New Delhi, Feb 27: The CBI has failed to establish a prima-facie case of manipulation against former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, a court here said on Friday, while discharging the AAP leader in the politically-charged matter.
Special Judge Jitendra Singh took note of the allegation against Kejriwal that he was a “central figure” who manipulated the policy for the benefit of the so-called “South Group” as also for the purpose of “recouping the upfront money”.
“The prosecution seeks to connect Accused 18 (Kejriwal) mainly based on one sentence in the statement of the witness, namely, prosecution witness 225 Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy: ‘Thereafter, he told me that K Kavitha, daughter of K Chandrashekar Rao, the then chief minister of Telangana, would be contacting me in this regard’,” the judge said.
Taking note of the evidence before it, the court, however, said there was no relevant document, file noting, electronic communication, financial transaction or digital evidence to directly or indirectly connect Kejriwal with any alleged policy manipulation or illegal gratification.
“There is no material to show his presence at any conspiratorial meeting or to indicate his knowledge of any unlawful arrangement. The attempt to implicate him rests on an inference drawn from an uncorroborated accomplice-like statement,” it said.
The court said the mere invocation of the expression, “conspiracy”, does not dispense with the requirement of material indicating agreement and participation.
“The prosecution proceeds on the premise that the policy was manipulated pursuant to a criminal design. If that foundation is not established, the subsequent allegations (of a larger conspiracy) necessarily lose their footing,” it said.
“In the absence of foundational material connecting Accused 18 with any criminal design and in the absence of independent corroboration of the statements of an accomplice-like witness relied upon, the attribution of a central conspiratorial role cannot be sustained,” it added.
The judge flagged a “serious infirmity” regarding the evidentiary value of certain witnesses.
He said according to the evidence on record, individuals who admitted participation in the alleged transaction were examined merely as prosecution witnesses, without being arraigned as accused and without being tendered pardon as approvers.
“Yet, their statement appears to have been treated on par with that of wholly-independent witnesses. It is equally possible that the agencies were conscious of the settled position in law, but sought to project such witnesses as independent to lend greater weight to their case,” the judge said.
He said the liability for the conspiracy cannot be inferred in isolation and instead, arises from circumstances that are proximate, consistent and mutually reinforcing.
“In the absence of such connecting material, a solitary statement of the nature relied upon cannot, by itself, meet the legal threshold required to proceed further,” the judge said.
The court said when Reddy’s statement was correctly evaluated “as a self-incriminating, participant account akin to that of an approver”, and tested against the absence of independent corroboration, it could be concluded that such an uncorroborated statement was not a legally-sustainable basis to proceed against Kejriwal.
It said the prosecution failed “to establish even a prima-facie case of manipulation of the policy” nor was there any evidence to suggest any prior agreement or meeting of minds indicative of a criminal conspiracy in the formulation of the policy.
“The clauses incorporated in the policy cannot be traced to any document allegedly supplied by the so-called South Group. The record reflects deliberations at various levels, examination by the competent authorities and a progressive development of the policy framework, culminating in approval by the LG,” the court said.
Regarding the allegations of Kejriwal utilising the funds for the Goa election, the court said if the foundational allegation of policy manipulation in furtherance of a criminal design does not prima facie withstand scrutiny, then the subsequent allegation automatically loses its footing.
The court also flagged the serious consequences when a person holding a constitutional office is prosecuted.
“Arrest and prosecution in such circumstances have implications beyond the individual. Public confidence in institutions is inevitably affected. If it is later found that such prosecution was unsupported by admissible material, the erosion of public trust is substantial,” it said.
“The power to investigate and prosecute carries with it a corresponding obligation of fairness, restraint and adherence to rule of evidence. Only by strict observance of these principles can both individual liberty and public faith in the justice system be preserved,” the court asserted.
