|
What else did you expect of the
CBI
WSN Network
 NEW DELHI: Not
that anything different was expected of
India's
CBI. Its intentions in pursuing the case against killers mobs leader
Jagdish Tytler were always doubtful, then it wanted to avoid
recording the evidence provided by witnesses, at one stage it even
said the witnesses were not traceable. Finally, when it was forced
to send a couple of officers to the US to record statements of key
witnesses, the agency lost no time in telling the court that their
statements were not reliable.
It said the
witnesses failed to give any proof linking former Union minister
Jagdish Tytler to the rioters. The witnesses were and could only be
expected to tell what they saw.
Jasbir Singh,
who was examined by a CBI team in
San Francisco,
gave details of his movement between November 1 and 3, 1984, in
which he named Sucha Singh, a resident of Delhi University area, as
the person who had given him shelter from the mob. Singh had given
the age of Sucha Singh as 65 and said he owned a two-room house.
However, the CBI
found out Sucha Singh was a resident near
Ludlow Castle
School and he denied having provided shelter to any one. He also
told the CBI that he had a seven-room ancestral house and not as
stated by the witness.
His statement
was recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the
Indian mission in
San Francisco,
CBI said.
Another witness,
Surinder Singh, was examined by the CBI at the Indian Mission in
New York
who could not give any fresh detail to the agency sleuths.
He told the CBI
that he was hiding along with two “sevadars” (volunteers) and “ragi”
(who sings morning prayers) but the CBI said he failed to provide
the name of the three people for independent verification of his
statement. The CBI, in its report to the court, concluded that the
two witnesses could not be relied on.
21 January 2009
|
Read Also