‘Existence of a motive is no substitute for proof’: Court accepts CBI closure report in Najeeb case

Nearly nine years after the disappearance of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed, a Delhi court today accepted the Central Bureau of Investigation’s closure report in the case. 

Ahmed, an MSc student, went missing from JNU on October 15, 2016 soon after he was allegedly assaulted by students affiliated with the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad. He was 27 years old at the time of his disappearance. His mother Fatima Nafees filed a missing person complaint, and an FIR was registered in Delhi. 

Najeeb’s mother later petitioned the court and the CBI took over the investigation from the Delhi police in 2017. The CBI filed its closure report in 2018, after which Najeeb’s mother filed a protest petition opposing it. 

In the order, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jyoti Maheshwari of the Rouse Avenue Court noted that a “perturbing incident” had taken place before Najeeb went missing, but that it is “ipso facto not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the suspects had any role to play in causing the disappearance of Najeeb Ahmed”.

The order opened with the following sentences:

“The truth may elude us, but the quest for truth must go on – unwavering and undeterred. This statement adequately captures the essence of the present case, where Najeeb Ahmed, son of the protest petitioner Fatima Nafees, has been missing since 15.10.2016, but despite investigation, no information regarding Najeeb, could be unearthed till date and consequently, the present closure report has been filed.”

The order said that in a “volatile atmosphere like the hostel elections and more so in a campus like JNU, such scuffles and exchanges are not unheard of, but the same is not a sufficient basis to conclude that these young students would go to an extent to cause disappearance of another student, especially when there is no evidence on record to suggest the same”.

It also said that witness testimonies supported “physical assault and verbal threats against Najeeb Ahmed”, but “the link between those events and his subsequent disappearance…is not borne out, by any direct or circumstantial evidence on record…The mere existence of a motive or hostility, sans any corroborative material, cannot be a substitute for proof.”

The court said it was “cognizant of the plight of an anxious mother”, but the CBI “cannot be faulted for the investigation carried out”. It noted that the investigation had been conducted in a “thorough and professional manner, from all possible angles”. 

“The quest for truth is the foundation of every criminal investigation, yet there are cases where the investigation conducted cannot achieve its logical conclusion, despite the best efforts of the investigating machinery,” it said. The court said the CBI was “at liberty to re-open the present investigation” if it received “credible information” on Najeeb’s whereabouts, and that the agency should inform the court accordingly.

Newslaundry had reported on Najeeb’s disappearance and subsequent protests by students over it. Click here to watch our video story from a week after he went missing.

In times of misinformation, you need news you can trust. Click here to support our work.