Sajjan Kumar 1984 Anti Sikh Riots Case Judgement

7/30/2019 Sajjan Kumar 1984 Anti Sikh Riots Case Judgement

1/129

1

IN THE COURT OF Sh. J.R. ARYAN : DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

: NORTH EAST DISTRICT (INCHARGE) : KARKARDOOMA COURTS :DELHI :

S.C. No. 26/10Unique Case ID No. 02402R0030202010

CBI Vs. 1) Sajjan Kumar S/o Raghunath Singh,R/o A-713, Janta Quarters, Pocket-2, Paschimpuri, Delhi.

2) Balwan Khokar S/o Puran Singh,

R/o WZ-70, Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony, Delhi.

3) Mahender Yadav S/o Late Tej Ram Yadav,R/o House No.114, Village Bagdola, PS Palam, Delhi.

4) Capt. Bhagmal (Retd.) S/o Late Mangal Singh,R/o Deer Wood 320, Sector50, Nirvana Country, Gurgaon.

5) Girdhari Lal S/o Prabhu Dayal Mistri,R/o RZ-F-29, Gali No.23, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, Delhi.

6) Krishan Khokar S/o Puran Singh,R/o WZ-245, Raj Nagar, Part-II, Near Rashan Office, PalamColony, Delhi.

FIR No. RC- SI1 2005 S0024PS: Delhi Cantt.Name of the Investigating Branch : CBIU/s 109 r/w 147/148/149/153-A/295/302/396/427/436/449/505/201/395/120B IPC

Chargesheet No. 1/2010 dated 13.01.2001

Date of Institution :- 03.04.2010Date of reserving for Order :- 16.04.2013Date of Pronouncement :- 30.04.2013

SC No.26/2010 1/129


2/129

2

J U D G E M E N T :-

A charge of conspiracy to commit offences of rioting, rioting while

armed with deadly weapon, murder, mischief causing damage, mischief

by fire with intent to destroy houses, house trespass in order to commit

offence punishable with death, dacoity, promoting enmity between

different groups on the ground of religion and doing acts prejudicial to

maintenance of harmony, defiling places of worship with intent to insult

the religion of Sikh community.

And a further charge for abetting said offences and charge of

creating communal disharmony has been set for trial against Sajjan

Kumar S/o Sh. Raghunath Singh. Charge framed was that:

That on 31.10.1984 in and around area of Rajnagar Extension,

Part-I and Part-II within the jurisdiction of PS Delhi Cantt.. Accused Sh.

Sajjan Kumar with co-accused Balwan Khokhar, Mahender Yadav,

Captain Bhagmal (retd.), Girdhari Lal, Krishan Khokar and other accused

(since dead) namely Maha Singh, Smt. Santosh Rani @ Janta

Hawaldarni, Ishwar Chand Gaur @ Chand Sharabi, Dharamveer Singh

Solanki, Balidan Singh and Rajkumar @ Rajaram as a criminal

conspiracy along with other unknown persons including police personnels

accused committed offences referred to in para 1 of the charge and

thereby committed offence punishable u/S 120-B IPC read with Section

147/148/302/395/427/436/449/153A/295 and 505 IPC.

Said offences were also alleged to have been instigated and

SC No.26/2010 2/129


3/129

3

abetted by accused Sajjan Kumar and thereby accused Sajjan Kumar

committed offence punishable u/S 109 r/w Section 147/148/302/395/427/

436/449/153A/295 and 505 IPC.

Accused Sajjan Kumar then on 1st and 2nd November 1984 in

Rajnagar Palam Colony area delivered fiery / provocative speeches and

instigated and promoted violent enmity against Sikh community and

thereby disturbed harmony between two religious groups/ communities in

wake of assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of

India and thereby accused promoted feeling of enmity between members

of Non-Sikh and Sikh community and that act of accused was prejudicial

to the maintenance of harmony and it created feeling of enmity, hatred

between different groups and thereby accused committed offence

punishable u/S 153A IPC. Finally charge u/S 505 IPC against this

accused is that on 1st and 2nd November 1984 in Rajnagar Palam colony

area accused made a statement in public asking Jats to not to leave any

Sikh alive and even those people who gave shelter to Sikhs and thereby

incited and delivered provocative speeches to the mob with intent to

commit offence against Sikh community. Accused claimed trial by

pleading not guilty.

Other accused namely 1) Balwan Khokhar S/o Puran Singh, 2)

Mahender Yadav S/o Late Tej Ram Yadav, 3) Captain Bhagmal (Retd.)

