Navy War Room leak case accused Ravi Shankaran has claimed that the CBI has framed him and failed to arrange for case witnesses or video-conferencing for cross examination during the trial for his extradition proceedings in the UK.
While the CBI has not challenged the UK High Court order, cancelling his extradition, Shankaran is planing to sue CBI in India and international courts seeking justice. The UK High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division Administrative Court of Sir Brian leveson and Justice Blake had on April 1 this year, rejected Shankaran’s extradition order of the UK Home Secretary saying there was no prima facie evidence against him. The court, however, gave the Crown Prosecution Service which persued the extradition appeal on behalf of CBI to file an appeal within 14 days.
However, India did not file any appeal and the April 1 order was considered as final. “The reluctance of the CBI to file an appeal via the CPS clearly shows that they are well aware that crucial witness statement, mentioned in the judgement, was specifically controverted to implicate the Appellant (Shankaran). The CBI also never availed the opportunity submitted by the Appellant’s counsel to allow CBI witness to be cross examined in person or via video link to clarify the contradictions in his statements made to the CBI on different dates. The CBI, however, chose to produce another of their witnesses (Rama Mohan) in the same case in the UK court in person for cross-examination,” Shankaran claimed in a letter to the Interpol and CBI.
Claiming that according to information received under the Right to Information Act, Shankaran said four officers of the CBI including Investigating Officer and Superintendent of Police Ramnish, Supervising officer and Senior SP (now promoted to DIG) Sonali Mishra, Senior Supervising Officer and DIG MM Oberoi and Rama Mohan of APFSl and forensic expert witness were awarded President’s Gold Medal for their investigative roles in the Navy War Room leak case.
During the extradition trial, Shankaran provided the UK court evidence under the RTI and claimed many of the submissions made before the court there were “simply false.” Citing such instances, Shankaran in his letter claimed CBI submission that the secret material said to be the print-outs from a pen drive handed over by CDR Rana and brought to the UK on May 5, 2011 were with permission of the Indian Prime Minister’s Office. The Prime Minister’s Office in India has denied the same under RTI, Shankaran claimed.
CBI submission that it had on June 23, 2006 raided many serving officers of the Navy, Army and Ministry of Defence and calimed to have recovered evidence which showed that they too had been compromised. The CBI, under RTI, admitted that till date it has neither charge-sheeted the said officers nor recommended Departmental action against them and the same was time barred now, Shankaran claimed.
The CBI as late as February, 2014 simply ignored the directions of the trial court in India ordering it to obtain clarifications from the Supreme Court of India whether arguments on Charges can commence in this case. The CBI itself had appealed to the Supreme Court in 2009 asking it to stay the Delhi High Court judgement allowing the accused to be given a copy of the secret evidence. This is also the main reason why no progress has been made in the trial in India since July 2006, a fact duly noted by the High Court in UK.
“The Appellant (Shankaran) reserves the right to pursue further remedies under International and Indian law to bring to book CBI Superintendent Ramnish Geer for producing forged chain of custody certificates in the UK court on May 5, 2011, falsely purporting them to be evidence in the custody of the trial court in India thereby committing a crime under Section 466 of the IPC which is punishable by seven years imprisonment. A complaint to this effect has already been filed with the trial court in India as well as Central Information Commission of India,” the letter added.