In what may lead to a fresh standoff between the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the latter is learnt to have refused to share “case diaries” related to the 2004 Ishrat Jehan encounter case.
While the CBI had supplied the statements of the witnesses and accused, recorded during its two-year-long probe, along with the SP report, the MHA had last month sought the case diaries and other relevant documents before granting sanction to prosecute former IB special director Rajendra Kumar and three other IB officers.
The case diaries include the entry made by the investigating officer and the evidence collected, based on which senior CBI officials and legal experts took the decision to chargesheet the IB officers.
Under Section 172 of CrPC, every police officer conducting investigation shall maintain a record of investigation done in each day in a case diary. The case diaries also record the details of the time at which the information reached the IO, time at which the investigation began and closed, the places or places visited by him and a statement of facts facts and circumstances ascertained through investigation.
CBI officers said the case diaries can only be shared with the court.
After seeking legal opinion, the agency is learnt to have also conveyed to the MHA that there is no need to share the documents and statements with the Gujarat government as it has sought sanction to prosecute only IB officials, and not the accused Gujarat Police officers.
The CBI sought prosecution sanction on the opinion of then Attorney General G E Vahanvati. In its supplementary chargesheet, the CBI charged Kumar with murder and criminal conspiracy, while the other three IB officers — P Mittal, M K Sinha and Rajiv Wankhede — were charged with criminal conspiracy, wrongful confinement, kidnapping and wrongful concealment of facts.
The CBI has also charged a dozen Gujarat Police officers with plotting and executing the fake killings of Ishrat and three others.
MHA sources said they will get the documents and statements examined legally, which may take at least a month, before taking a final decision. The MHA has opposed the CBI’s decision to name the IB officers.
Victim told the judge that she was being forced to relive the incident as she was made to appear in court again.