[Source: BURNING PANJAB News Bureau]

I N T H E C O U R T O F S H R I S . N . D H I N G R A
A D D I. S E S S I O N S J U D G E
K A R K A R D O O M A C O U R T S : D E L H I
S T A T E Vs. S H A Y A M V I R & O T H E R S
F I R N o. 4 2 6 / 8 4
P. S. K A L Y A N P U R I
U N D E R S E C T I O N S : 1 8 8 / 1 4 8 / 4 3 6 I P C R E A D W I T H S E C T I O N 1 4 9 I P C
S E S S I O N C A S E N o. : 3 4 / 9 5

F O R E W O R D
Recently there have been two land mark Judgements which are of special interest to all the 1984 murder and mayhem affected Sikhs families.
A. First Judgement directly relates to worst affected area of Trilok Puri in Delhi. The learned Judge, Shri . S.N.Dhingra Additional Sessions Judge Karkardooma, in telling terms has condemned the murderers, the police and the administration. All have connived for perpetrating these horrible crimes and failed to take any action to punish the guilty. The learned Judge in his Judgement observed " Lt. Governor Gavai , Commissioner of Police Mr. Kaul, and other police officers like Mr. Jatav, Seva Dass , R.D. Malhotra etc. and their political masters under whose instructions the entire police force of Trilok Puri area and Palam Colony area and other areas were made inactive, and became supporter of rioters. They are the real culprits and the persons against whom investigations should have been done to find out their roles and the roles of their political masters". The Judge after berating the police and the administration has decided that the sentence to the accused persons should not only commensorate with the heinousness of the crime, but should be such that it should not only be adequate punishment for the crime but it should have detterent effect on others who intend to choose the path of crime.
B. The second Judgement is in a case Bhajan Kaur Vs. Delhi Administration by Justice Anil Dev Singh, Judge Delhi High Court. The learned Judge in his judgement has clearly and forcefully decided that it is the responsibility of the State to provide protection to the life of an individual . Failing which it must pay due compensation to the victim's family. In this and similar cases the due compensation must be Rupees 3.5 lakhs and not just Rupees 20 thousand given so far.
Copies of the two judgements are being printed and made available to the publicso that they can know as to how the Government,police & administration connived to annihilate the innocent poor people of our country during 1984. Readers are also requested to take up all such cases with the authorities to help the victims to get the enhanced compensation expeditiously.
14th March 1997 J.S. AURORA
President, The Sikh Forum

J U D G M E N T
BRIEF FACTS : This case has arisen out of 1984 riots. Trilok Puri was the worst effected area in Delhi during 1984 riots. The carnage that took place in Block No. 32 of Trilok puri was hair raising. Approximately 2800 Persons were killed as per the officials estimates in Delhi. Out of these 2800 Persons about 400 were killed in Trilok Puri itself and according to prosecution case 95 bodies of those who were murdered in Block No. 32, Trilok Puri only, were recovered on 2.11.1984 itself when Senior Police Officers visited Block No. 32, Trilok Puri ultimately around 9.00 P.M. for the first time.
The prosecution case is that on 2.11.1984 at about 5.45 P.M. message was received at Police Station through Control Room that "MAAR KAAT" was going on the Trilok Puri. This message was recorded vide DD entry No. 12A and the total Police force which moved towards Trilok Puri from police station consisted of one SI Manphool Singh and one Ct. Pat Ram. They proceeded on foot from the police station and reached Trilok Puri Block No. 32 after about 45 minutes. When SI Manphool Singh reached Block No.32 on foot from police station, he found one P.C.R. Van already there at the corner of Block No. 32 . Thereafter i.e. after the reaching of Manphool Singh, came Shoorvir Singh Tyagi with 2-3 police persons of his staff. There was no other force with them. Some force came with other Senior Police Officers afterwards. It is stated by Manphool Singh , S.I. who is I O of the case that after the force came there, he with the help of other constables etc. apprehended 107 persons, rioting and arsoning from different galis of Block No. 32 .There were several injured persons, several ladies and children.Ladies and childern were then removed from there to police station while the several persons who had been injured in the riots, were removed to hospital. He recorded the statement of one Rijju Singh and on the basis of this statement of Rijju Singh he sent Ct. Pat Ram for registration of a FIR at police station ,Kalyan puri. Ct. Pat Ram got FIR No. 426/84 registered with police station , Kalyan Puri and came back with the copy of FIR.
In his alleged statement, Rijju Singh had told the police that he was living at Block No. 32/124, Trilok Puri and was running a shop in a Khokha outside his room. There were about 300 houses belonging to sikhs in Block No. 32,30 & 34 Trilok Puri. All the sikhs were having different professions. After the assassination of Prime Minister of the country on 31.10.1984, on 1.11.1984 around 2.00 P.M. non-sikhs came to Block No. 36 in thousands and they started rioting in Gurudwara. Thereafter, these persons came to Block No. 32 and told us that we had killed Indira Gandhi. When we did not agree to this, they started pressing to us to admit that we had killed Smt. Indira Gandhi and they started rioting. On 2.11.1984 also they continued rioting and at about 3.30 P.M. these rioters, who were thousands in numbers came to Block No. 32 and within no time, the riot took ugly turn and rioters started acting like devils. They burnt the houses of sikhs, they threw brick bats on the houses, they looted the houses, they killed the sikhs, women and children and threw them in burning fire. Due to the riots several persons died. He (Rijju Singh ) somehow saved his life and ran away from there but his wife Gyan Devi and his four children aged between 18 years and 7 years were missing. Several other persons of Block No. 32 also saved their lives by running away from there. His brother-in-law Kartar Singh got killed at the hands of rioters. He might be able to identify some of those who had been caught on the spot.
The 107 persons allegedly arrested from the spot were taken to police station where a list of these persons was prepared. Their personal search was taken and on the next day they were produced before Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari, who sent all of them to Judicial Custody. It is also stated in the challan that on the evening of 2.11.1984, 95 dead bodies of those sikhs who had been killed and murdered were collected from different galis and houses by Manphool Singh SI with the help of the other police force, and these were sent for post mortem, through SI Roshal Lal.
FIR No. 426 of 1984 which was recorded on 2.11.1984 became the omnibus FIR of the riots of 1984 in Trilok Puri, The riot victims of Trilok Puri who had either come to the police station, Kalyan Puri of themselves, or removed there by police or by military, were ultimately placed in a relief camp at Farsh Bazar, police station.
These riot victims of Trilok Puri had their tale of woes to narrate. Each one of them had lost a near and dear at the hands of rioters. When they were at police station, Kalyan Puri no FIR was registered on the basis of statements of these riot victims who had come to police station from Trilok Puri. After they were shifted to Relief Camp at Farsh Bazar, they were interrogated by Manphool Singh S.I. In their interrogation, each and every riot victim named some of those who were responsible for killing their nears and dears, however no separate FIR was registered, about the murders of nears and dears of riot victims within the jurisdiction of police station, Kalyan Puri. No list of those 95 deadbodies was prepared after getting them properly Identified from riot victims by SI Manphool Singh who was I O of the case. 95 persons had been murdered on that day in that Block. Their burnt remains or half burnt bodies were removed by police but no attempt was made to get the scene photographed and to seize the instruments of killing and the material with which they were burnt by the rioters. Police did not obtain 'police custody' of even a single rioter allegedly arrested by the police on the spot to find out from them the other various accomplices and to recover the instruments of murders, the source of getting kerosene oil, petrol etc. by which sikhs were burned alive.
Out of 107 persons, the charges against 93 accused persons were framed by this Court on 4.12.1995. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Other accused namely Suraj Bali, Tilak Raj, Vijay Kumar, Pooran Masi , Rafiq, Nanhe Khan S/o Maqsood Khan, had expired, and accused namely Jai Kishan, Shamim Mohd., Rajinder, Naresh Pal, Pyare Lal ,Mohd. Ismail, Ghan Shyam S/o Rama Swami were declared PO. One accused Asgar was not appearing and proceedings against him were stayed as an application was filed by his counsel that he is mentally unsound. Application was accompanied by Certificate issued by Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences.
