Ishrat Jahan: Why CBI got the case and not SIT, NIA

Why no state agency got case
An attempt was made by the state government to assign the investigation to the Special Task Force, even after the SIT was constituted by the HC.

The court constitutes the SIT headed by Karnail Singh as chairman, while reservation was shown by the state against the inclusion of any IPS officer from outside the state. 

Karnail Singh in his report mentioned about the forces acting within the state, who are trying to hamper impartial investigation.

It was proposed that either the three SIT officers should be from outside the state or the investigation may be handed over to an independent agency.

In spite of the direction issued earlier and the requisition made by the SIT for transfer of certain police officers _PP Pandey, GS Singhal, and Tarun Barot_ they were not transferred.

When certain record of FSL was seized by Satish Verma during the course of investigation, a complaint was filed against him without it being brought to the notice of the court. 

The court had to call for explanation of the secretary of the state home department before concluding on the aspects whether action should be initiated for contempt of courts or not.

The investigation report of deputy superintendent of police, Parixita Gurjar, was found to be not correct as per the investigation made by the SIT. 

Further, all top and high officials up to the rank of the then DGP may fall within the ambit of investigation in connection with the registration of another/fresh FIR.

Why SIT was not given further probe
It was found that the members of SIT had alteration in the composition or constitution of new SIT.

There were differences of opinion between the members of SIT and the same was also reflected in the affidavit of Satish Verma and, therefore, the  court had to lay down the discipline among the members of the SIT themselves and Karnal Singh was appointed as the chairman, with other two officers being members.

The court had recorded that the investigation of SIT was not satisfactory on account of the non-availability of its chairman Karnail Singh.

The court had noted the fact that because of non-availability of chairman - Karnail Singh was permitted to be relieved - the duties were required to be demarcated among other two members since there were various differences of opinion between the two in the mode and manner of investigation.

Satyapal Singh, the next chairman, had expressed difficulties about the language and interrogation of PP Pandey, who is his batch-mate and had seen differences of opinion between two SIT members and, therefore, he had prayed that be relieved.

Thereafter, this court vide order dated 15.7.2011 (reproduced at paragraph 16 herein above) relieved Singh as the chairman of SIT and appointed another officer.

The chairman of SIT has submitted the report and has found that the first statement of the main witnesses namely - Motibhai Desai and Shivsingh -were voluntary and were not given under compulsion or duress, and for further investigation regarding retraction of such statements, interrogation may be required.

SIT chairman RR Verma has given in writing that on the aspects of retraction of statements of the witnesses, final report is not submitted, but interim report is submitted and for further investigation custodial interrogation may be required.  He has requested that such work may be assigned to another person or agency by closure of the said Special Cell of SIT.

If investigation of another FIR is given to SIT, there is no facility of getting the person arrested, nor is there any place available for custodial interrogation. 

What CBI would be doing
The CBI should take the officers on probation to fill up the vacancies. The CBI should investigate the Ishrat Jahan case and should submit the report at the earliest as possible. The CBI can also take the help from SIT member Satish Verma. However, he will not have any role in the preparation of the final report of the case. The FIR should be filed with the CBI in next two weeks by SIT chairman RR Verma who will be the complainant.