S/o Late Mangal Singh, 4) Girdhari Lal S/o Prabhu Dayal Mistry and 5)

Krishan Khokar S/o Puran Singh have also been tried for offences

SC No.26/2010 3/129


4/129

4

punishable u/S 120-B IPC r/w Section 147/148/302/395/427/

436/449/153A/295 and 505 IPC committed pursuant to conspiracy with

co-accused Sajjan Kumar as well other accused (since deceased)

namely Maha Singh, Smt. Santosh Rani @ Janta Hawaldarni, Ishwar

Chand Gaur @ Chand Sharabi, Dharamveer Singh Solanki, Balidan

Singh and Rajkumar @ Rajaram along with other unknown persons

including police personnels.

These five accused persons are charged with offences of rioting,

rioting committed while accused were armed with deadly weapons and

these accused persons in prosecution of common object of unlawful

assembly, committed murders and committed offence of mischief by

causing loss and damage to the properties including residential houses

and committed offence of mischief by setting residential houses on fire

and committed offence of criminal house trespass and while armed with

deadly weapons in prosecution of common object they also committed

offence of dacoity and defiled places of worship committed on 1st and 2nd

November 1984 by these accused with other accused (since deceased)

namely Maha Singh, Smt. Santosh Rani @ Janta Hawaldarni, Ishwar

Chand Gaur @ Chand Sharabi, Dharamveer Singh Solanki, Balidan

Singh and Rajkumar @ Rajaram as a criminal conspiracy along with

other unknown persons including police personnels when they formed

themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object to loot,

damage, burn properties of Sikhs and to kill members of Sikh community

SC No.26/2010 4/129


5/129

5

residing in the are in wake of assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the

then Prime Minister of India and they used criminal force and violence

and were armed with deadly weapons like guns, jellies, iron rods, pipes,

lathis, kerosene oil etc.

Charge of murder committed in prosecution of common object of

unlawful assembly is that on 1st and 2nd November 1984 in Rajnagar

Palam area within the jurisdiction of PS Delhi Cantt. these five accused

persons with other accused since deceased namely Maha Singh, Smt.

Santosh Rani @ Janta Hawaldarni, Ishwar Chand Gaur @ Chand

Sharabi, Dharamveer Singh Solanki, Balidan Singh and Rajkumar @

Rajaram as a criminal conspiracy along with other unknown persons

including police personnels while forming an unlawful assembly and

armed with deadly weapons in prosecution of common object and in

conspiracy with accused Sajjan Kumar committed murder of 1) Kehar

Singh S/o Late Dhyan Singh, 2) Gurpreet Singh S/o Kehar Singh, 3)

Raghuvinder Singh S/o Gurcharan Singh, 4) Narender Pal Singh S/o

Gurcharan Singh and Kuldeep Singh S/o Hardas Singh and thereby

these accused committed offence punishable u/S 302/149 r/w 120-B IPC.

The charge of criminal mischief against these accused is that on 1 st

and 2nd November 1984 these accused along with other accused since

deceased namely Maha Singh, Smt. Santosh Rani @ Janta Hawaldarni,

Ishwar Chand Gaur @ Chand Sharabi, Dharamveer Singh Solanki,

Balidan Singh and Rajkumar @ Rajaram as a criminal conspiracy along

SC No.26/2010 5/129


6/129

6

with other unknown persons including police personnels being members

of unlawful assembly caused loss and damage to the properties of Sikhs

amounting to Rs.3,30,000/- approximately and thereby committed offence

punishable u/S 427/149 IPC. Likewise offence of mischief by fire tried

against these accused is that on 1st and 2nd November 1984 they with

other accused since deceased namely Maha Singh, Smt. Santosh Rani

@ Janta Hawaldarni, Ishwar Chand Gaur @ Chand Sharabi, Dharamveer

Singh Solanki, Balidan Singh and Rajkumar @ Rajaram as a criminal


in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly set place of

worship i.e. Gurudwara Rajnagar as well dwelling units house nos.

RZ-1/129 and RZ-15, Shiv Mandir Marg, Rajnagar, Palam Colony, New

Delhi on fire and thereby committed offence punishable u/S 436 r/w 149

IPC. Offence of criminal trespass by accused is by entering into house

no. RZ-1/129 and RZ-15, Rajnagar, Delhi houses which were the dwelling

units of deceased Kehar Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Raghuvinder Singh,

Narender Pal Singh and Kuldeep Singh and trespass by accused was in

order to commit offence punishable with death i.e. to commit murder of

said persons.

