Sushant case: A tricky probe that CBI needs to handle with great dexterity

The long-awaited Supreme Court decision on the hotly-debated Sushant Singh Rajput case is out. This was a no-brainer because all of us knew that the huge controversy generated in the matter gave little option to the court. A CBI investigation was the only course open to assuage the feelings of Rajput’s kith and kin.

I am delighted on several counts.

First, the trust in the highest court has once again been established. Every aggrieved citizen knows that there is a forum which he or she can agitate in pursuit of justice. The person knocking the door of the court may be misinformed or may himself have a blemished criminal record.

This does not matter as long as there is the facility to escalate his grievance to the apex court for redress. It is an entirely different matter whether an investigation ordered by the court will satisfy the petitioner in terms of the expected outcome. He or she can at least rest content that he or she did get a chance to expose the facts of the case. Small mercies that we have a credible forum to go to in pursuit of justice.

Secondly, as a former head of the CBI, I am supremely pleased that my former organisation is still widely trusted, and important investigations are handed over to it. There cannot be greater satisfaction twenty years after I hung up my boots. This credibility is especially welcome after a few stones had been thrown at the CBI a few years ago accusing it of political bias. There was also the unfortunate happening of two successive Directors being accused of a lack of integrity. I am hoping that no future  CBI Chief will open himself to such allegations.

Thirdly, the apex court decision should help to correct misbehaving officers who tinker with or suppress evidence to favour any party involved in a crime. Officers will think twice before fudging records to help somebody for personal gratification or under political pressure. Looking at the events this way the common man should be happy that the scope for misbehaviour on the part of investigating officers has considerably been reduced.If in spite of strict judicial oversight if an officer probing an alleged crime misconducts himself, only God can save him.

I still do not understand why the Mumbai Police did not register a case. I do not question its motives. It was possibly waiting for the unearthing of stronger evidence. This is the travail of modern police forces which are under great and sometimes unethical media scrutiny. We cannot discipline the latter. Police officers will have to live with this phenomenon, and not get swayed by media surmises and premises.

Coming to brass tacks, the CBI has its job cut out for it. The media hype and misinformation has been jarringly loud and despicable to use a mild expression. Too many incredible and unsubstantiated allegations have been levelled against the contending parties — Rajput’s parents and those in support of Rhea Chakraborty — that the CBI has to wade through.

Although initially there was no charge that Rajput was murdered and hanged, some irresponsible persons aired this suspicion as well. The post-mortem report which concluded this to be a case of asphyxiation has itself been assailed. This is sad and unfortunate. This will be the beginning point of the CBI investigation.

Once there is reasonable evidence to support either a suicide or murder the enquiries will rest mainly on rigorous interrogation. Rhea who, by all accounts, had spent a lot of time with Rajput will certainly be questioned intensely to ferret out basic facts. The theory that Rajput was under medication for depression will have to be probed deeply. A finding, either way, will not be conclusive evidence, but will point to or eliminate the possibility of a suicide.

Related News: Sushant death case: ED quizzes Rhea Chakraborty for 8 hours

There is a strong allegation that Rhea swallowed a lot of money and other assets taking advantage of her intimacy with Rajput. It must be remembered that Rhea was not an unauthorised resident of Rajput’s apartment, although her occupation of portions of the flat was not continuous.

The point is whether a person who had authorised access to the deceased’s room and other parts of the house could be charged with theft and misappropriation, in the absence of the whole time occupant. There seems no evidence that Rhea’s visits were objected to by Rajput. Even if Rhea had dishonestly enriched herself by removing things owned by Rajput the legal position is dubious. The CBI will find it hard to come to acceptable conclusions.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) is already in action with regard to an alleged swelling of Rhea’s wealth. In sum, the latter has a number of questions to answer.

This is a tricky investigation which CBI will have to handle with great dexterity. It has the talent and resources which give us the confidence that it will come up with logical responses to many speculations which have muddied the water.

(RK Raghavan is a former CBI Director)

(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal)