<div align="justify">
-The Hindu
</div>
<p align="justify">
&nbsp;
</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>Court order will not impact the trial against Panewala: CBI</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
Even as the Sessions court order, rejecting the CBI clean chit to Congress leader Jagdish Tytler ensures that the investigation into the 1984 riots case will continue, the trial against the other accused person in the case, Suresh Kumar alias Panewala, who is charged with murder and rioting, is nearing completion.
</p>
<p align="justify">
A CBI source said the agency has completed the examination of 13 prosecution witnesses in the case and four more witnesses remain to be examined. There are two eyewitnesses in this case - Harminder Singh and Kuljeet Singh - who alleged that Panewala was part of the mob. Though Harminder recorded his statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code making it admissible as evidence during trial, he passed away some time ago. As the defence will not get an opportunity to cross-examine him, the prosecution will not be able to use his testimony against the accused.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The source said that the other witness Kuljeet Singh purportedly refused to identify Panewala during the trial complaining about the passage of nearly 29 years. The CBI source said that Wednesday's order will not impact the trial against Panewala. His case is next listed for April 26.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Initially, 31 persons were chargesheeted in the case by the Delhi Police but all were acquitted. However, on the recommendation of the Nanavati Commission, the Central government directed the CBI to investigate the case against Mr. Tytler and a case was registered in 2005.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Though the CBI gave a clean chit to Mr. Tytler while implicating Panewala, a magisterial court directed the agency to reinvestigate the case after a person claiming to be an eyewitness alleged that the CBI had not recorded his statement despite his willingness to cooperate with the agency. The case was further probed and this time the closure report was accepted by a magisterial court in April 2010. It was then that riot victim, Lakhvinder Kaur, approached the Sessions court with a protest petition against the CBI clean chit to Mr. Tytler.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The CBI questioned Ms. Kaur's locus standi to oppose the closure report in a Sessions court. Additional Sessions judge Anuradha Shukla Bhardwaj in her order pointed out that the Supreme Court had ruled that a relative of a victim had the locus standi to appear before a magistrate at the time of considering closure reports.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Ms. Bhardwaj said the logical conclusion to this would be that if a party was given a right, it should also have a remedy when it felt aggrieved by anything done against its interest in the exercise of such right. In the present case, the magisterial court had accepted the closure report giving a clean chit to Mr.Tytler. Ms. Bhardwaj said that if Ms. Kaur did not have a remedy to file the revision petition, the very purpose of giving her the right to challenge the closure report &quot;would be frustrated&quot;.
</p>
<p align="justify">
On the CBI contention that the four alleged eyewitnesses in the case (not examined by the agency) had not given statements to the police when the case was first investigated and to subsequent commissions constituted to deal with 1984 riot cases, Ms. Bhardwaj said: &quot;In ordinary course, it is not for the witnesses to go to the investigating agency but it is for the agency to reach the witnesses wherever and whenever available.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
The CBI stand that eyewitness Surender Singh was making contradictory statements was also rejected by the judge who cited a Supreme Court judgment that these were matters to be decided at the stage of trial. While accepting the CBI's right to give its opinion on the credibility of witnesses who come forward, the court also panned the agency for not recording the statements of Chanchal Singh, Santosh Singh, and Alam Singh after their names cropped up during the examination of Surender. The court said the agency &quot;prevented the court from forming its own opinion&quot; regarding the credibility of the witnesses.
</p>