All these five accused with other accused since deceased namely

Maha Singh, Smt. Santosh Rani @ Janta Hawaldarni, Ishwar Chand

Gaur @ Chand Sharabi, Dharamveer Singh Solanki, Balidan Singh and

Rajkumar @ Rajaram as a criminal conspiracy along with other unknown

SC No.26/2010 6/129


7/129

7

persons including police personnels as a part of unlawful assembly and

while armed with deadly weapons in prosecution of common object

committed dacoity into house RZ-1/129 and RZ-15 which belonged to

deceased persons and thereby accused committed offence punishable

u/S 395/149 IPC.

And finally these accused persons charged for offence u/S 295/149

IPC is that on 1st and 2nd November 1984 these accused with other

accused since deceased namely Maha Singh, Smt. Santosh Rani @

Janta Hawaldarni, Ishwar Chand Gaur @ Chand Sharabi, Dharamveer

Singh Solanki, Balidan Singh and Rajkumar @ Rajaram as a criminal


in furtherance of common object to unlawful assembly defiled the place of

worship i.e. Gurudwara situated in Rajnagar area, Delhi which was

sacred place of Sikh community and defiling of said place was with an

intention to insult the Sikh community religion. These accused persons

also claimed trial by pleading not guilty.

Charge-sheet submitted by CBI, the prosecuting agency, reveals a

peculiar situation wherein offences committed in the year 1984 are

sought to be prosecuted in this charge-sheet which was filed in January

2010. It has been a serious contentious point that delay in registration of

the case and launching of the prosecution having remained completely

unexplained should be a ground by itself to cast a serious doubt in the

veracity of the prosecution case, it is the say of the prosecution that

SC No.26/2010 7/129


8/129

8

offences charged against accused was a peculiar situation where entire

State machinery came to standstill during the period following the

assassination of the then Prime Minister of India on 31.10.1984 and a

particular group i.e. Sikhs was targeted for attack and brutalities and

those attacks including murders were so widespread indiscriminate that

the moment a Sikh was noticed by rioting mob he would be captured and

killed and in the capital itself there were around 2000 plus deaths of Sikhs

as has been now revealed in the report of Justice Nanawati Commission

and the State machinery came to almost complete standstill during those

killings of Sikhs was reflected from the fact that only a few killings came

to be investigated at a very late stage. Various inquiry commissions came

to be constituted by the Central Government of India and rather most of

victims of offences of these brutalities it appears had to set themselves to

rest with their fate. This kind of a situation stands reflected from the

charge-sheet.

It is stated in the charge-sheet that FIR 416/84 was registered at PS

Delhi Cantt. on 04.11.1984 u/S 147/148/329/436/480/302/201 IPC against

unknown personson a complaint which was lodged by Smt. Daljit Kaur

D/o Sh. Avtar Singh resident of WZ-108, Rajnagar Palam Colony, Delhi.

FIR allegations were of unlawful assembly, rioting, attack on the house of

informant by mob of around 400-500 people on 01.11.1984 resulting in

injuries to her parents and another attack on her house on 02.11.1984

wherein her father was set on fire by mob upon the instigation of her

SC No.26/2010 8/129


9/129

9

neighbour Mahender Sharabi.

It is further reported that during that period further complaints were

received of similar incidents from that locality and those complaints were

clubbed with that FIR. To what extent the police of this country could

justify clubbing of other instances of murder and brutalities with the same

FIR is to be answered by police itself. Charge-sheet however, further

mentions that on investigation of those cases five charge-sheets

implicating 10 accused persons were filed in the court. Details of those

charge-sheets are:

1) Special case no.10/86 State vs. Balwan Khokhar wherein

complainant-informant is Smt. Daljit Kaur and it concerns death of Sh.

Avtar Singh. Status of the case is mentioned as judgement of acquittal

on 15.07.1986,

2) Special case no. 11/86 which concerns death of Sh.

Harbhajan Singh and informant is Smt. Swaran Kaur. Accused

chargesheeted were i) Dhanraj, ii) Ved Prakash, iii) Shiv Charan,

iv) Ramji Lal Sharma and status of the case is judgement of acquittal

dated 28.05.1986.

3) Special case no. 31/86 wherein deceased is Joga Singh and

the informant is Smt. Jagir Kaur and accused tried in that case were i)

Vidyanand, ii) Balwan Khokhar and iii) Mahender Yadav and the status

shown is acquittal dated 29.04.1986.

