Umesh Pal kidnapping case: Probed Raju Pal murder, CBI officer was defence witness

Taking a “serious note” of the CBI officer turning up as a defence witness in the court, a senior police officer of Prayagraj said that they are sending a report to the state home department.

In 2007, Umesh Pal had filed a police complaint, alleging that he was being regularly threatened and pressured by Atiq and his aides to change statements in the court in the Raju Pal murder case in which he was a witness. Umesh had also said that he had given a false statement in court under pressure from Atiq. Based on his complaint, Prayagraj police registered an FIR against Atiq, his brother Ashraf and others.

The 2005 Raju Pal murder case, in which Atiq is also the prime accused, was initially probed by Prayagraj police and was transferred to the CBI in 2016. While Prayagraj police had named Umesh Pal as a witness in the case, the CBI probe, led by Amit Kumar, dropped him from the list of witnesses.

In his testimony before the Prayagraj court in the kidnapping case, CBI officer Kumar, who was not involved in the probe, claimed that there was no evidence that Umesh Pal was abducted as alleged by him. The CBI officer also claimed that during the investigation he found that Umesh Pal was “hand in glove” with accused Atiq Ahmed and others and “pressured” witnesses in the Raju Pal murder case to turn hostile.

As per the copy of the court’s verdict in the kidnapping case, CBI officer Amit Kumar as defence witness number 41, said that when he went through the chargesheet of the UP Police in the 2005 Raju Pal murder case, he found that five witnesses had turned hostile. During the CBI investigation, Amit Kumar claimed, he found that the witnesses had changed statements following pressure from Umesh Pal, who was allegedly hand in glove with the accused. The witnesses, Amit Kumar said, told him that they were “never kidnapped”, and added that there was no evidence of Umesh Pal being kidnapped.

As per the court documents, Amit Kumar during his testimony was asked why as CBI Investigating Officer he had dropped Umesh Pal from the list of witnesses in the Raju Pal murder case.

Kumar told the court that when CBI investigators asked Umesh Pal why there was no mention of his presence at the murder spot in the police complaint, he did not give any answer. Kumar also told the court that Umesh Pal did not give any answer when asked whether he knew the assailants’ names and their addresses. Later, at the CBI office in Delhi, Umesh Pal admitted before Raju Pal’s wife that he was not present at the murder spot and was not an eyewitness, Kumar told the court. “Later, after the statements of witnesses, who received bullet injuries, were recorded, it was clear that Umesh Pal was not a witness in the case,” Kumar told the court.

On March 28, the court held Atiq Ahmed and two others — Khan Shaulat Haneef and Dinesh Pasi – guilty in the Umesh Pal kidnapping case and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
The court convicted Atiq and Pasi under IPC sections 147 (rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly ), 364-A (kidnapping for ransom, etc), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. Haneef was convicted under IPC sections 364-A and 120-B.

The court, however, acquitted seven persons — Atiq’s younger brother Khalid Azim alias Ashraf, Javed, Farhan, Ijaj Akhtar, Israr, Asif alias Malli, and Abid.