HC: Probe was shoddy, why not retry five ’84 riots cases

R Sedhuraman

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, March 29

The Delhi High Court today said retrial appeared necessary in five cases pertaining to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in the Delhi Cantonment area as there were serious lapses in the investigation. Witnesses and complainants were not examined properly by trial courts, leading to acquittal of the accused, it said.

A Bench comprising Justices Gita Mittal and Anu Malhotra also directed the Delhi Government to express its view by April 20 on the need for ordering a reinvestigation into the complaint of Jagir Kaur, whose husband Joga Singh was killed by a rioting mob, by the CBI or any other independent agency.

(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)

“While recording this prima facie view, we make it clear that it shall be open to the (acquitted) persons to raise jurisdictional objections. A final view shall be taken after hearing all concerned,” the HC said in the 80-page order.

Among those acquitted in these cases were Vidyanand, Balwan Khokhar, Mahender Singh Yadav, Dhanpat, Ved Parkash, Ramji Lal Sharma and Shiv Charan.

The HC has taken suo motu notice of the acquittals of the accused in the five cases. On March 25, the Supreme Court asked the Centre to submit files pertaining to 199 cases that were closed by the newly appointed special investigation team.

In the HC, the CBI had placed the trial court records in support of its appeal against the acquittal of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar and other accused.

(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)

The HC noted that the complainants were either not issued summons or sent to the addresses that were destroyed in the riots, as a result of which these could not be served.

Despite noting that the incident had taken place in a densely populated area during daytime, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution, the High Court noted.

“The prosecution is bound to produce the best evidence to support allegations against the accused. However, the responsibility does not rest only on or end with the prosecution. It is the statutory duty of the trial court as well to actively engage with the proceedings to ensure that the truth is brought out and that justice is done.”

The High Court  also pointed out that the trials in these cases concluded within a “short period of three to four months and the final outcome was acquittal of the accused persons”.

“No effort has been made to trace out either the bodies or the stolen material. No statement of the eyewitnesses, including relatives or any other neighbours or other public persons who may have been present, has been recorded. To say the least, the bare notions of investigation do not seem to have been carried out before the challan was filed.”