4) Special case no. 32/86 wherein deceased is Nirmal Singh

SC No.26/2010 9/129


10/129

10

and informant- complainant is Smt. Sampuran Kaur and accused tried

in that case were i) Dhanraj, ii) Mahender Singh, iii) Balwan Khokar,

iv) Mahender Yadav and all these accused are shown acquitted vide

order dated 17.05.1986.

5) Special case no. 33/86 and deceased is Avtar Singh wherein

informant-complainant is Ms. Baljit Kaur and accused tried were

Mahender Singh and Ram Kumar and status is acquittal on

04.10.1986.

It has been submitted from prosecution side that all these five

murder offences were chargesheeted in the year 1986 and acquittal

judgements passed in 1986 also appeared to be an eyewash

manipulated by police and the prosecution.

It is further stated in the charge-sheet that in the year 1992-93 on

the recommendation of Justice Jain Aggarwal Committee further

investigation into the incidents of attack on the house of Jasbir Singh

incident involving deaths of husband, son and cousins of the complainant

of this case Smt. Jagdish Kaur w/o Kehar Singh was taken up by Riot cell

of Delhi police and then supplementary charge-sheet was filed on

26.02.1993 against four accused persons namely Sunil Tiwari @ Raju,

Hukum Chand, Mangat Ram and Balwan Khokar in the matter of attack

on the house of Jasbir Singh. That case was tried as a special case

28/93 and it also ended in acquittal vide acquittal judgement dated

30.04.1994.

SC No.26/2010 10/129


11/129

11

Government of India constituted various commissions for inquiry

regarding 1984 Anti-Sikh riots and Justice Nanawati Commission in that

direction was constituted in May 2000 and commission submitted its

report on 09.02.2005. During its proceedings commission took note of

affidavits filed by various victims including Smt. Jagidish Kaur, Jasbir

Singh etc. and these witnesses were found to have disclosed involvement

of Sajjan Kumar and statement of these witnesses further disclosed

participation of Sajjan Kumar and Balwan Khokar in the riots in the area

of these witnesses. Smt. Jagdish Kaur claimed to have heard Sh. Sajjan

Kumar addressing persons:-

Sardar saala koi nahi bachna chahiye. Witness Jasbir Singh also

narrated involvement of Sajjan Kumar and Balwan Khokhar, the material

brought before commission indicated that despite these victims having

approached police with a complaint naming assailants but police did not

take action. Commission then concluded that credible material against

Sajjan Kumar and Balwan Khokar was there indicating their involvement

and commission then recommended to government to examine further

investigation. After considering findings of Nanawati Commission the

government of India vide its order of Department of Home Affairs dated

24.10.2005 directed CBI to investigate/ re-investigate cases against

Sajjan Kumar including FIR 416/84 and accordingly that FIR was re-

registered by CBI as RC-24(S)/2005-SCU.I/SCR.I on 02.11.2005 and

investigation then proceeded.

SC No.26/2010 11/129


12/129

12

Investigation then conducted by CBI revealed that since Smt. Indira

Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India had been assassinated by her

Sikh bodyguards on 31.10.1984 that large scale riots broke out in Delhi

and Rajnagar Palam was one such area and these riots continued till

04.11.1984. Statement of witness Joginder Singh revealed that on

01.11.1984 at around 7.00am an unlawful assembly of around 2000

persons in Rajnagar Palam area with a common object to loot, damage

and burn properties of Sikhs and to kill Sikhs was seen by the witnesses.

Said unlawful assembly included Balwan Khokhar (A2), Krishan Khokhar

(A8), Mahender Yadav (A3), Rajaram since expired and Captain Bhagmal

(A5) with other persons armed with weapons like guns, jellies, rods, lathis

attacked Rajnagar Gurudwara and set it on fire. Vehicles belonging to

Sikhs were also set on fire. Sardar Nirmal Singh resident of RZ-241,

Rajnagar-II, was caught hold by Balwan Khokhar, Mahender Yadav and

Krishan Khokhar and was taken to a spot near shop of Dhanraj and there

the mob including Balwan Khokhar, Mahender Yadav, Dhanraj @ Chand

Sharabi and Captain Bhagmal assaulted Nirmal Singh and burnt him

alive by putting kerosene oil.

Investigation further revealed that on 01.11.1984 accused Balwan

Khokhar, Maha Singh, Santosh Rani, Chand Sharabi and Dharamvir

Singh with 100-200 persons as a part of unlawful assembly attacked the

house of Smt. Jagdish Kaur and the mob assaulted her husband Kehar

Singh and son Gurpreet Singh with iron rods and sticks causing death of

SC No.26/2010 12/129


13/129

13

Kehar Singh on spot. Gurpreet tried to escape but was caught by the mob

and burnt alive.

