A Delhi court today issued notice to the CBI on a petition challenging an order of a lower court accepting the closure report in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case against the former Union minister.
A Delhi court today issued notice to the CBI on a petition challenging an order of a lower court accepting the closure report in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case against former Union minister Jagdish Tytler.
Additional sessions judge VK Khanna sought a response from the probe agency by July 24 on the revision petition filed by riot victims.
Lakhwinder Kaur, whose husband was killed in the riots, sought further investigation by the CBI into the case following claims about emergence of fresh evidence.
Senior advocate HS Phoolka, appearing for Kaur, contended that the trial court had wrongly dismissed a petition protesting CBI's decision to give a clean chit to the senior Congress leader.
An additional metropolitan magistrate had on April 27 accepted the closure report filed by the CBI in the case against Tytler saying there was no sufficient evidence to send him for trial.
"There is nothing which suggests that accused Tytler was seen on November 8, 1984, near Gurudwara Pulbangash or incited a mob for killing Sikh people," the magistrate had said.
The CBI had given a clean chit to Tytler for the second time in a row on April 2, last year claiming lack of sufficient evidence against him in the case pertaining to the murder of three persons on November 1, 1984, following the assassination of the then prime minister Indira Gandhi.
The court, which had heard arguments for several days on
behalf of the CBI and Kaur, whose husband was killed in the
riots, had termed the testimony of one witness as having "no
relevance" and another as "self contradictory".
The alleged role of Tytler in the case relating to the killing of three persons, including one Badal Singh in 1984, near Gurudwara Pulbangash in north Delhi was re-investigated by CBI after a court had in December 2007 refused to accept a closure report filed by the agency.
The court had allowed CBI's arguments that Tytler was present at Gandhi's residence at Teen Murti Bhavan and was not at the scene of crime saying that its contentions were justified by material, including some visual tapes and versions of some independent witnesses.
Witness Jasbir (now residing in California), in an affidavit, had claimed before the Nanavati Commission that he had heard Tytler on November 3, 1984, rebuking his men for "nominal killings" carried out in the riots.
The court rejected Jasbir's version saying he had deposed
for something which took place on November 3 while the
case related to an incident of November 1, 1984.
In the revision petition, riots victim Kaur appealed to the sessions court to set aside the order passed by ACMM on April 27 and direct the CBI to carry out further investigation in the case.
The petition alleged that the investigation by the CBI showed "dishonest and perfunctory" approach as the entire evidence has been collected with a single point programme of absolving and exonerating the accused.
"There is sufficient material on record which clearly establishes the presence and complicity of accused in relation to the incident of killings of Badal Singh, Thakur Singh and Gurcharan Singh on November 1, 1984 near Pulbangash Gurdwara and also about his presence at the place of occurrence on November 3, 1984," her petition claimed.
Kaur alleged that witness Jasbir Singh's statement recorded by CBI in December 2008 in the USA as well as his affidavit date August 31, 2000 before Nanavati Commission defined the "culpability" of the accused.
According to her, Singh had clearly stated that he had seen Tytler inciting a mob on November 3, 1984 and indicating that he was dissatisfied with the number of killings on November 1, 1984 at Pulbangash.
As regards the contradictions in the statement of witnesses, the petition said that these have to be considered only during trial and could be taken up by the investigating agency at the stage of probe.
It also alleged that the CBI recorded statement of only those witnesses who deposed in favour of Tytler.
Besides Jasbir and Surender Singh (already dead), the CBI
did not record statement of other witnesses Resham Singh and
Chanchal Singh who were also eye-witness to the incident of
burning of Gurdwara Pulbangash, the victim submitted.
She also pointed out that the CBI had not recorded statement of Sattu Singh, father of Jasbir, who was material witness to corroborate his statement.
The petition alleged that the accused had himself gone to the office of commissioner of police on November 5, 1984 to
get some persons released from police custody after their
arrest for being involved in rioting and arson.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}