Accused gave contradictory statements, changed stands: Court

A special court today said there were several "self-contradictions" and change of stands in the statements of Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited (JIPL) and its two directors at various stages of trial in a coal block scam case.
Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar said the consistently changing stands taken by them were "crystal clear" from the veracity of application form and several other documents submitted by them for getting the coal block.
"A bare perusal of the said documents coupled with the presentation made by accused R S Rungta show that there has been consistently changing stand taken by accused persons both before Ministry of Steel and Screening Committee, Ministry of Coal...," the court said.

The court noted that Rungtas changed their stands on a number of issues, including information on the actual land acquired by them or steps taken towards acquiring the remaining land required for establishing the proposed end-use project and kilns.
The court said on several occasions, the convicts had contradicted themselves on various issues.
It noted that during the process of admission or denial of documents, R C Rungta denied not only the application submitted but also his signatures on it and the annexures.

"However, subsequently at the stage of recording of statement, both JIPL and R S Rungta admitted it to be correct that the application was submitted under the signatures of R C Rungta as a director of JIPL to Ministry of Steel.

"R C Rungta on the other hand in his statement under 313 CrPC stated the said fact to be a matter of record," it said.
The court noted that the accused took different stands at the time of addressing arguments on framing charges, recording of statement of accused, recording of prosecution evidence and during the process of admission or denial of documents.
"Thus clearly such answers given by R C Rungta were feeble attempts made by him to wriggle out of the false and contradictory stands taken by him during the earlier stages of trial," the court said.
The court also pondered as to whether in a criminal trial the accused persons have an "unbridled right" of taking contradictory stands at every stage of trial.

"It is in these kind of circumstances that the principle of proving beyond reasonable doubt needs to be appreciated as to whether it can be extended or stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt.
"It is only a reasonable doubt which may belong to the accused, for otherwise the practical system of justice will then break down and loose credibility of the community," the court said.