Dhatt elimination: Five more cops made co-accused

Kuljit Singh Dhatt, a close relative of Shaheed Bhagat Singh, was allegedly killed by police, for his alleged links with militants, on July 23, 1989. Trial proceedings, in the case, only began early this year

Some 21 years after police allegedly killed Kuljit Singh Dhatt, a close relative of Shaheed Bhagat Singh, a local court on Monday named five more police personnel as co-accused in the case. While many senior police officials have been accused in the case, the names of sub inspector Lakshman Singh, Manmohan Singh, Harjinder Singh, Murari Lal and Devinder Singh, was added to that list on Monday.

Dhatt, the son-in-law of Shaheed Bhagat Singh's younger sister Parkash Kaur, was allegedly killed by police, for his alleged links with militants, on July 23, 1989. Police had initially claimed that he had escaped from custody near Beas, but a probe into the incident, however, revealed a different story. Dhatt was the director of Bhogpur Sugar Mill and the sarpanch of Ambala Jattan village.

The case has also been beset by delays. While an inquiry report was submitted in 1993, a case, pertaining to his death, was registered only in 1996. The trial, on the other hand, began at the start of this year.

Dhatt's brother, Harbhajan Singh, who has been fighting the case, however, said that he has full faith in the judiciary and hoped that the guilty will be punished soon.

Please read our terms of use before posting comments
TERMS OF USE: The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
comments powered by Disqus