all_eyes_on_dhillon
Member
New Delhi (March 29, 2010): On behalf of Sikhs for Justice, Advocate Rebacca M John, in the case of victim Lakhwinder Kaur, told ACMM Rakesh Pandit that CBI has failed once again; whatever they did, it was only to shield the accused. She further told the court that instead of protecting the witnesses, CBI started with the premise that they were not reliable.
She submitted that the probe agency did not make any determined effort to examine Tytler nor did it record his statement or put him through lie-detection test when it was directed to “further investigate” the matter by the court in December, 2008.
The arguments by CBI remained inconclusive and are likely to resume on April 1, 2010.
Attorney Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, legal advisor Sikhs For Justice stated that CBI from the very beginning has been acting dubiously in investigating and prosecuting Jagdish Tytler who was seen by many individuals leading and inciting the killings of Sikhs in November 1984 and against whom Nanavati Commission found credible evidence of involvement in the killings of Sikhs and recommended the filing of charges.
He further stated that in the case against Tytler, CBI seemed to be hell-bent on giving him a clean chit since 2007 when it clandestinely tried to close the case against Tytler by filing a report stating that key witness Jasbir Singh is unavailable to testify, a report which was rejected by the court after witness Jasbir Singh openly protested in the media through Sikhs for Justice and repeated his willingness to testify against Tytler. He further stated that if CBI would have been serious in actually investigating the role of Jagdish Tytler, it would have looked for witnesses and more witnesses instead of looking for reasons to discredit and discourage them. According to Attorney Pannun the CBI’s disinterest in prosecuting is established by the fact that while its team was in USA in December 2008 to record the statements of Surinder Singh and Jasbir Singh, witness Resham Singh came forward and offered to give statement to CBI but despite repeated requests to SP Ratn Sanjay, CBI team left USA without recording the statement of Resham Singh and refused to even respond to inquiries related to that.
Attorney Pannun pointed out that the grounds for closure as given in the CBI report are unnecessary and unbelievable. For example, one reason CBI relied on is that Jagdish Tytler did not own Ambassador Car in November 1984 and thus the witnesses’ testimony that he saw Tytler getting off an ambassador car is not reliable. According to the CBI’s analysis, Mr. Tytler could ride to the crime in an ambassador car owned by himself only. The flaw and weakness of the CBI’s reasoning needs no further comments.
He further stated that to discredit late Surinder Singh, a witness against Tytler who died in mysterious circumstances in July 2009 in the hospital while openly expressing fear to his life and requesting protection, CBI relied on the statement of Surinder’s son who was barely a toddler in November 1984. Surinder Singh’s sworn and written statement to CBI clearly names two witnesses Alam Singh and Chain Singh who were also present their with Surinder Singh but CBI failed to record their statements despite of repeated requests. Its closure report does not even mention Alam Singh and Chain Singh.
Karnail Singh Peermohammad, President AISSF claimed that although many witnesses like Gurcharan Singh and Surinder Singh, have passed away while waiting for the Government to investigate the killings of Sikhs, many more are still alive and willing to testify as to Tytler’s involvement. Witness Resham Singh is ready to testify against Jagdish Tytler. He saw Tytler outside Gurdwara Pul Bangash. Resham Singh’s account corroborates late Surinder Singh’s statement.
Peermohammed stated that it is unfortunate that even after 25 years, Jagdish Tytler who was actually witnessed by journalists and others storming and yelling at the Police Officer to secure the release of his goons in November 1984 is still scot free and being protected by CBI. Peermohammed cited reference to Annexure IV point 6 of “Who are the guilty”, the first ever investigative report prepared in 1984 by People’s Union of Civil Liberties & People’s Union of Democratic Rights which gives details of the incident about Jagdish Tytler’s efforts to get his henchmen released from police custody.
She submitted that the probe agency did not make any determined effort to examine Tytler nor did it record his statement or put him through lie-detection test when it was directed to “further investigate” the matter by the court in December, 2008.
The arguments by CBI remained inconclusive and are likely to resume on April 1, 2010.
Attorney Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, legal advisor Sikhs For Justice stated that CBI from the very beginning has been acting dubiously in investigating and prosecuting Jagdish Tytler who was seen by many individuals leading and inciting the killings of Sikhs in November 1984 and against whom Nanavati Commission found credible evidence of involvement in the killings of Sikhs and recommended the filing of charges.
He further stated that in the case against Tytler, CBI seemed to be hell-bent on giving him a clean chit since 2007 when it clandestinely tried to close the case against Tytler by filing a report stating that key witness Jasbir Singh is unavailable to testify, a report which was rejected by the court after witness Jasbir Singh openly protested in the media through Sikhs for Justice and repeated his willingness to testify against Tytler. He further stated that if CBI would have been serious in actually investigating the role of Jagdish Tytler, it would have looked for witnesses and more witnesses instead of looking for reasons to discredit and discourage them. According to Attorney Pannun the CBI’s disinterest in prosecuting is established by the fact that while its team was in USA in December 2008 to record the statements of Surinder Singh and Jasbir Singh, witness Resham Singh came forward and offered to give statement to CBI but despite repeated requests to SP Ratn Sanjay, CBI team left USA without recording the statement of Resham Singh and refused to even respond to inquiries related to that.
Attorney Pannun pointed out that the grounds for closure as given in the CBI report are unnecessary and unbelievable. For example, one reason CBI relied on is that Jagdish Tytler did not own Ambassador Car in November 1984 and thus the witnesses’ testimony that he saw Tytler getting off an ambassador car is not reliable. According to the CBI’s analysis, Mr. Tytler could ride to the crime in an ambassador car owned by himself only. The flaw and weakness of the CBI’s reasoning needs no further comments.
He further stated that to discredit late Surinder Singh, a witness against Tytler who died in mysterious circumstances in July 2009 in the hospital while openly expressing fear to his life and requesting protection, CBI relied on the statement of Surinder’s son who was barely a toddler in November 1984. Surinder Singh’s sworn and written statement to CBI clearly names two witnesses Alam Singh and Chain Singh who were also present their with Surinder Singh but CBI failed to record their statements despite of repeated requests. Its closure report does not even mention Alam Singh and Chain Singh.
Karnail Singh Peermohammad, President AISSF claimed that although many witnesses like Gurcharan Singh and Surinder Singh, have passed away while waiting for the Government to investigate the killings of Sikhs, many more are still alive and willing to testify as to Tytler’s involvement. Witness Resham Singh is ready to testify against Jagdish Tytler. He saw Tytler outside Gurdwara Pul Bangash. Resham Singh’s account corroborates late Surinder Singh’s statement.
Peermohammed stated that it is unfortunate that even after 25 years, Jagdish Tytler who was actually witnessed by journalists and others storming and yelling at the Police Officer to secure the release of his goons in November 1984 is still scot free and being protected by CBI. Peermohammed cited reference to Annexure IV point 6 of “Who are the guilty”, the first ever investigative report prepared in 1984 by People’s Union of Civil Liberties & People’s Union of Democratic Rights which gives details of the incident about Jagdish Tytler’s efforts to get his henchmen released from police custody.
