Anti-Sikh riots 1984: HC showcause to Delhi govt, 10 acquitted men on retrial of case

The composite chargesheet in the case — dated March 25, 1985 — comprises five different complaints by Sikh widows, referring to incidents of murder, rioting and other offences in Raj Nagar under Delhi Cantt police station on November 1 and November 2, 1984.

The acquittals were brought to the notice of the court while it was hearing appeals against the conviction of Mahender Yadav, Krishnan Khokhar, Capt (retd) Bhagmal, Balwan Khokhar and Girdhari Lal. It was also hearing the CBI’s appeal against Congress leader Sajjan Kumar’s acquittal in the same case.

Earlier a trial court on April 30, 2013, had acquitted Sajjan Kumar and convicted the others in a case registered by the CBI as per the Justice Nanavati Commission’s recommendations. While the CBI filed an appeal against the order, the convicts challenged it.

“Prima facie the judgments (of acquittal) reflect a very perfunctory and hasty disposal of cases, which has deeply troubled our judicial conscience,” a bench of Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Anu Malhotra said.

They added, “Would these crimes fall in the category where the truth has become a casualty at the hands of investigator, prosecutor and the trial?”

Underlining that the composite chargesheet did not fulfil the bare minimum requirements of an investigation, the bench said no effort was made to trace either the bodies or the stolen material. “There were also no statements from eyewitnesses, including neighbours or relatives. The prosecutors appeared to have abdicated their duties,” it said.

While hearing the appeals, the court had asked the counsels about the number of people killed in the riots. “We have got no firm answers at all. Treated as individual cases, while the culprits got away scot-free, everybody else, police, prosecutors, even courts… failed the victims, and most importantly society.”

Asking why an independent agency such as the CBI could not be asked to conduct a fresh investigation, the bench said, “Given the manner in which the Delhi Police appears to have conducted itself, and the failure of the prosecution in performing its basic functions, we are of the view that independent assistance is needed…” The bench also appointed advocate P K Dey as amicus curiae in the matter.