It was a moral victory for lakhwinder Kaur, the widow of a 1984-riot victim, who had challenged the magisterial court’s decision of accepting closure report against Congress leader Jagdish Tytler. Kaur had claimed about emergence of fresh evidence, saying the trial court had wrongly dismissed a petition protesting CBI’s decision to give a clean chit to the senior Congress leader.
The matter pertains to killing of three persons including lakhwinder’s husband Badal Singh near Gurdwara Pulbangash on November 1, 1984. An additional metropolitan magistrate had on April 27 accepted the closure report filed by 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 Gurdwara 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 one, 1984, following the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
The alleged role of Tytler in the case relating to the killing of three persons 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 three, 1984, rebuking his men for the “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. the CBI had registered the case against Tytler on direction of the Nanavati Commission.