Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Rouse Avenue Court, on Friday, directed the framing of charges against Congress Leader Jagdish Tytler for his alleged involvement in the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots. The court noted that per the evidence Tytler, along with others, formed an unlawful assembly and attacked Gurudwara Azad Market, resulting in the destruction of the Gurudwara and the deaths of three individuals. 

The court further observed that despite no direct evidence of Tytler using a deadly weapon, he was deemed to have abetted the crimes through his instigation. 

Special Judge Rakesh Syal noted, “The material on record reveal that when the members of unlawful assembly were attacking Gurudwara Pul Bangash and looting properties of the Sikhs, the accused instigated them to kill Sikhs by saying, “maro maro” (hit, hit) and “Pahle maro phir luto” (hit first, steal later)”. 

The case centers on the aftermath of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination on October 31, 1984, and the subsequent anti-Sikh violence. In response to allegations of orchestrated violence against Sikhs, the Government of India appointed Justice G.T. Nanavati to investigate. His report, released on February 9, 2005, implicated Jagdish Tytler in orchestrating the attacks, recommending further investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). As a result, FIR was re-registered on November 22, 2005.

On November 1, 1984, a mob attacked Gurudwara Azad Market, resulting in the destruction of the Gurudwara and the deaths of two individuals. Initial investigations led to a charge sheet against 32 suspects, but CBI probes found insufficient evidence against Tytler despite numerous supplementary reports. Key witnesses, including Harpal Kaur, Harvinderjit Singh, and Abdul Wahid, testified that Tytler incited violence. Kaur and Singh later provided detailed accounts of Tytler’s alleged involvement, which were corroborated by other testimonies and forensic evidence. Despite this, the CBI struggled to substantiate the allegations, and Tytler's prosecution remained pending sanction from the Commissioner of Police.

In August 2023, Special Judge Vikas Dhull granted anticipatory bail to Tytler based on his medical conditions, mental health issues, and advanced age. Subsequently, the court also allowed Jagdish Tytler ten days to review the documents provided by the CBI, including the charge sheet. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vidhi Gupta Anand issued this direction in response to a request from Tytler’s counsel, who sought two weeks to complete the review of the documents.

Public Prosecutor Amit Jindal, representing the CBI, contended that compelling evidence from three eyewitnesses demonstrated that Tytler arrived at the scene in a white Ambassador car on November 1, 1984. The witnesses testified that he led and incited the mob to destroy Gurudwara Pul Bangash, kill Sikhs, and loot their properties. The PP also noted that witnesses confirmed Tytler’s ownership of the vehicle on the incident date.

The PP argued that documents such as Commission Reports were not included in the charge sheet and could not be considered at the charge stage. He emphasized that previous closure reports and court orders for further investigation were final. The primary issue at the charge stage was whether the eyewitness testimonies were sufficient for conviction, with other aspects like alibi and curfew violations to be addressed at trial.

Advocate Manu Sharma, representing Tytler, contended that the original FIR involved 32 individuals, all of whom were acquitted due to the failure of eyewitnesses to identify them during the trial. A supplementary charge sheet was filed against an additional accused, who was also acquitted. Advocate Sharma highlighted that the Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry's report and the subsequent Action Taken Report from the Ministry recommended no action against Tytler. Despite three closure reports by the CBI between 2016 and 2023, indicating no evidence against Tytler, new witnesses emerged, including Harpal Kaur Bedi, Harvinderjit Singh, and Abdul Wahid.  

Advocate Sharma noted that Jasbir Singh was declared a proclaimed offender by a Delhi Court, and Surinder Singh, a key witness, had died. He argued that the investigation, which began after 2005, was agenda-driven. Both the initial Delhi Police investigation and the CBI had found no evidence against Tytler. Advocate Sharma claimed that subsequent witness statements were inconsistent with earlier statements and lacked credibility, suggesting that vested interests influenced the investigation.

The court addressed the procedural aspects of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.PC, which guides the judicial process at the charge-framing stage. According to these sections, after reviewing the case records, and documents, and hearing submissions from both the accused and the prosecution, the judge must decide whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the case. If the judge finds insufficient grounds, the accused must be discharged, and the reasons for this decision documented. Conversely, if the judge believes there is a basis to presume the accused’s involvement in an offense triable by the court, a formal charge must be framed.

The court noted that at this stage, a court is only required to consider the prosecution's evidence, without allowing the accused to present additional materials. The court's role is to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, not to evaluate the evidence's truthfulness or conduct a detailed examination of it. 

In this particular case involving the anti-Sikh riots of November 1, 1984, the trial court found sufficient grounds to presume Sajjan Kumar's involvement based on witness statements and documents. Sajjan Kumar was accused of inciting and leading a mob responsible for violence, including arson and murder. 

The court noted that Tytler claimed to have been at Teen Murti House in New Delhi during the incident, supported by a video recording. However, witnesses maintained that he was present at the scene and actively incited violence against Gurudwara Pul Bangash. Accordingly, the court found sufficient grounds for framing of charges. 

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v Jagdish Tytler