Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Mar 08, 2006
Google



New Delhi
News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |

New Delhi Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

Investigating Officer's role under scanner

Staff Reporter

Contradictory depositions by Surender Sharma in Jessica case

NEW DELHI: During the trial in the Jessica Lal murder case, the investigating officer, Surender Sharma, made depositions that ended up weakening the prosecution's standing. He is one among those who would be questioned by the special team formed to probe the alleged destruction of evidence, fabrication of records and criminal conspiracy to save the accused in the case.

Surprisingly, when the court asked him how he came to know that Manu Sharma was the main accused in the case, Inspector Sharma deposed that his senior police officers told him so on April 30, 1999 -- hours after Jessica was gunned down. Then only, the court observed that though the police had no evidence against Manu Sharma on April 30, 1999 morning, "he was framed" by senior police officers.

The second instance where Inspector Sharma "faltered" was on the issue of recovery of a black Tata Safari used by Manu Sharma. He deposed in the court that his senior officers informed him that the vehicle had been recovered from Noida in Uttar Pradesh. But then another police witness deposed that Inspector Sharma had told him that the vehicle had been recovered from Karnal in Haryana.

These contradictory depositions provided ample reasons for the court to question their credibility, which further weakened the case. The investigating officer was also asked why the statements of witnesses, which were recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, did not mention the presence of Tata Safari inside the restaurant premises where Jessica was shot. As a result, depositions of the witnesses, including Home Guard Shrawan Kumar, became questionable. In view of these facts, the special team might ask Inspector Sharma to explain the lapses that strengthened the defence counsel's case.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail



New Delhi

News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary | Updates: Breaking News |


News Update



The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu