clarified that none of them have been named as accused in the case.
Their names appear in the text of the supplementary charge-sheet against Pinjra Tod activists Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, and student activist Gulfisha Fatima. Their names have been allegedly mentioned by the three accused during interrogation, according to the chargesheet.
Police, however, said CPI(M) General Secretary Yechury, Swaraj Abhiyan's Yadav, academician Ghosh, documentary film-maker Rahul Roy and Delhi University Professor Apoorvanand were mentioned in the chargesheet, as the accused had mentioned them in their disclosure statements.
However, Natasha and Devanangana had not signed the disclosure statement, which was annexed with the 426-page charge sheet filed in a Delhi court last week.
Also, the statements of both Natasha and Devangana are identical in nature containing same grammatical and syntax errors, with critics accusing the police of a "cut-paste" job. Message is spelt as "massage". Jayati Ghosh, a well-known economist is mentioned as "Jaidi Ghosh" at least twice in the chargesheet.
Yechury and others are not willing to buy the police's argument and see the mention of their names in the charge sheet as preparing grounds for taking action against the government critics in future.
A disclosure statement before a police officer is not admissible as evidence in a court while one before a magistrate is admissible as evidence. In this case, the alleged disclosure was made before the police. Even when it is recorded before a magistrate under CrPC, the magistrate has to be convinced that the statement is not being made under coercion.
While the disclosure statement alone will not suffice to charge a person, the police could investigate a person mentioned by an accused and even arrest them. However, the evidence the investigators collect against the particular person will have to stand the test of law. Activists claimed that the police could use this as a pretext to harass anyone.
With the charge-sheet itself mentioning that two of the accused have not signed the disclosure statements, experts pointed out that this would not make these reports suspicious. They cite Supreme Court orders to say that just because a disclosure statement was signed, it does not make it inadmissible.