PW 8 is Inspector Manphool Singh who was posted at Kalyan Puri as S.I. on 1.11.1984. It was he who was given the DD No. 12 A when wireless message was received at police station that 'MAAR KAAT' was going on in Trilok puri. In his testimony, before the Court, PW-8 had stated that riots had started in Block No. 1 to 10 of Trilok Puri on 1.11.1984. While he was there he received information on wireless that he should go to JPN Hospital as one riot victim had died there in the hospital after receiving injuries with kirpan. He proceeded to JPN Hospital on foot. He was not provided with any vehicle either to petrol the area or to go to hospital. So from Trilok Puri to JPN Hospital he went on foot and reached at the Hospital at about 2.00 A.M. in the night. He remained in the hospital through out that night and the next day of 2.11.1984 and reached back at police station around 5.45 P.M. The moment he reached at the police station he was told to go to Block No. 32,Trilok Puri and he proceeded towards Block No. 32, Trilok Puri along with one Ct. Pat Ram on foot and reached at Block No. 32 after about 45 minutes at about 6.30 P.M. When he reached there, Control Room Van was already there. He found houses of Block No. 32, and 30 on fire. These houses were of riot victims who were sikhs. On seeing the police, rioters moved in back lanes. When more police force came, these rioters who had moved in back lane, were surrounded by the police and caught. In all 107 persons were apprehended on the spot. Manphool Singh recorded statement of one Rijju Singh and sent for registration of FIR. As the number of rioters apprehended at the spot were more and the police force was less, they were all sent to police station, 'Jamatalashi' memos were prepared at police station and apprehended persons had signed those memos. Memos are on record.
It is stated by Manphool Singh, SI that he remained on the spot i.e. Block No. 32, Trilok Puri collecting dead bodies from the area through out the night. All these deadbodies were put by him in two M.C.D. Vans, one half bodied truck and one Nissan truck. Dead bodies were removed from Block No. 32 and 30. The persons who were arrested on 2.11.1984 were produced before Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari on next day and they were sent to Judicial Custody by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
PW-7 is Shoorvir Singh Tyagi. On 2.11.1984 he was SHO of police station, Kalyan Puri. He stated that riots had started in his area on 1.11.1984. On 2.11.1984 at about 5.45 P.M. information about present incident was received through wireless and at that time he was on petrolling duty in the area. He went to Block No. 32 from the side of Block No. 36 and reached at the spot. SI Manphool Singh was already there. He found some houses and jhuggis were still on fire. A PCR Van also reached there. He stated that after reaching there he got the injured persons sent to hospital through Police Van. He sent message to Senior Police Officers for sending more force as he was having only 2/3 Constables with him and there was information of big riots and the rioters were to be arrested and after some time police force started coming there and with the help of the force SI Manphool Singh apprehended 107 rioters from the spot. These 107 rioters after having been arrested, were sent to the police station and case was registered against them. A list of rioters was prepared. The affected families of block No. 32 and 30 were advised to take shelter in the police station and gov-ernment vehicle was provided to transfer them to police station. Case against the rioters, on the basis of statement of Rijju Singh, was registered. SHO Shoorvir Singh Tyagi was suspended from the post of SHO between 2nd and 3rd November, 1984 night. He was suspended because he had not given timely information to Senior Officers about the riots. He stated that on 1.11.1984 also he had received several information of rioting. These informations were given to him by police person who were in the area. No public person had come to police station for lodging the report of rioting. He himself gave the reason that public might not have come to police station out of fear.
PW-2 is Rijju Singh on the basis of statement of whom FIR No. 426 was recorded. In his testimony before the Court he stated that in November he was residing at 32 / 124, Trilok Puri with his wife, two sons Jeet Singh and Dalip Singh and two daughters. On 1.11.1984, around 10-11 A.M. while he was sitting in the park in front of his house, he found people had collected on the roof of Masjid and non-sikhs had also collected on the road side. They were both Hindus and Muslims. When he asked the reason of their collecting there, they told him to go inside the house and nothing would happen. He went to vegetable shop. While he was at the vegetable shop, he found the Muslims who had gathered at Masjid, started shouting slogans and throwing burnt torches (Paleetas). The mob that had collected, started rioting. They first proceeded towards Gurudwara of Block No. 32, Trilok Puri and set Gurudwara on fire. Rioters after setting Gurudwara on fire, started putting houses and shops in Block No. 32 on fire. He concealed himself in a vacant room of one Sonari and saw the rioters burning the entire Block No. 32. The group of rioters were searching left out sikhs with torches. They were talking amongst themselves as to how many sikhs they have killed. On second day, the riot continued and he was rescued by the police on the night of 2.11.1984. By the time police had come, many sikhs had been killed. He was brought to police station, Kalyan Puri where he told police officers that his family members should be searched. They might have fled to Chilla Village. He was told by the police officer, harshly, to keep sitting. On next day, one of his acquaintance, Sadhu Singh met him there. They requested one police person with a gun to search for relatives of Rijju Singh. He stated that he told the police that rioters burnt sikhs' houses and burnt alive sikh persons in Block No. 32. He, however, could not identify any of the accused persons.
In his cross-examination, he stated that when he was at police station two full truck loads of deadbodies were brought to police station.
PW-5 is Head Constable Pat Ram. He stated that he was asked by the IO Manphool Singh to accompany him to Block No. 32. They went on foot to Block No. 32, which was about two and half Km. from the police station. He did not remember as to how many more police officers or police persons were at the police station at that time. When they were going towards Block No. 32 riots were taking place on the way also. But Manphool Singh SI who was accompanying him, did not intervene in those riots and he headed towards Block No. 32 only. When they reached there rioting was still taking place. There were several injured persons in Block No. 32. SHO had also reached the area within 5 minutes of their reaching. Some of the injured persons were sent to hospital by the IO. Accused persons were arrested from the spot and brought to the police station . First thing which the police did at the spot was to remove the injured sikhs, those who were alive, to the Hospital. He stated that he was helping in removal of the injured persons from the places where they were lying, to the vehicle. There might be approximately 10 to 15 injured persons. He stated that all those persons who were found rioting at the spot were arrested and passerbys were not arrested nor any person was apprehended from his home. These rioters were not arrested from one single place. They were at different places and they were arrested from different places within Block No. 32. Police had also chased some of the rioters. A large police contingent had reached there at the spot by the time rucca was being written. He stated that when he took rucca, names and addresses of accused persons who were arrested on the spot were not with him. He stated that he did not personally apprehend any of the accused persons. He was only assisting Manphool Singh in apprehension of accused persons along with other police persons. Their name & addresses were written by Manphool Singh, SI. He also stated that Sardar Ji (Rijju Singh) who gave statement to Manphool Singh was not injured.
Witness Badan Singh is the I0 of the case who investigated the case after Manphool Singh. He stated that he was posted at East District, Delhi as Reserve Inspector. On 4.12.1984, he was temporarily posted to Crime Branch in investigation of riot cases. He recorded the statement of various witnesses and arrested those accused persons who were not earlier arrested. He got the burnt houses photographed, prepared a list of those persons who were killed during riots from the information collected through the victims to the extent it was possible. List of burnt houses of various Blocks of Trilok Puri is Ex. PW-6/A. List is of more than 100 houses which had been burnt in Block Nos. 21, 30, 32, 33 and No. 36. Out of these 100 house 77 houses are of Block No. 32. Ex. PW-6/B is the list of jhuggis which had been burnt. This list consists of 29 jhuggis. Ex. PW-6/C is the list of Gurudwaras burnt at Trilok Puri. There are two Gurudwaras, one of Block No. 32 and second is of Block No. 36. It also consist of two numbers of burnt shops of Block No. 32 situated in house No. 124 and 30 . This list consist of names of 146 person killed. Photographs marked 'A' to 'D' were taken by the photographer. These photographs are of burnt houses. He stated that accused person in this case were already on bail when he was handed over investigation. After completion of investigation challan was filed by him through SHO Satvir Singh Rathi whose signature are at point A. Challan was Ex. PW-6/A.
In cross-examination, this witness had stated that it took several months in investigation of these cases. He was assisted by one H.C. If he needed more staff he used to take it from police station. All the accused persons interrogated by him denied their hands into the riots. He did not recover any instrument of attack during the investigation. He stated that he used to go to Relief Camp almost daily to record the statement of victims. He also went to the new residents of the victims after the victims had left Relief Camp, to record their statement.
PW-1 is Shi S.L. Khurana of Executive Branch of Police Head Quarters. He has proved on record the copies of Curfew Order & Prohibitory Order. Copy of the Curfew Order is Ex . PW-1/A. Copy of Prohibitory Order is Ex . PW-1/B. While Prohibitory Order was issued on 31.10.1984, curfew order was issued on 1.11.1984. As per Ex. PW-1/A Curfew Order was issued from 6.00 P.M. on 1.11.1984 till further order. Witness identified the signatures of then Commissioner of Police S.C. Tandon. He also proved on record the complaint Ex. PW-1/C, made by Sh. V.P. Marwah, Commissioner of Police concerning violation of the curfew orders and for prosecution of the accused persons u/s 188 IPC.
PW-3 is ASI Ganga Ram. He has proved on record FIR No. 426/84. He stated that this FIR was recorded around midnight at about 12:15 on the night of 2nd and 3rd November, 1984, on the basis of rucca sent by SI Manphool Singh through Ct. Pat Ram.
PW-4 is Sanjeev Bhalla L.D.C. from Home Police Department. He has placed on record notification duly certified by Deputy Secretary Home concerning appointment of committee consisting of P. Subhramanyum Poti, retired Chief Justice of Gujrat High Court and P.A. Rosha, retired I.P.S. Officer. Terms of reference of this Committee are given in the notification on Ex. PW-4/A. PW-4/B is another notification dated 30.10.1990 replacing Mr. Justice J.D. Jain in place of Justice P.S. Poti who relinquished his office. Ex. PW-4/C was notification dated 3.10.1990 replacing P.A. Rosha with V.K. Agarwal who relinquished his office.
The testimony of the witnesses examined by prosecution in this case does not give complete picture of the events that took place in Trilok Puri, Block No. 32 on 1st and 2nd November, 1984. However, from the testimony, it is clear that a fiendish violence was unlashed on innocent persons and a wild frenzy of terror, murder, loot and arson had made the residents of Block No. 32, Trilok Puri numb by shock and grief. Out of 107 persons who were arrested by the police on the night of 2nd November, 1984, a few of them were named by the widows, mothers and sisters of those sikhs who had been killed, in their statements to the police. There is no public witness cited for identifying any of these persons as the one who was participating in the riots. The police in fact did not make any of the available public persons as witness of participation of these persons in the riots. The testimony of H.C. Pat Ram, Shoorvir Singh Tyagi and Manphool Singh SI shows that when the police reached Block No. 32, they found most of the houses burning and several injured persons. They removed those injured persons to the hospital. Manphool Singh did not choose to record the statement of any of the injured person who was removed to the hospital, for lodging of FIR. He alleges that Rijju Singh made his statement there in Block No. 32, but Rijju Singh is a witness of general violence, murder and arson. He was concealing himself somewhere in the area. He did see a large crowd of rioters indulging in burning Gurudwaras, houses, shops killing sikhs but since he was himself trying to save his life and of his family, he did not perhaps come out face to face with the rioters, and therefore, could not Identify any of them. He came out of his hiding only when police came and was taken to police station where his statement was recorded. It is not that police could not have recorded the statement of those who were eyewitness to this violence. It is not that the witnesses were not available. According to police ' own admission several injured persons were removed to hospitals. These injured persons were those who had suffered injuries to their person at the hands of rioters and nears & dears had been killed in the violence perpetuated by the rioters, but from the record and the circumstances it seems that police was less interested in bringing truth out and was more interested in suppressing the facts. What has been revealed by the prosecution and the police is much less than what has been concealed by the prosecution and the police.
A perusal of FIR register at police station, Kalyan Puri, containing FIR No. 425/84 shows that prior to recording of FIR No. 426, one FIR No. 425 was recorded at the police station, Kalyan Puri vide DD No. 15 A at 8.45 P.M. on 2.11.1984. This FIR was lodged by R.D. Malhotra, ACP of Kalyan Puri and Gandhi Nagar police station. In his complaint which is subject matter of this FIR, he stated that " one Lt. Col. informed from Darya Gunj that in Block No. 34, Trilok Puri there has been a big riot and appropriate action should be taken. D.C.P. directed him to go to the spot. When he reached the spot, he came to know that in Block No. 32 there were several sikh quarters. On 1.11.1984 the persons in the neighbourhood of this block attacked these sikh houses and even during the night, the persons from the neighbouring places attacked these houses. They burned several houses and killed several persons. SHO, Kalyan Puri, Shri Shoorvir Tyagi had come to the spot but he made no arrangement for the protection of the lives of these sikh persons or their property. Motor Cycle rider Munshi Ram who was petrolling in this area and who had come to the area, gave information about the burning of houses and killing of sikhs, and he asked for sending more force to protect the life & property of these persons . He gave this information to Duty Officer ASI Jugti Ram. ASI Jugti Ram did not take any action to protect the life and property of these persons nor he informed Senior Officers about it. Today on 2.11.1984 there have been big riot at this place in which several houses had been burnt and several persons have been killed. Even about this incident of that day, SHO, Shoorvir Singh did not inform to his Senior Officers nor he made any arrangement for protecting their lives and property. He did not register any case despite cognizable offences being made out nor he arrested any of the rioters responsible for this carnage. Because of these reasons, these three persons (i.e. Shoorvir Singh, Munshi Ram and ASI Jugti Ram) have not fulfilled their official duty properly, and they have committed offences u/s 217 and 221 IPC,and u/s 60 of D.P. Act and a case be registered against them and the investigation be handed over to Satvir Singh Rathi Incharge Anti Auto Theft Squad. Senior Officers have been informed of this incident. The complaint was sent by through Mr. Ramesh Chand, Ct."
This FIR No. 425 of 1984 reveals in so many words as to what was done by the police in Block No. 32, Trilok Puri. This is not the only FIR which reveals the action of the police and specifically of Shoorvir Singh Tyagi. FIR No. 424 dated 1.11.1984 of 3.20 P.M. is another FIR. This FIR was lodged at the report of SI Roshan Lal. In this FIR it is stated by SI Roshan Lal that he was on petrolling duty alongwith Ct. Surinder Singh and Ct. Rajinder Singh in Kalyan Puri area and he received information that in Block No. 11 a large crowd had assembled. On receiving this information he along with constables went to block No. 11, where he found Sh. Mathan Singh alongwith constables Amrit Ram, Prem Singh, Bal Kishore already there. While he was there HC Kanwar Singh, Gajender Singh, Mahender Singh, Mohd. Ali also reached there during petrolling. At about 3.20 P.M. near Main Road of Kalyan Puri near Sanjay Market all these persons met and found that there was a large crowd on two sides and both sides were arguing with each other. During that time some persons came from Trilok Puri made noise and started stoning and burning Khokhas. On this some sikhs went on the roof tops of their houses and started firing from their guns. SHO alongwith Ct. Ashok Kumar, Tej Singh, Naresh Kumar reached at the spot on Government vehicle and he tried to convince and disperse the crowd but crowd did not listen to him and they continued in arson, beating and damaging the property and firing from the guns. SHO finding no alternative, in order to control the mob asked constables to fire. Ashok Kumar Constable fired 7 rounds and Gajender Singh also fired 7 rounds from their 303 rifle in the air. The crowd on this ran away from there and ran towards Khichri Pur Block No. 13 and Kalyan Puri, Vinod Nagar. SHO arrested Shubh Singh s/o Aval Singh alongwith one single Barrel gun and few pellets (Charras ) and Masala Barood, Kabool Singh s/o Budh Singh with one double barrel gun and four live cartidges, Khalsa Singh s/o Boot Singh with one single barrel gun and few Charras and Barood , Dhamra Singh s/o Baru Singh with one single barrel gun and few charras and barood , Saheb Singh s/o Savita Singh with one single barrel gun and few charras , Parsa son of Nathu Singh with one double V.V.L. gun and four live cartidges, Joginder Singh s/o Hakam Singh with one double barrel gun and few Charras, Shyam Singh son of Govind Singh with one broken double barrel gun, Dilbagh Singh s/o Kanwar Singh with one gun and few charras, Desha Singh s/o Chakku Singh with one double barrel gun and few Charras. He stated that these persons were apprehended as they violated Section 147, 148, 149, 436 IPC.
Similarly in FIR No. 423/84, SHO Shoorvir Singh is himself the complainant. In the FIR he stated that on 1.11.1984 at about 2.30 P.M. when he was on petrolling duty alongwith constables and fire arms, he reached Block No. 4 &5 at 2.20 P.M. and took SI Manphool Singh alongwith him and went to Block No. 27, Trilok Puri where HC Rajbir Singh, Ct. Pat Ram, Ct. Rama Nand were already present and they told him that in Block No. 34, Trilok Puri people were roaming in groups and they were talking about the future of the country and about assassination of Prime Minister and they were entering into argument with each other and the situation was quite tense. On this, he (SHO) took HC Rajbir Singh also with him and reached Block No. 32,alongwith Manphool Singh , Pat Ram etc. He found that a large crowd was there in Block No. 32, and they had gathered in groups. In the meantime some people came there in the form of an aggressive crowd and started stoning and started burning khokhas, Jhuggis and started beating sikhs. HC Rajbir Singh and Ct. Pat Ram at the directions of the Inspector Shoorvir Singh fired 5 rounds each in the air in order to control the mob but the crowd kept on rioting and went towards Block No. 36 where they also indulged into arson and stoning. On seeing this he (SHO) fired 5 rounds from his service revolver but the crowd kept on swelling. Brick bating and stoning started between sikhs and other persons. He noticed the commission of offences u/s 147/148/149/426/436 IPC and got the case registered at police station and gave FIR to Manphool Singh SI for investigation of the case and left him at the spot and then made arrangement for sending Constable Pratap Singh to hospital who had received injuries in the stoning. This rucca was sent to the police station, according to FIR registered at SI . No. 423 under the signatures of SHO Shoorvir Singh.
The importance of knowing these FIRs lies to know as to what happened to these FIRs. FIR No. 423 which was lodged under the signatures of SHO Shoorvir Singh on his complaint about the tense situation of Trilok Puri was a fabricated FIR which SHO seemd to have fabricated to conceal his malified inaction and to shield his collusion with the rioters. SI Manphool Singh whose presence is shown in this FIR, in Block No. 32 & 36. Trilok Puri on 1.11.1984 in fact never visited Block No. 32 & 36 on 1.11.1984. He according to his statement made in the Court remained confined to Block No. 1 &10 of Trilok Puri where situation was allegedly tense and from those Blocks of Trilok Puri, he went to hospital on foot under the instructions of SHO, and then returned back to the police station on next day. This FIR was cancelled by the Vigilence. FIR No. 424 shows that SHO was very vigilent in seizing the arms and ammunition in possession of sikhs. He seized the arms and ammunition from 25 sikhs of Kalyan Puri and other areas. FIR No. 425 shows that no information was sent by SHO to any Senior Police Officer about the carnage and the fiendish violence which was taking place in Trilok Puri. SHO, therefore, not only did forgery by forging false FIR to collude with those who were rioting and killing the sikhs, killing innocent persons, setting fire to jhuggis, houses and Gurudwaras, and shops. He was acting in disarming sikhs thereby encouraging the rioters to attack. In his presence in Block No. 32, rioters were killing and pillaging and arsoning.
The picture, which comes clear from these facts is effectively depicted by Rahul Kuldeep Bedi in his article 'Politics of a Pogrom' in the 'Assassination and After' as under :
" Shortly after sunset on 1 Nov., the mob, busy in Block No. 32, Trilok Puri East Delhi, dispersed for dinner. It had built up an appetite. Killing, burning and pillaging the 400 odd sikh families in the Block had, indeed left them hungry. An hour later, their bellies full, they casually strolled back, to the two narrow lanes in the trans jamuna resettlement colony, forcibly plunged into darkness; to join those already hard to work.
Labouring at a leisurely pace they split open Lachman Singh's skull and pouring kerosene into the gash set alight the half-alive man in front of Gyan Devi, his wife. Balwant Singh, who tried to escape after shaving himself, had his eyes gouged out before he too was similarly burnt. Sarb Singh, his terror stricken father in law, watched. The spot continued, Interspersed with solicitous visits from the local police to ensure that things were going well.
The calculated carnage in Delhi and over 80 towns in the country had begun. The pattern was similar all over, the brutality unbelievable and barbaric, the tragedy unspeakable. It lasted four days and left over 1700 sikhs dead, 1200 in Delhi alone, besides several hundred crores worth of property pillaged and gutted. It also left a volatile and proud community humbled and beleagured. 'Where do we go from here?' is the unanswered question in the eyes of every sikh, refugee or otherwise.
On 1 November all exit points from Trilok Puri have been sealed off by massive concrete pipes. Conscientious men from the colony, armed with lathis, guarded the pipes, barely a kilometre from two police stations- Patparganj and Kalyan Puri - to ensure that no sikh escapes. Also, that no one except the police set foot into Trilok Puri.
Around 2 O' Clock on 2 November, three newspaper reporter - joseph Maliakan and myself, of the Indian Express and Alok Tomar of Jansatta manage to enter Trilok Puri. Just about the time that the killers, having toiled for 30 long and uninterrupted hours, were scouring Block No. 32 for booty or any young sikh that inadvertently, they may, have overlooked. As if , around 350 Sikhs already killed and an equal number of looted and burnt houses was not enough . Besides the police , we three are the first non residents to enter Trilok Puri since the assassination of Indira Gandhi two days earlier.
There is no need to ask directions to Block No. 32. As our car skirts the cement pipes we run smack into a miasma of hatred and tension. Following an almost tangible wall of shifty eyes and guilty visages, we turn to the fateful Block. Resident of other blocks lining both sides of the narrow street, watch impassively as we progress hesitantly towards Block No. 32 closing ranks behind us. Near Block No. 29, fifty yards from where the butchering is still in progress, the massive crowd parts, to make way for two constables from the Kalyan Puri police station, racing a motor cycle away from Block No. 32. The human wall seals off the Block after the policemen roar past.
Signalling the rider to stop, we ask what the situation is in Block No. 32. 'Nothing to worry about. Only two People have been killed' he shouts over his shoulder, barely stopping. The growl of the powerful motor cycle recedes into an eerie silence. A few yards further and our car is stopped. Arms akimbo, the mob closes in around us. A short statured man in his mid-30s dressed in a kurta and pajama steps up and asks us where we are headed to. 'Block No. 32 is that way' he says pointing in the opposite direction, the way we have come.
A brick sails through the air ; hitting the windscreen. It is followed by a barrage of stones. With a howl, the mob, drunk on the aphrodisiac of killing and pillaging, begins to close in. The omnipotent legend 'Press' boldly lettered on the front and rear of the car has effect. 'Just leave' the self styled mob leader tells us. We do.
Ten minutes later at the Kalyan Puri police station, the duty officer, with a service revolver strapped to his side, tells us that nothing of consequence has happened in Trilok Puri. No deaths have been reported in the area which is under their jurisdiction, he claims.
A swarm of flies hovering over the back of a truck parked in the police station premises attracts us. Inside it lies half burnt , barely alive Tarseem Singh, lying atop several corpses, charred beyond recognition . He had come from Punjab to visit relatives in Trilok Puri and had been caught by the mob that morning, doused with kerosene and set afire. 'The Station House Officer (SHO) sahib knows about these deaths' , says the duty officer, 'but he is in Delhi since early morning in connection with some post mortem case and will deal with them on return. It is evident that the police are too preoccupied with their duties . They have no time for Block No.32.
A Plume of smoke spirals upwards from half charred bodies. Two lanes of Block No.32, an area of around 500 square yards inhabited by around 450 sikh families, is littered with corpses, the drains choked with dismembered limbs and masses of hair. Cindered human remains lie scattered in the first 20 yards of the first lane. The remaining 40 yard stretch of the street is strewn with naked bodies, brutally hacked beyond recognition. Lifeless arms hang over balconies; many houses have bodies piled three-deep on their doorsteps.
'Take me away' wails a three year old girl. Crawling from under the bodies of her father and three brothers and stepping over countless others lying in her one roomed tenement, collapsing into the arms of a reporter.
'What is our fault? whimpers a crippled mother, a polio victim sitting in her doorway, surrounded by corpses, shielding her two month old baby. She makes us promise that we will guard her house after she left. She had bought a television and new clothes just three days earlier. Kewal Singh, perhaps one of the few surviving young men of Block No. 32, has tied his turban round his stomach, slashed open 24 hours earlier and gasps for water.
Slowly, survivors, mainly women and children, begin emerging from inside their homes. They are dazed, and without any emotion. They have no tears to shed.
'The Muslims are responsible for this carnage' says Shoor Vir Singh, nimbly side-stepping corpses. He is arrested an hour later for his complicity in the killings.
Back in the Police Headquarters, Nikhil Kumar justifies the absence of the police in Trilok Puri, despite earlier alerts by reporters, on the specious ground that he has performed his duty by informing the police control room. But so had Mohan Singh, the only one who escaped from Block No. 32 in the early hours of 2 November .' In any case'. Nikhil Kumar Shrugs, 'I am a guest artist here, on posting orders out of Delhi'. The Senior Police Officer also claims credit for informing the army Captain stationed inside the police control room, two floors above.
Hukum Chand Jatav, another IPS Officer, Additional Commissioner of police, says that he has just returned from a tour of the trans-Jamuna colonies, particularly Trilok Puri. Nothing is amiss. His Deputy Commissioner of Police Seva Dass, IPS , has confirmed that all is quiet in the district.
Arriving in Block No.32 well after sundown, the arrogantly complacent Jatav refuses to walk more than 15 yards down in the corpse laden alley. 'I have seen enough', he says."
It is not true that Police Head Quarters was totally unaware of what was happening in Trilok Puri. Some of the persons who had come to know of the Carnage in Block No. 32 of Trilok Puri, gave specific information to the Police Head Quarters. One Mohan Singh of Block No. 32 had been able to save his life and run away from Block No.32 and went to offices of News Papers and reported what was happening in Block No. 32. As a matter of fact Mohan Singh and as conscitous citizens, the reporters of Indian Express Sh.Rahul Kuldeep Bedi and Joseph Malikan tried their best to get help to prevent further carnage in Block No32. But they were unsuccessful. They officially lodged a complaint with Commissioner of Police on Nov., 5 1984 of criminal negligence against Hukam Chand Jatav Addl. Commissioner of Police, Nikhil Kumar and Seva Dass, DCP, East District.
As is clear from the prosecution case police force reached Block No. 32 at 8.45 P.M. just to see corpses of those who had been killed by the rioters and to count the number of persons killed and the number of houses, shops & jhuggis burnt.
It is not only the police apathy, in-action and absence there during the riots but the entire conduct of the police and the Government after the riots confirm a total lack of concern for those who had been killed and showing of a great concern for those who had killed.
During first week of Nov. 1984 about 1000 innocent persons were killed by the killers, let loose because of the deliberate in- action of the police and Government. If there would have been no participation of the police and the Government of the day, in these riots, they would have honestly taken action against those who were involved in killing to punish those who had acted in total disregard of human values, constitutional mandate and the dignity of the nation. Unless it is to be stated that our Constitution is merely a rhetoric and it is a charter of unreasonable goals, the lives of the poor persons are as valuables as the lives of rich and powerful. Every citizen, be he is lowest or the highest in social, political or economic status is entitled to all those rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution and which is the basic right of every human being. A citizen has a basic right of being protected by the Government of the day from onslaught of criminals, rioters and those powerful persons who want to oppress them and suppress them. This is the fundamental condition of existence of a state. No state can exist on earth, if the citizens of that state are not protected by Government from the attack of criminal, rioters and powerful and rich offenders. In fact the basic theory of formation of state is that individuals surrendered their rights to the state and agreed to follow the commands of the ruler so that the ruler would protect the masses from internal and external aggressions. Where a ruler refused to protect the masses, the poor and innocent persons from the onslaught of internal aggressors, the ruler losses the legitimacy of its governess.
The inaction and injustice of the Government to the improvished victims looked like a well thought decision of those who were ruling this country, and it was considered just right and that the massacre was necessary to teach a lesson and those who engineered the mass murders, must be protected. The riots in Trilok Puri was a strategic use of poor as rioters against the poor and innocent sikhs in settling scores by those who considered an individual personality above the nation and the society. The poor became cannon fodder for the powerful.
Violence by the Government is not restricted to observable physical conflict and injury by a Government servant. Government violence can take various manifestations. When the Government machinery instead of repressing the rioters was satisfied by issuing statements and refused to send security force for protecting the lives of innocents, the rioters in fact got transformed into the state agents of violence. When the Government protected those who were involved in the carnage and refused to register cases as per law against those who were named by the victims, the Government became defender of the action of the rioters, who had become Government agents of violence.
POST RIOT ACTS
In the riots in Trilok Puri , 95 deadbodies were collected by the police on the night of 2.11.1984. Most of these deadbodies were of burnt persons. Their post mortem is a joint post mortem conducted by Doctor giving a common report of death by burning. Most of evidence against riots was wiped out by the rioters initially and later on by the police.
In most of the post mortem reports and the inquest reports, the deadbodies recovered has been described as a burnt Torso and burnt skull without limbs. That would show that the limbs of the victims were chopped off. A description of the site of Block No. 32 as given above would show limbs of the victims were scattered here and there. Police had a battery of photographer of various Crime Cells and police stations but not a single photograph of the place of occurrence, of the deadbodies or of the burning houses or of the riots taking place, was taken by these photographers. The Investigating Officers did not make any attempt to collect the photographs of the riots from other agencies who had taken the photographs. Several press photographers, media persons for national and international dailies were active in taking photographs of the riots and sending it to their respective newspaper and journals. If the investigating agency would have wanted to know as to who were the rioters, they would have easily collected these photographs from different persons and identified at least those who were visible from the photographs. But, this was not done.
In all criminal cases where heinous crimes are investigated, the Investigating Officer seek police remand of the accused persons to find out the missing links of the chain of events and to seize the pieces of evidence which are disclosed by the accused persons. Here in this case, there was open allegations of conspiracy and organisation of riots by few influential and powerful persons. There were allegations of supply of inflammable material, transport and money to the rioters but Investigating Officer and the Senior Police Officers of the police station as well as Seniormost Police Officers of the Delhi Police, did not think it proper that police remand of few of those leading figures who had openly participated in the riots, be taken to find out the powerful persons behind the conspiracy. In the riots in Trilok Puri, the names of few most active persons were told by victims to the police and voluntary organisations and allegations of mass murders were made against these persons, but, police remand of not even a single accused persons was taken to find out the truth and to collect the evidence and to join the missing links of this heinous crime of murder of more than 200 persons.
It is not only that police did not do its duty of investigating the crime properly but it is that police deliberately did not collect the evidence against the accused persons who were involved in this fiendish act of murder of more than 200 persons in one Block. The record filed with the court shows that police was a party in protecting the accused persons and in wiping out the evidence against the accused persons. Every house that was burnt, was looted and the looted articles could be found out in the house of those who had looted the houses of sikhs. These persons were not unknown persons or who had come from somewhere out side Delhi. Most of the rioters were either from Trilok Puri itself or from the neighbouring places. Instead of taking house searches to find out looted articles, police adopted novel method of recovery of stolen property. The police made announcements in the area that all looted articles should be placed on the road by the rioters and no action would be taken against the rioters. Then police collected these articles lying on the road as unclaimed articles U/s 102 Cr. P.C. This process must have been repeated time and again by the police as the seizure memos placed on record by the police show that for about 20 days from time to time police used to visit the same places and recover the unclaimed articles lying at those places. In this manner, I0 Manphool Singh had recovered unclaimed articles from the streets of Block No. 30, 32 and 34. In all the seizure memos, the place of recovery has been shown on roads near cement pipes and park, near latrines and drains. It cannot be that the I.0. was going at the spots daily and seizing only part of the property, and leaving rest of the property there, to be seized on next day by another seizure memo. These seizure memos prepared by the Investigating Agency of seizing the property from the roads and not showing the recovery of the property from the house of the accused only helped the accused persons in wiping out material evidence of their participation in the riots. A large number of victims of riots had died, and the eye witnesses had either fled away from the area or were terror stricken, the recovery of looted property from the house of rioters would have been a most valuable evidence of the participation in the riots, but this evidence was deliberately destroyed by the investigating agency. If it is believed that upto 3.11.84, when the riots were actually taking place, the situation was such that it was beyond the control of the police and there was no participation of the police, it was merely helpnessness of the police; then the subsequent investigation of these crimes would have been done honestly by the police and the criminals and rioters, would have been brought to book. But the subsequent conduct of the police, in saving the rioters and in destroying the evidence would compel any court to draw an adverse inference against police and the investigating agency being hand in glove with the rioters and acting under the directions of those unseen powerful persons who were behind all this. Is it not surprising that 200 murders were being investigated by one SI with the help of a constable or Head constable here and there upto 22.11.84, and thereafter again when the I O changed, the entire investigation for all these murders was being done by another SI solely? If the murders of more than 200 innocent persons was not sufficient to require a high level investigation according to police norms? What more heinousness of a crime is required to attract a high level investigation, than 200 murders in one block of a colony and burning of equal number of houses and robbery and looting of equal number of houses. In the name of Investigation in all these heinous crimes, police has just done nothing except recording few distorted statements of surviving riot victims, mostly ladies who were widows, mothers or sisters of those who had been killed. Most of them were terror striken, numbed and dumbed by tragedy of losing of male members of their family seeing them being burnt alive before their own eyes. Perhaps most of them were not even in a position to describe the fiendish acts of the rioters. Moreover the attitude of the police in letting off the rioters and not recording the FIRs and in not recording those statement in which names of some of the influential persons were given had further filled them with the fear of recurring attacks upon them. This is amply clear from the observation of justice Rang Nath Misra Commission in its report, extracts given below :
" Grievances was made that the victims were afraid filing affidavits disclosing the true state of affairs as such disclosure was bound to be against people in the party in power, officers of Government and mainly the police,also influential persons of the respective localities. Initially the Commission was of the view that unless concrete incidents were placed before it, it would be difficult to assume a genuine basis for such apprehension. By August 9, 1985 , which was the last date for receipt of affidavits in terms of the Commission's Notification, a solitary affidavit had been received. The Commission, therefore, extended the time for receipt of affidavits by one further month and issued fresh Notification in several newspapers publicising the fact of such extension. The information was also duly given out through the All India Radio and Doordarshan. Within the extended time, 2905 affidavits were received by the Commission in regard to the incidents of Delhi."
"While deponents were being cross-examined, constant complaints used to be received of Interference and harassment at all the three places. Some of the victims stated that they were threatened by the local police, rioters of the locality as also others and were told not to appear before the Commission. In view of the grievances made and the multiplying complaints, the Commission had to send its Officers from the Investigating Team to different areas with a view to generating confidence in the vicitims and the summoned deponents in the main. On several occasions the Commission had even to direct police protection to be provided to persons who had been or were about to be examined before."
It is not only that investigation was being tempered, but no FIR was being recorded by the police in case of fresh crimes coming to the knowledge of the police which had been committed from 1.11.84 onwards. While on 2.1184, IO Manphool Singh recovered 95 dead bodies from the spot and lodged a general FIR of the riot without mentioning about the murder of 95 persons in the FIR, when subsequently after 2.11.84 more deadbodies were recovered from various places in Trilok Puri, showing involvement of various other persons and various other spots of crime, no FIR was recorded by the police. The post mortem reports and the applications which were sent along with the dead bodies and the Inquest Reports sent along with the deadbody show that deadbodies were received at mortuary for post mortem on various dates. The Initial receipt of deadbodies was 4.11.84. Subsequently more deadbodies were recovered by the police from the area and they were sent for post mortem on 5.11.84, 6.11.84 and 7.11.1984. The stamp put by the mortuary on the post mortem reports show various dates of receipt of deadbodies. This would show that despite the fact that daily the commission of henious crimes described in IPC, was being disclosed to the police, but no FIR was being recorded. It is not a requirement of law that for recording of a FIR the statement of a public person should be there. A FIR can be recorded whenever commission of a crime comes to the knowledge of the police persons either out of the circumstances or from any public persons. Recovery of deadbodies was sufficient to record a FIR of murder and to investigate and find out the culprits but this was not done.
Justice Ranganath Misra Commission made following observations on this count :
"It is fact and the Commission on the basis of satisfaction records a finding that first information reports were not received if they implicated police or any person in authority and the information were required to delete such allegations from written reports. When oral reports were recorded they were not taken down verbatim and brief statements, dropping out allegations against police or other officials and men in position, were written. Several instances have come to the notice of the Commission where a combined FIR has been recorded in regard to several separate incidents .
The Commission had noticed on several occasions that while recording FIRs serious allegations have been dropped out and though the case was in fact a serious one, in view of the dropping out of the major allegations, a minor offence was said to have been committed. The Commission was shocked to find that there were incidents where the police wanted clear and definite allegations against the anti- social elements in different localities to be dropped out while recording FIRs. Unless the police were hand in glove with the anti- social elements in their respective localities they would not have behaved that way."
In fact a farce was being played in the name of investigation by the police and the Administration. If the proper and honest investigation of these crimes was done, a large number of police officials would have had to stand in the dock as accused person alongwith others. They could not have investigated the crimes to make themselves as accused persons. It was not something new. It has always happened that whenever either some influential person was involved in an offence or some senior police official was involved in the offence, police has always distorted the investigation and had deliberately mis-investigated, so as to absolve their senior officers or those powerful persons from the crime. Look at what happened in the investigation of FIR No. 425. This Investigation was handled by Shri S.S. Rathi, the SHO who had succeeded Shoorvir Singh Tyagi. FIR was by name against Shoorvir Singh Tyagi and Jugti Ram ASI. These two persons were arrested on the night intervening 2nd and 3rd November, 1984 . None else but ACP R.D. Malhotra was the maker of FIR. In his statement Shri. R.D. Malhotra, had specifically stated that no information was sent to police Head Quarters about the massacre and carnage and the riots going on in Block No. 32 on 1.11.1984 and 2.11.1984. But all the accused in this FIR were discharged as a result of investigation done by the police. What does that mean? That means only one thing that ACP R.D. Malhotra was a liar and he had lodged a false report. If he had lodged a false report, he should have been prosecuted for making a false FIR but it was a game being played by the police with the fate of the common man and police succeeded in its game. The same police, who remained ineffective during the riots, and against who several allegations were made, whether recorded or not, about participating in riots alongwith the rioters, in the commission of heinous crimes, was the Investigating agency in respect of FIRs. Could it be expected from this police that it would have investigated the crime? No doubt Riots Cell and Special Cell and Vigilence Branches were involved in the entire make believe facade, but all the officials were from the rank and file of the Delhi Police and you cannot expect a Sub Inspector, Delhi Police to give an investigation report that his DCP or ACP was involved in the crime or a politician or any powerful person was involved in the crime.
It was a fit case where the Investigating Agency should have been totally independent of Delhi Police and not under the influence of local politicians or powerful persons. Then only the real culprits could have been brought to the book and the hidden hands behind the riots could have been exposed.
This was not to be done because those who were ruling the country, were not interested that the criminals should be brought to the book. The attitude of the Administration and the Government was fabling from the very beginning. The Government was not even prepared to appoint any Inquiry Commission into the riots. It is only when the demand for inquiry acquired an emotive fervour in trouble torn Punjab that the appointment of Justice Ranganath Misra Commission was announced U/s 3 of Commission of Inquiry Act. Prior to 1984 more than 10 Commissions to inquire into Communal disturbance, had been appointed under the Commission of Inquiry Act. Notable among those are Malegaon (1967), Jainpur and Suchetpur (1967), Ranchi and Hatiya (1967), Ahmedabad (1969), Bhivendi (1971), Jamshedpur (1979), and Hyderabad (1984). All these Inquiry Commissions were appointed soon after the disturbances took place. Only in case of Male Gaon the time gap between the riots and the appointment of Commission of Inquiry was a little more than one month. It is only case of 1984 carnage that Commission of Inquiry was appointed after six months. The Commission could not commence its work properly as it wanted to have its own Investigating Agency U/s 5(A) of the Act. The Administration was not cooperative, and the Commission was obliged to issue a stern order on 5.11.85 and the Investigating Agency of the Commission could take a shape in Nov., 1985 i.e. one year after the riots. The Commission submitted its report in August, 1986. The Government took six months' time to place it before Parliament and it was placed before Parliament in Feb., 1987. The Commission after coming to conclusion that the riots in Delhi were not organised by the ruling party as a whole, recommended setting up of further three Committees. First was to ascertain the death toll in the riots. Second Committee was to inquire into deliquencies and the good conduct of police, and third committee was to recommend registration of criminal cases and to monitor the result there of. The Committee which was to inquire into deliquencies and good conduct of the police identified a dozen police officials who had done a credible job in the riots and recommended action against 72 police officials. The report suggested summary dismissal of six police officials. They included the high ranking Senior Police officials like Chandra Prakash, Seva Dass and Hukam Chand Jatav. The complete report of this Committee has not even been published. This report indicted 5 of then DCPs and four of then ACPs and 22 of then SHOs including SHO Trilok Puri , Shoorvir Singh. The Administration and the Government did not take any action against any of the police officials. Those police persons who were arrested on the evening of 2.11.84, were reinstated and reestablished and later on promoted. No departmental action had been taken against any of the police officials for any of the act or omission done by the police. All this reflects the kind commitment the Government had towards bringing the guilty to the book. It is not only this. When CBI Team after investigating a case against Sajjan Kumar and finding him to be involved in the riots, went to arrest him on 11.9.1990, a mob surrounded them and they were held captive for more than four hours. As per affidavit filed by CBI later in the Court, "Delhi Police was prepared to disperse the mob subject to assurance from CBI that he (Sajjan Kumar ) would not be arrested." CBI also disclosed that the file relating to the case prepared by Jain Banerjee Penal was found in the office of Sajjan Kumar. According to CBI the then Government Counsel R.K. Anand never returned the file. Sh. Anand in this case represented Sajjan Kumar and got him anticipatory bail while CBI team was held captive. What action was taken by administration against the accused who had collected a mob and threatened of lynching in case of his arrest.
The inaction of the police, the inaction of the Government and the Administration in the riot cases was a well thought-of process. It was necessary to save those who were involved in the crime. Perhaps it was considered by the rioters and the rulers alike that the massacre was necessary to teach a lesson and those who engineered the mass murders must be protected. The riots itself showed the decay of State. In fact it was withering away of the State and the aftermath of riots was a story of decay for State's sovereignty. During the riots, the rioters brandishing knives and clubs were sweeping through the streets of Delhi. They were hacking or clubbing to death innocent persons. They could pillage unhampered and kill at will.
Apathy of Government to the victims was writ large. From 10 November 84 the Government callously started forcibly sending riot victims back to the colonies from which they had fled, in which they had seen their relatives being burnt alive just a week before, in which their houses were nothing but burnt out shells,in which the very gundas and police men they had seen loot, burn and kill roamed freely.
The closing of relief camp was stayed through court order obtained by People's Union for Democratic Rights.
In his statement before Court Mr. S.S. Rathi ACP has told the Court that the investigation was being done in the manner it has been done at the instance of Senior Police Officers. No separate cases were being registered, because Senior Officer never wanted so. He had no answer as to why police remands were not obtained and why raids to recover pillaged property were not conducted.
In Nov. 1984 and thereafter when the victims of 1984 riots were demanding justice and punishment to those who were responsible for killing of the innocent persons, the rulers of the day fixed a price of Rs. 10,000/- per head and that was the end of the justice for them. No interest was taken by those in the power to see that the criminals are booked and punished. Citizen's Commission which was constituted by prominent citizens of this country including Shri Govind Narain, Shri Rajeshwar Dayal, Shri B.F.H.S. Tayabji, Shri. T.C.A. Sri Niwasvardhan and Shri. S.M.Sikri wrote a letter dt.20.12.84 to the then Home Minister Sh. P.V. Narsimha Rao, appealing for taking certain steps so that justice could be done to the victims (Page 50 Citizen's Commission Report). But it seems that neither the Home Minister nor the Minister of law & Justice nor any one else in the Government was interested in doing anything except window dressing or doing an eye wash by issuing statements. But when it came to saving the prominent persons in the Government each one was taking lead from other. They would not register cases against them and they would give such statements which could save the prominent leaders. Sh. R.S. Sethi, the then District Magistrate gave following testimony before Justice Ranganath Misra Commission :
"I did not see any political leader of any party moving about to support the rioters' mobs. In view of the fact that I was freely moving about during that period and came across several mobs in different areas, I am in a position to say that if they had really come out and join the mobs, I could have seen them."
From the above statement of the District Magistrate, it appeared that during rioting he was freely moving about in the areas where riots were taking place and was able to see the mob and their leaders who were participating in the riot and among those leaders of the mob, there was no political leader. District Magistrate is the highest functionary of a District for the maintenance of law & order. If he was moving freely and seeing the rioters' mobs, indulging in riots, what more information was required by the District Administration for curbing these riots. Cannot it be said that he did not take timely steps to curb the riots as he was a party to the riots and he gave this statement just to save some few powerful persons, Under Sections 130 & 131 of Cr.P.C. power has been given to the Executive Magistrate of the highest rank, who is present at spot of riotous assembly, which cannot be dispersed otherwise than by use of armed forces to summon armed forces. Such Magistrate can require any officer in command of any person or group of persons, belonging to armed forces to disperse the assembly with the help of armed forces under his command and to arrest and confine such persons forming assembly of rioters as the Magistrate may direct. Sub-Section 3 of Section 130 Cr. P.C. make it mandatory for every such officer of armed forces to obey the requisition of armed forces and to obey the orders of Executive Magistrate for dispersing the mob. If Shri R.S. Sethi was a witness to the riots and rioters' mobs and killing of the persons and could say with the authenticity that there was no political leader of any party among the rioters, than he was also a party to the killings of these persons by not performing his duty. Same Shri R.S. Sethi told the Commission as under.
"My impression is that the senior police officers were anxious to maintain law and order at any cost. They were, however, not fed with appropriate and timely information by the police officers in the different areas in the field. I am prepared to substantiates this impression of mine by facts. For instance, in Trilok Puri killings were about 260. The Commissioner of Police in the meeting called by the Lt. Governor on the basis of information collected by him, disclosed this figure to be between 20 and 30. Same was the situation in Palam Colony. As against actual deaths of 300 the police statement disclosed deaths of about 30-40 persons. I moved from house to house in Palam Colony along with Mr. Ashok Pradhan who was helping in relief operations. I saw the same situation in Trilok Puri area. My own impression is that the local police did not at all act effectively in controlling the situation."
In answering the question of the Commission as to whether it was a case of positive negligence or one of callousness or inattention, Shri Sethi stated :
" I do not think it is a case of open participation but to my mind it seems to be a case where under pressure they remained away from duty and ceased to be effective with a few exceptions. Some SHOs were very effective and dutiful. About 25% to 30% of these SHOs were found effective. All others remained indifferent and did not come up to the mark".
The Commission wanted a clarification as to the meaning of 'pressure' and Shri Sethi stated :
"I refer to local political pressure but in the absence of any positive material I cannot name the source of pressure. It is, however, a fact that the police remained ineffective as if something had happened to keep them away from their duty."
From the above statement of Shri R.S. Sethi, it would appear that Shri Sethi also reached the spot only when the destruction had already been done, the houses had been burnt and Trilok Puri area and other areas were littered with the severed limbs, deadbodies and charred remains of deadbodies. It cannot be believed that Shri R.S. Sethi was having no means of communication either with the Lt. Governor or with the high ranking police officials. If he was seeing the rioters looting, burning and killing here and there, in the streets of Delhi, what prevented him from giving this information to the Lt. Governor and to the Police Head Quarters and what prevented him from calling the army himself. The specific plea taken by the Lt. Governor and the Commissioner of Police and the Addl. Commissioner of Police Shri Kaul before the Commission had been that there was no communication and the Police Head Quarters was not getting real picture of the destruction. Thus it would appear that the statement made by Shri Sethi before the Commission that he was roaming around in Delhi and looking at the rioters' mobs and didn't find any particular leader in those mobs, was either a patently false statement just to save the skin of his political masters or despite having full knowledge of the riots, he deliberately did not give Communication of these riots to the then Lt. Governor, Shri Gavai and Sr. Police Officers.
Same has been the attitude of Shri Gavai who was removed from Governorship during riots. He also gave clean chit to the powerful persons . This Shri Gavai later on joined the band wagon of that political party, the members of whom he was saving by his statement before the Commission.
After the riots all attempts were made by the ruling class to see that those rioters who acted worse than wild animals got scot free. The Administration did not prefer appeals against those judgements and orders where the orders were patently illegal and the Administration had been advised to prefer the appeal. In Narela, two widows Tarseen Kaur and Davinder Kaur had identified the main accused as part of the mob and killer of their husband but that accused was acquitted by disbelieving the statement of widows on the ground that they had made false statement to escape paying their dues for three months milk supply. APP recommended that the decision should be challenged before the High court but it was rejected by the Administration (S/v Kundan & others). Similarly Jain Banerjee panel in another case S/v Mahesh and others, recommended for reopening case of S/v Mahesh and others, as the prosecution had not registered proper case against those in that case and the case was dismissed; but the Government rejected the recommendation of Jain Banerjee Panel and did not recommend the reopening. The Government dragged its feet on all those affidavits in which the names of political leaders were given by the victims as the accused persons. Those affidavits are still lying with the Government for scrutiny. Wherever and to whatsoever extent Government could protect by its acts and omissions. It protected all those connected with the 1984 riots, be they were rioters themselves or they were police officials or they were functionaries of the political party.
Violence is not necessarily a positive act. Think of a mother who in order to get rid of an unwanted infant child, stops feeding her and looking after her and the child dies. Mother has not done any positive act of violence, but simply has stopped performing her legal duty of feeding the child and looking after her but she is guilty of murder under law. Citizens are not permitted to keep private armies of private police because the duty and obligations of protecting the citizens from the hands of criminals is that of the State. The State failed to discharge this duty and obligations. The hands of those who were responsible for discharging the obligation on behalf of the Government are, therefore, definitely stained with the blood of hundreds of innocent persons.
The highest duty of the Government is to protect the citizens. where a Government refuses or neglects to protect the citizens, the very legitimacy of the Government or its executive wing which is responsible for protecting is questioned and doubted. A ruler whose subjects are not given protection when they are oppressed by criminals, murderers and cheats is as good as dead, though living (Mannu Smriti VII ).
The citizen required protection not only against thieves, cheats and thugs but also against wicked officers of the rulers. Royal favourites and more than all against greed of the ruler himself. The king should ensure the people against these fears (Kamandka-v).
One of the primary duty of the state is the preservation of society and prevention of conflict of interest among various communities in the State. A ruler which showed partiality and is decietful, is bound to be destroyed as a consequence of injustice.
The ruler, under whatever system of polity, is largely responsible for state of nation or society and whether people in general are virtuous or not largely depends upon the character and conduct of the ruler and his capacity to enforce rule of law (Dharma).
In Mahabharta Shanti Parve (67-90) the wisdom of the ages is squeezed in following words :-
" Whether is it the ruler who is the maker of the age or the age that makes the ruler, is a question about which there is no room for doubt, The ruler is undoubtedly the maker of age."
Thus from 1984 onwards an era of political economy of violence was ushered-in by the rulers with a total disregard to the constitutional values and the commitment of the nation to the human values.
If it was police which was earlier primarily acting as a tool and instrument in the hands of ruling class, now the time has come when even the bureaucracy is acting as agents of their ruling masters and not as committed persons, committed to the Indian masses. Every day Governmental lawlessness had to be checked by proper mechanism and the procedures at the Government level but when the bureaucracy and the police stand committed to the rulers and not to the people, the Government lawlessness goes on increasing. The riots that took place in Delhi and other places in the country after Indira Gandhi's assassination, should be considered a water shed in the history of riots in general and communal riots in particular. While there was an identifiable target group, it was not a signal so much for communal clash but an invitation for the lumpan elements to make most of the situation. This demonstrated the shape of things to come in the nation for the future. The police political nexus is not only in Delhi or at any particular place or between one party or a particular party in any state. It is a phenomena which is prevalent through out India. In 'Violence and Responses' P.R. Raj Gopal an ex Indian Police Service Officer and winner of Padam Shri Award wrote as under :-
"The police-political nexus has been brought out very strongly in a case reported from Calcutta. An Indian Administrative Service Officer who was holding the rank of Secretary to the West Bengal Government had written an article in a national daily 'The Telegraph', Calcutta, that a friend of his had approached the Station House Officer of the police station of his jurisdiction and complained to him about the danger that he apprehended to his life from certain people who he had named. Since SHO would not move in the matter, the I.A.S. Officer himself had spoken to the Additional Superintendent of Police of the District. Inspite of this, no action was taken and his friend was murdered by the very person against whom complaints had been made at the police station. The officer writes: ''The man who have committed the heinous deed are known. Will they be brought to Book? I do not think as.......... More than the men who wielded the instrument of death, it is those whose patronage they enjoy, who deserve to be hanged............ Do the minions of law dare touch them? The answer is no'' (Page 53)
In ' 1968 Khosla Commission observed as under :
"Independent India must ......choose whether she will have a people's police or a ruler appointed police, in other words whether the people should rule or the party should rule. The Constitution has laid down that people themselves are the rulers,so the police must also be the people's police"
Indeed, Indian Independence has not made any substantial difference to the organisation and functioning of the police. This has been the conclusion of a large number of state police commissions appointed by State Governments and reiterated by scholarly studies. The police administration stands despite nearly fifty years of Independence 'where it was in 1861. The political masters do realise that the police machine in India is outdated as well as ruthless. But any effort to improve it will make it less amenable to its dictator" (Upendra Baxi-1982).
Since Independence nearly 200 judicial commissions of Inquiry have indicated public personages various charges but virtually no punitive action is followed. The Indian people are now experiencing helplesslycorruption and violence as the daily miscrophrasism of political power. It looks like as if most of powerful persons considered themselves wholly outside the pale of law.
Murders in Trilok Puri had taken place in November, 1984. Report u/s 173 Cr. P.C. was filed by the police before the court on 20.12.85. The accused persons named in the report u/s 173 Cr. P.C. were summoned to appear in the court in December, 1985. From Dec. 1985 till July, 1995, the order sheet of the court in this case has been nothing but an attendance register of the accused persons. For almost ten years the accused persons used to come to the court, take a date and go back. The case was never opened. The case involved 194 accused persons. Out of these 194 persons, 107 were those who were allegedly arrested by the police on the spot and remaining were those who were arrested by the police later on, on the basis of statements of victims. But statements of victims showed that murders had taken place at different blocks of Trilok Puri and in each block at different places; the dates of murders were also given by the victims as Ist, 2nd or 3rd November. Instead of preparing separate challans for each murder, prosecution sent for trial 194 accused persons before the court at Shahdara. The Courts at Shahdara were house at a Railway Platform in a dingy small place. The rooms which were called as court rooms were worse than even store rooms. They could not have accommodated more than 10 to 15 persons at a time. The law required that the evidence and the proceedings of the court should be carried in the presence of the accused persons. It was, therefore, practically not possible for any court functioning at the old building of Shahdara Courts to carry on these proceedings. This fact was very well in the notice of the Administration and in the notice of the prosecution. The Presiding Officer of the court had written to the Distt. Judge about this fact that the carrying of trial in the court room of Shahdara (Old building) was not possible and an appropriate venue of trial, where such a large number of persons can be tried, should be allocated. In the order sheet itself the Presiding Officer recorded the difficulty of not carrying the trial further. But this happened twice only. The case, therefore, kept hanging till May, 1993 because there was no place for the trial of the accused persons and the trial of the 194 accused persons was not possible in the so-called court rooms at old building of Shahdara. These court rooms used to leak from the roof and the poor Government of this country could not provide a better building for the courts to function, till 1993. It suited most to the accused persons, to the Administration to the Ruling Party and to the Judges as well that the case should be pushed aside month after month and year after year. So the case was pushed aside for about 10 years.
This would have certainly not been the position if the victims of the riots would not have been ordinary poor persons who did not matter at all in this system. Pick up the case of murder of any VIP or any important person and you will find that the speed and the efficiency with which this system works. The System fails to work and stops working when the victims are poor. So it is not the system which is to be blamed but it is the persons who man this system who are to be blamed. It is the inherent bias against the poor in the society which puts a brake on every system relating to the relief for the poor.
It is true that the people of this country are governed by one Constitution and by one set of criminal laws, both substantive and procedural. The criminal justice system including the police, various investigating agencies, the Administration looking after the police and the investigating agencies, the court system and the legal norms apply equally to the people of India. On 31.10.84 assassination of Mrs. Gandhi had taken place. The investigating agencies immediately had swung into action and not only the murderers were brought to book immediately but those who were involved in the conspiracy were digged out. Those involved in the murder of Mrs. Gandhi on 31.10.84 were hanged in the year 1988 ultimately, after the trial was over before Session's Court, their appeal before High Court was over and their appeal before Supreme Court was also over. After the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi on 31.10.84, more than 260 murders had taken place in Trilok Puri within 3 days, and the trial of those murderers did not start for 10 years. Special notification for changing the venue of trial was made in case of Murder of Mrs. Gandhi by High Court, but for trial of 260 murders, no body cared.
Murder is considered one of the most heinous crime. In 1984 the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles for the bail reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court page 1503:
" The court before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable offences particularly where the trial has not yet commenced should take into consideration various matters such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with, the large interests of the public or the state and similar other consideration."
In all those cases where the person is involved in murder, the bail is not considered as a matter of right or as a routine but the accused persons of more than 260 murders committed in Trilok Puri were granted bail just at the asking. These were those accused persons who were either caught at the spot rioting, when house burning and killing were taking place and police had removed 95 dead bodies from the spot and the area was littered with burnt bodies or these were those accused persons who had been directly named by the victims as the killers of their nears and dears. The rule of bail thus changed because the victims were poor. Each one of them was granted bail at the asking and most of them obtained anticipatory bail. In none of the cases where murder of any influential person or a VIP or a rich has been committed, and the accused persons have been either caught on the spot or directly named, bail had ever been granted till the trial was over. The law of bail does not change with the change of status of accused persons or with the change of status of the victim. But , here in this case the law of bail changed because the victims were poor citizens of this country who had no status in the society in the eyes of law makers and law dispensers. The Courts considered as if the murders of poor were not murders of human beings and the poors were guinea pigs in the political laboratory of ruling clan. Not only that the bail was granted at the asking but in case of Sajjan Kumar when CBI went to arrest him on the basis of investigation done by it, Sajjan Kumar was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court of Delhi within one hour when the CBI was held captive by his mob and the local police told that it was unable to help CBI. The bail order was communicated on telephone to CBI at the house of Sajjan Kumar at 11.00 A.M.
Independent judiciary is an indispensable bulwork of democracy. Justice Frant further said :
" The Court has no reason for existence if it merely reflects the pressures of the day. Our system is built on the faith that men set apart for this special function, freed from the influences of immediacy and from the deflections of worldly ambition, will become able to take a view of longer range than the period of responsibility entrusted to Congress and Legislatures ".
Noted jurist N.A. Palkhiwala in his work 'we, the people' has observed :
" So long as there is a judiciary marked by rugged independence, the citizen's civil liberties are safe even in the absence of any cast-iron guarantees in the Constitution. But once the judiciary becomes subservient to the executive and to the philosophy of the party for the time being in power, no enumeration of fundamental rights in the Constitution can be of any avail to the citizen, because the Courts of justice would then be replaced by the Government's Courts."
In the grammar of criminal justice system, the word 'speedier trial' is not there when the victims are improvished. Poors have always been marginalised by the system and those who man this system. The criminal justice system has hurt, rather help the poor riot victims. The police and Courts are more available to the wealthy, powerful and resourceful persons. The rich and resourceful are often able to wriggal out of the legal net. The law enforcement agencies are more favourably inclined to the strong and powerful to the detriment of weak and powerless. The Indian Penal Code does not make any distinction in the heinousness of the crime on the basis of the status of the victim. The Code of Procedures i.e. Cr. P.C., Evidence Act also make no distinction in the procedure of trial of offences on the basis of the status of victim or the status of accused. But practically it is found that in all cases where the victims are powerful and wealthy persons the same very courts, the same very system which walks at the pace of snail works very fast.
It is tragic that criminal justice Administration has been administered differently for differe