1984 riots: Court accepts CBI`s closure report in Tytler case
In a big relief for Congress leader Jagdish Tytler, a Delhi court on Tuesday accepted the CBI`s clean chit to the former Union minister in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.
New Delhi: In a big relief for Congress leader Jagdish Tytler, a Delhi court on Tuesday accepted the CBI`s clean chit to the former Union minister in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.
The development came more than an year after the Central Bureau of Investigation filed the closure report giving clean chit to Tytler.
While accepting the closure report, the trial court said Tytler was not present at the site where the riots happened and no further investigations against the ex-minister were required.
"There is no sufficient material to send Tytler to trial," Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Rakesh Pandit said.
The CBI’s closure report filed on April 2, 2009 was the second filed by the central investigating agency. The CBI’s first closure report had been rejected by the trial court in 2007.
Pandit said that the witnesses’ testimonies, which were recorded by the CBI, were of no significance as they were unreliable.
The magistrate had earlier reserved the order on April 7, after hearing the arguments of the CBI and the counsel for Lakhwinder Kaur, a riot victim who opposed the agency`s closure report clearing Tytler.
With the acceptance of the CBI`s probe report, the case against Tytler has ended. But the prosecution has said they would move the Sessions Court against the decision.
CBI had on April 2 last year cleared the former Union minister in its probe report, saying there was nothing to proceed against Tytler as two witnesses California-based Jasbir Singh and Surinder Singh (already dead) were not reliable and their statements were "false and concocted".
The probe agency had claimed that Surinder had changed his versions time and again as he first claimed that he saw Tytler leading a mob on November 1, 1984, after the assassination of the then PM Indira Gandhi a day before, and then retracted by claiming that he did not see the politician on that date.