Chargesheet Says Sushil Kumar Beat Up Fellow Wrestlers Prior to Dhankar's Murder
This however, is not admissible evidence because the witnesses are also co-accused in the case.
Sushil Kumar is among the Indian wrestlers that had been training at the Chhatrasal Stadium in Delhi.
The Delhi Police has claimed in its supplementary charge sheet that before the alleged kidnapping and killing of wrestler Sagar Dhankar last year, on 5 May, the prime accused, Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar, ordered his aides to mercilessly thrash Dhankar and other wrestlers.
The charge sheet also alleged that before the beatings, he went to Chhatrasal stadium, fired at dogs, beat up other fellow athletes with his gun, and forced them to leave the stadium.
The allegations rely on disclosure statements made by Anil Dhiman (Kumar's security guard) and by other co-accused.
Dhiman has claimed to the police that he was with Kumar on the night of alleged murder, when the latter allegedly asked some people to show up at the basketball ground, saying that he wanted to "teach a lesson to some people", the Indian Express reported.
At the stadium, an angry Kumar fired in the direction of barking dogs before demanding from two wrestlers that they leave the stadium, and then even went on to assault another wrestler.
Dhiman then told the police that he, along with Kumar and others, abducted Sagar and two other wrestlers and thrashed them because Kumar asked them to.
"Do not leave them alive. Beat them mercilessly," Kumar allegedly said.
Rahul, a co-accused in the case, has claimed to the police that Kumar said, "where I go, who I meet, what I eat — all this information is being leaked by Sagar and Sonu Mahal," the Indian Express report added.
The claims made in the supplementary charge sheet are based on 'disclosure statements' by Sushil Kumar's co-accused. It should be noted that these statements, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are not admissible evidence in themselves, and the police will need to provide corroborating evidence.
Even though these are statements purportedly made by the accused, they have been made to police officers without a magistrate present. Only confessions recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are admissible evidence in themselves.
The police will not necessarily have the option of getting Dhiman and the other co-accused to testify on the stand to confirm these disclosure statements, as they can refuse to do so under their right against self-incrimination.
However, if the police are able to recover corroborating evidence based on these disclosure statements, then that evidence can be presented in court.
(With inputs from The Indian Express)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)