1984 riots: court reserves order on CBI's clean chit to Tytler

CBI today told a Delhi court that arms dealer Abhishek Verma was not a "credible witness" and on the basis of his statement, no case of influencing witness and making hawala transactions can be lodged against Congress leader Jagdish Tytler who was given a clean chit by the agency in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.
CBI prosecutor argued that no complaint was made before the police regarding allegations that Tytler had influenced any witness, so Verma's statement does not attract any offence under section 195A of IPC against the Congress leader.
Prosecutor P K Srivastava was replying to a court's query as to what efforts have been made by CBI to ascertain claims of Verma that Tytler had influenced a witness and made hawala transactions.

CBI, which has examined Verma as a witness during its further probe in the case, said his statement was "vague" and sought that the agency's closure report be accepted and the riot victims' protest petition dismissed.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate S P S Laler reserved the order for November 17 on whether to accept the closure report giving a clean chit to Tytler.
During the arguments, the prosecutor said Verma is an accused in several cases of ED and CBI and "he was not a credible witness" and he was not even an eye witness.

"According to Verma, Tytler had pressurised witness Surender Singh to change his statement and depose in his favour. Surender expired and he is not before this court so a case cannot be registered on Verma's statement.

"If Surender or his son Narender comes to court and says he was threatened, then a case is made out. There is no relevance of Verma's statement," he said.
Senior advocate H S Phoolka, representing the victims, opposed CBI's contentions saying the agency had recorded two statements of Surender Singh and in both of them, he had said that Tytler was present at Gurudwara Pulbangash on the day of the incident.
Regarding the prosecutor's argument that Verma was not a credible witness, he said there was no bar under the law that a person accused in other cases cannot be a witness in another case and his credibilty was to be seen by the court.