While acquitting 22 accused in Sohrabuddin case, the judge said they acted under colour of office

While acquitting 22 of those accused of the killing of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, Kausar Bi and Tulsiram Prajapti, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court earlier this month said: “The alleged offence was committed by the accused persons in discharge of their official duty and under the colour of office; even if it is assumed that the accused persons acted in excess of their official duty, then also they are entitled to claim protection of Section 197 (prosecution of judges and public servants) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).”

Entitled to acquittal

The Hindu has a copy of the 358-page judgment which says: “It is clear that the accused who are police officials and who were found doing the act and deed in discharge of their official duty, are entitled for the benefit as contemplated under Section 197 of CrPC.”

“It was necessary for the investigation agency to obtain sanction of the competent authority before filing chargesheet. In absence of the sanction, the accused are entitled for acquittal.”

In his last judgment, Judge S.J. Sharma said: “The accused, as seen from the material in the chargesheet, were certainly acting in discharge of their official duties. There is reasonable connection between the ‘act’ and discharge of official duty... The accused were doubtlessly a ‘public servant’ when the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed.”

The court said, “The entire investigation was targeted to act upon a script to achieve the goal to anyhow implicate political leaders....”

Motivated probe

Indicting the investigating agency, Mr. Sharma said: “The negligence of CBI towards material part of investigation clearly indicates that they hurriedly completed the investigation either by using replica of the earlier recorded investigation and have implicated the police persons who had not at all knowledge of any conspiracy; rather they appeared innocent.”

“There is no hesitation in recording that during the investigation of these offences, the CBI was doing something other than reaching the truth of the offences.”

Judge Sharma also said: “The evidence could not withstand the judicial scrutiny of the Court.”