Police silent during 1984 riots, serious lapse: court

A court in New Delhi told that the silence of Delhi Police during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots was a “serious lapse” on its part and it appeared to be “privy” in the incidents of rioting.
District and Sessions Judge J R Aryan said that as per the report of Justice G T Nanavati Commission, 341 persons were killed in Delhi Cantonment area here during the riots. In the case relating to it, Congress leader Sajjan Kumar has been acquitted.

But, as per the record of Palam Colony police station, “not a single incident of killing was recorded by the police”, the court noted.

“From the evidence and material available in this case,…these facts and circumstances do suggest that law supervising and enforcing machinery i.e.(Delhi) police maintained complete silence during those two days i.e. November 1 and 2, 1984,” the court, in its judgement, said.

“Court can take judicial notice of the fact available from Justice Nanavati Commission report that there were as many 341 killings in police station Delhi Cantt. area itself and the present case concerning killing of five persons was in the area of Rajnagar, Palam colony, a part of police station Delhi Cantt.

“It has come in evidence from document, the DDR, maintained at police station Palam Colony, that not a single incident of any killing or any property destroyed was recorded by the police,” it said.

During the arguments, CBI had contended there was a conspiracy of “terrifying proportion” between Kumar and the Delhi Police during the riots.

The agency had said the police had kept its “eyes closed” to the widespread violence.
The court also agreed with the arguments of CBI that “police appeared to be privy in the incidents of rioting may be by maintaining their status as silent spectator”.

The court said the evidence showed there was an incident in which some Sikhs had gathered to guard their place of worship, Gurudwara Raj Nagar, and succeeded in deterring the mob.

But as they were armed, police arrived and disarmed the Sikhs of their ‘kirpans’ and soon thereafter the mob arrived again, according to it.

“There appears no reason to not to believe and accept the testimony of prosecution witness 7 Joginder Singh on that point and that reflects a serious lapse of law enforcement duty of the police,” the court said.

It also agreed with the contention of CBI that the situation had “really disturbed the conscience of civilized society as if killings of innocent persons by mobsters was to be accepted by the victims only by bargaining monetary relief. It does reflect a complete no action on the part of the police”.

Aggrieved with the court’s judgement, senior advocate H S Phoolka, representing the riot victims, said the charges of conniving with unnamed police officers and killing Sikhs was framed against the accused and CBI’s probe also showed the police did not record the statements of witnesses naming Kumar.

“This being the situation, it was highly erroneous for the trial court to have ignored this aspect. While considering the role of Sajjan Kumar, unfortunately the trial court did not consider the aspect that the investigation of CBI showed that Jagdish Kaur’s statement of November3, 1984, has been removed from the records by the Delhi Police.

“The trial court has also failed to consider that the investigation of CBI had revealed that the Delhi Police was shielding Sajjan Kumar,” the counsel said, adding he would file an appeal against this judgement in a superior court.

Jail official to explain how rape accused was injured

Today here in Delhi the Tihar Jail Superintendent has been directed by the Delhi court to appear before it tomorrow to reply to an allegation by one of the December 16 gang rape accused that he was badly beaten up by prison inmates last night.

Accused Vinay Sharma, who came into the court of Additional Sessions Judge Yogesh Khanna with a fractured hand, pleaded that he should not be sent back to Tihar Jail.

“Mujhe yahi marwa do par Tihar jail mat bhejo, waha boht darr lagta hai. Mey yahi se kud jauga par Tihar nahi jauga (You can get me killed here but don’t send me to Tihar Jail, I feel afraid there. I will jump from here but will not go to Tihar), Vinay’s counsel A P Singh told the court on behalf of his client.

Taking note of the condition of the accused, the court directed that further “security and safety of all the four accused should be ensured by the jail officials”.

It sought reply from the superintendent of Jail number 7 and directed him to personally appear before it tomorrow.

“In view of the above, it is directed that medical examination of accused including X-ray should be done and brought to the court tomorrow also,” the court mentioned.

The judge, who was concerned about the safety of the accused, mentioned in his order that earlier also he had directed the jail authorities to ensure security and safety of the accused after the main accused Ram Singh had allegedly committed suicide in his cell in the jail on March 11.

The court while referring to the medical report of G B Pant Hospital here observed that Vinay’s elbow was fractured “due to a fall”.

1984 anti-Sikh riots case: Court reserves judgement

New Delhi: A court here reserved its judgement in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case in which Congress leader Sajjan Kumar and five others are accused.

District jugde JR Aryan fixed the matter for April 16 for clarification, if any, from CBI or the six accused persons after they concluded the final arguments in the case.

“Judgement is reserved. To come up for clarification, if any, on April 16,” according to the judge.

Concluding the final arguments, CBI prosecutor DP Singh said that the prosecution has limited itself to what each of the witnesses had seen at the time of the incident.

The witnesses have given honest versions of what they all had seen during the riots, he said, alleging that in all the complaints wherever Kumar’s name had cropped up, it was “immediately eliminated” from the police records.

During the arguments, Kumar’s counsel IU Khan told the court that there were material contradictions in statements of the witnesses, including complainant Jagdish Kaur.

Khan said Kaur had not taken Kumar’s name anywhere in any of her affidavits filed before various judicial commissions, constituted to probe the riots-related cases, till 2010.

“When she (Kaur) appeared in the court in 2010 to record her statement, she gave us a shock by naming Sajjan Kumar for the first time and said something which was not there in the records,” he argued.

Kumar is facing trial along with five others–Balwan Khokkar, Kishan Khokkar, Mahender Yadav, Girdhari Lal and Captain Bhagmal – for allegedly inciting a mob against the Sikh community in Delhi Cantonment area.

The case relates to anti-Sikh riots that had broken out after the assassination of the then prime minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984.

1984 riots: CBI says eyewitness are trustworthy

In Delhi CBI told in court here that the complainant in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case in which Congress leader Sajjan Kumar and five others are facing trial is an “eyewitness” to the killings and her statement is “trustworthy”.

Advancing final arguments before District Judge JR

Aryan, senior advocate RS Cheema, appearing for CBI, said complainant Jagdish Kaur had “seen the killings in front of her and she has neither changed her stand nor tried to exaggerate the facts in the court”.

Kaur had lost her husband, a young son and three brothers during the riots.

“She saw her husband and son being killed by the mob in front of her eyes and she also lost her three brothers during the riots.

“She is a person of extra ordinary courage and memory who is doing everything to get justice. She is a witness of truth and has not changed her stand,” the counsel submitted.

He said she had not attempted to name in her affidavits those persons whom she had not seen during the riots.

Sajjan Kumar is facing trial along with five others – Balwan Khokkar, Kishan Khokkar, Mahender Yadav, Girdhari Lal and Captain Bhagmal – for allegedly inciting a mob against the Sikh community in Delhi Cantonment area.

The case relates to anti-Sikh riots that had broken out after the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984.

Advocate Anil Sharma, counsel for the accused, had earlier contended that there were several contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The counsel had questioned the “conduct” of Jagdish Kaur.

Meanwhile, Jagdish Kaur and another witness Nirpreet Kaur moved an application in the court seeking for permission to bring two news articles of 1984 about Sajjan Kumar of 1984.

They have also sought the court’s permission to summon editors of the two English dailies.

JBT scam: 45 convicts get lenient sentence

A Delhi court took a lenient view on the punishment for 45 other convicts as they were “truthful” during the trial on the matter of JBT scam, in which  former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala, his son Ajay Chautala  eight others have been sentenced by the court for ten years in jail.

Special Judge Vinod Kumar agreed with the pleas of the convict who had admitted in the court that they had acted under severe pressure and must, therefore, be treated leniently.

According to the court said as it handed down four-year imprisonment to 44 convicts and a five- year jail term to another, “I agree that the convicts who had acted under severe pressure must be treated leniently,”

“These convicts had been truthful during the trial. They were aware that they had committed a serious mistake in their life but their conscience did not permit them to speak falsehood before the court. Their moral values shone like a guiding lamp for them.

four-year imprisonment to 44 convicts and a five- year jail