Sippy Sidhu was found dead with at least four bullet wounds at a public park in Chandigarh’s Sector 27 on September 20, 2015. (file)Granting bail to Kalyani Singh, the prime accused in the murder of lawyer and national-level shooter Sukhmanpreet Singh alias Sippy Sidhu, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Tuesday questioned the investigation of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), stating that the CBI, employing the best scientific techniques, has tutored and planted witnesses.
The court said that the CBI’s untraced report was filed only in 2020, whereas, the investigation was handed over to the CBI in 2015. “The CBI has prima facie chosen to ill indulge in taking the services of tutored and planted witnesses rather merely for solving the crime event through causing the arrest of the present Kalyani Singh,”said the court.
The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur while allowing the bail plea of Kalyani said, “The CBI is the prime investigating agency and has to live up to its renowned credentials. However, it has not… from whom it was but expected that the most impartial and objective investigations are made into the crime event, than its choosing to only adopt the stand of the aggrieved. Though, the CBI could have taken to seek cooperation from the aggrieved, but only when, prima facie tangible besides credit worthy evidence to support the aggrieved’s stand, did make emergence.”
The HC said that the motive assigned to Kalyani in the untraced report was that she was enraged by Sidhu’s rejection of her marriage proposal, as his family was opposed to it due them being from different castes. However, added the court, if this was the case, there was no reason for the CBI to continue holding Kalyani in the column of suspects, despite the untraced report.
The court said that except the said motive, there was no other incriminating evidence available with the CBI which connected Kalyani to the crime. The court also said that the untraced report had never been accepted by the court in the first place, and the CBI is now assigning just about any motive to Kalyani, which is “coloured”.
Speaking about the witnesses produced by the CBI, who in live in the same neighbourhood as the crime site, the HC said that their statements did not reveal the identity or physical features of Kalyani and that they only spoke about hearing gunshots. This apart, the witnesses only refer to a male person being seen at the site of the crime, said the court.
About one of the ocular witnesses (one who actually is witness to the crime/act) of the CBI, the HC said, he had, on four occasions earlier, made statements to the investigating officer (IO). In none of the statements, said Justice Thakur, did he claim to be an eyewitness. The court said that it was surprised how suddenly, on November 9, 2021, he claimed himself to be an eye witness and named Kalyani as the prime accused. The CBI’s eyewitness was thus declared a “planted witness” by the court, who was “coached” by the CBI.
If the call data of the eyewitness had been procured by the IO, which may reveal his presence around the crime site, it may have made his statement credible. However, no such document had been collected by the IO, said the court.
The HC held that since the investigation into the case commenced about seven years ago and made no headway into being solved, except the filing of an untraced report on December 7, 2020, which is indicative of the “anxiety” faced by the IO to somehow close the case by arresting Kalyani.
The HC said that the untraced report revealed that some unknown persons were targeting the Sidhu (as per the chargesheet filed) whose roles have not been investigated into with as much “thoroughness” [as Kalyani’s role].