SIT under fire for including 'defamatory' claims on Zubeen Garg in arrest note

Guwahati, Oct 6: Inclusion of potentially defamatory statements against Zubeen Garg in the ‘Detailed Grounds of Arrest’ of accused Shekhar Jyoti Goswami by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) has raised many eyebrows.

Legal experts and fans of Zubeen Garg question whether it was really necessary to include those defamatory statements in a legal document, as they have no evidentiary value.

Has the investigating agency lost its focus by releasing the document featuring the unverified and defamatory allegations as a public document, or did it too get carried away by the sheer weight of public scrutiny of the case?

Legal experts are now questioning whether the police violated the principle of “imputations to the deceased” by recording, and thereby officially recording the statements that malign the character of a person no longer alive to defend himself.

In the remand note and the “grounds of arrest” submitted to the court, a copy of which is accessed by this correspondent, accused Goswami is reported to have made statements which, according to legal observers, are grossly defamatory in nature—not only towards Zubeen Garg but also towards those he left behind.

“Point number 6, which is grossly defamatory, is in no way connected to the death of Zubeen Garg. Then what made them include it?” questioned a senior lawyer.

A number of legal experts, when contacted, questioned the rationale for including such statements.

“The inclusion of defamatory statements might only have been justified had Zubeen been alive to rebut them. At the most, it should have remained in the case diary,” one of them stated.

Experts argue that statements from co-accused individuals, especially those made during police custody, are not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act unless corroborated by material evidence.

Moreover, since the statement is neither recorded before a magistrate nor does it implicate the co-accused in the commission of the crime, it cannot be treated as a confessional statement.

“It is merely an explanatory admission of fact, not an admission of guilt,” a legal expert clarified.

In fact, there is a school in the Assam Police itself that finds the inclusion of the defamatory statements unwarranted.

Questions are also being raised at the investigating officer for including unverified claims without visiting the place of occurrence or cross-checking facts.

“If the statement is irrelevant to the cause of death and not backed by evidence, why include it in an official document—especially when the person being named is no longer alive to rebut the charges?” a senior police officer opined.

Legal analysts argue that such actions may violate the principle of ‘audi alteram partem’ - the right to be heard—which is particularly crucial when the individual being named is deceased. Indian law, under Section 499 IPC (now under BNS), extends defamation protection to the deceased if their reputation is harmed posthumously.

Sources in the Assam Police have informed that Amritprava Mahanta, another co-accused, also reportedly made a statement lacking legal credibility. Since the statement does not qualify as a confession , it is seen as lacking evidentiary value.

The notice, issued presumably under Sections 47 or 48 of the BNSS, is meant to be shared only with the accused, their nominated person, or legal representatives. Legal professionals assert that any third party must apply through proper legal channels, with a vakalatnama, to access it.

“In a case where the entire world is keeping an eye on the developments surrounding the demand for justice for Zubeen, such an approach does not appear to be dignified,” a retired Assam Police officer said.

Goswami, in his statement, also stated that both Siddharth Sharma and Shyamkanu Mahanta may have poisoned Zubeen Garg in Singapore.

Zubeen passed away under mysterious circumstances on September 19 in Singapore, where he went to perform at the North East India Festival organised by Mahanta.