No evidence to suggest Ishrat Jahan was a terrorist: Former SIT chief Satish Verma

1

Former SIT chief, Satish Verma, who investigated Ishrat Jahan’s alleged fake encounter has said that there was no evidence to suggest Ishrat Jahan was a terrorist.

He said, “One needs to show evidences proving that Ishrat’s movements were like a terrorist. There was no such fact presented in investigation.”

Verma also rubbished the claims made by former under secretary RVS Mani on Wednesday.

Verma termed all allegations levelled by Mani as “baseless.”

He said everyone including Mani was using the opportunity to play their role referring to the change in government at the Centre. He implied that the an environment was being orchestrated to portray Ishrat Jahan a terrorist.

He said, “Abhi ek mahaul hai jo interested parties bana rahi hain, isme Mani ji bhi apna role play kar rahe hain. His(RVS Mani)motive is something else. He wants to weaken the case.”

Verma also denied that he ever resorted to physical torture as was alleged by Mani on Wednesday.

Also Read | CBI ‘tortured’ under secretary, who drafted affidavit on Ishrat Jahan

Rubbishing Mani’s claims, Verma said that there was no provision of taking witness’ signatures in the statement, so the question of forcing Mani to sign ‘did not arise.’

He told ANI and ABP News, “Police investigation mein witnesses ke nivedan record kiye jaate hain, uss mein witness ke signature nahi liye jaate. Mr. Mani bhi witness thhe, toh unka jo statement lena tha uss par sign nhi hota hai,toh sign karne ke liye dabav ka prashn nahi hai.

“Mani wants to divert attention from Chargesheets pending in courts,purpose is to portray evidence ‘wrong.’ RVS Mani is levelling allegations against those who had notable and important role in the investigation, I am one of them.”

Verma also justified the need to change the first affidavit in Ishrat Jahan’s alleged murder by saying that Mani had written more than ‘desired’ of an officer in his capacity.

He said, “He(RVS Mani)had written more than desired in first affidavit & if it was changed in the 2nd affidavit, it was rightly changed. Things in the first affidavit were written as if he(RVS) was the investigating officer.”

More to come

 

1 COMMENT

LEAVE A REPLY