Justifying the “clean chit” given by his predecessor earlier in the alleged Sohrabuddin-Tulsiram fake encounter cases, Additional Sessions Judge SJ Sharma has indicted the CBI, saying that it had a “premeditated" theory and a "script” intended to "anyhow implicate" political leaders and it nearly did what was required “to reach that goal rather than conducting an investigation in accordance with law”.
In the concluding portion of his 350-page judgement copy of which was accessed by the media on Friday, Special CBI court Judge Sharma observed: “Having given my dispassionate consideration to the entire material placed before me and having examined each of the witnesses and the evidence closely, I have not hesitation in recording that the premier investigating agency like CBI had before it a pre meditated theory and a script intended to anyhow implicate political leaders.
“And the agency there after nearly did what was required to reach that goal rather than conducting an investigation in accordance with law, the judge noted.
“It clearly appears that the CBI was more concerned in establishing a particular pre conceived and pre meditated theory. Rather than finding out the truth. My predecessor has, while passing an order of discharge in the apicatuonnof accused number 16 (Amit Shah) clearly recorded that the investigation was politically motivated,” Judge Sharma observed.
It may be recalled that the then Special Judge M.B. Gosavi, while discharging BJP President Amit Shah had on December 30,2014 observed that the charges against BJP president Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Tulsiram Prajapati fake encounters had a political undertone. “I found substance in the main contention made by the applicant (Mr. Shah) that he was involved in the case by the CBI for political reasons,” special CBI judge M.B. Gosavi had said.
The concluding portion of the crucial judgement in the Sohrabuddin Tulsiram “fake” encounter came into public domain exactly seven days after the CBI court acquitted all the 22 accused in the case for lack of “satisfactory” evidence.