It is further reported in the charge-sheet that on the intervening

night of 1st and 2nd November 1984 Sajjan Kumar (A1), the then Member

of Parliament of that area arrived in Rajnagar Palam in an Ambassador

car and it was around 10-11.00 pm. Witness Jagsher PW-6 saw and

heard accused Sajjan Kumar taking a round of the area and berated the

mob for carrying a minimal destruction of properties of Sikhs. Accused

promoted enmity between Hindus and Sikhs and prompted mob to not to

leave any Sikh alive and not to spare any Hindu who provided shelter to

Sikh. Pursuant to that instigation given by accused Sajjan Kumar (A1)

and in pursuance of the common object, the mob forming unlawful

assembly looted the house of Jagsher and set it on fire and other houses

of Sikhs were also looted. They also attacked house of Smt. Rajni where

deceased Raghuvinder, Narender Pal Singh and Kuldeep Singh had

taken shelter. It is further reported in charge-sheet that pursuant to

instigation made by accused Sajjan Kumar and to achieve the common

object of unlawful assembly the mob comprising accused Girdhari Lal

(A7), Dharamvir, Balidan Singh (since expired) and Captain Bhagmal

(A5) burnt alive Raghuvinder Singh, Narender Pal Singh and Kuldeep

Singh in the morning in 02.11.1984 in Rajnagar and this murder was

witnessed by Smt. Jagdish Kaur (PW-1).

Jagdish Kaur PW-1 also claimed to have seen accused Sajjan

SC No.26/2010 13/129


14/129

14

Kumar on 02.11.1984 morning addressing the meeting of his followers

near Manglapuri police post and he instigated those persons not to leave

any Sikh alive and even to kill those who gave shelter to Sikhs. This

statement of Jagdish Kaur was corroborated by another witness Nirpreet

Kaur (PW10).

It is further alleged in the charge-sheet that pursuant to provocative

speeches given by Sajjan Kumar (A1) that mob gathered in Rajnagar

area and indulged in violence and harmony between two religious groups

was disturbed and it resulted in killings of Sikhs and burning of their

properties. The mob included accused Balwan Khokhar, Mahender

Yadav, Maha Singh, Captain Bhagmal, Santosh Rani, Girdhari Lal,

Krishan Khokar, Ishwar Chand, Balidan Singh, Dharamvir Singh who

were armed and other unknown persons also armed with deadly

weapons. Accordingly, accused were sought to be summoned, tried and

punished for said offences. Requisite sanction for offence u/S 153 IPC in

terms of Section 196 CrPC had also been obtained from Government of

NCT of Delhi which was submitted with the charge-sheet.

Ld. Magistrate took cognizance, summoned accused persons and

after complying section 207 CrPC the case was committed to sessions

court. As seen above after hearing both sides that charge was framed

against six accused persons for offences set out in the charge. Accused

had challenged the order on charge but their challenge failed in the

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and then finally before the Apex court.

SC No.26/2010 14/129


15/129

15

Prosecution has examined its evidence consisting 17 witnesses. A

brief account of this evidence is:

PW-1 Smt. Jagdish Kaur is a witness then residing in a house

RZ-1/129, Shiv Mandir Marg, Rajnagar Palam Colony, Delhi when the

incidents of this case occurred and she claims to be witness of killing of

her husband Kehar Singh and her young son Gurpreet aged around 18

years. Both these victims were attacked by a mob when the mob entered

inside her house. According to this witness, her husband and her son

Gurpreet were present in the rear side of the house and they were

attacked by the mob armed with iron rods, lathis and other weapons. She

claims in her evidence that in that assault head of her husband was

virtually crushed and victim fell dead there. Her son ran to escape the

fury of mob but was caught in the street and was set on fire. Witness has

then deposed that she reached to her son and found him with some life

but on the brink of his last breath. She blessed him by offering prayer to

god and son Gurpreet breathed his last. She has named some of the

accused who were part of the mob in this assault. In her evidence she

identified and named accused Balwan Khokhar (accused facing charge)

and also named other accused as Dharamvir, Chand Sharabi, Maha

Singh and Saroj Devi (now since deceased).

Witness also claims to have seen killings of her cousins Narender

Pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh, both brothers and another cousin Kuldeep

Singh and these killings by mob was witnessed by her on 02.11.1984

SC No.26/2010 15/129


16/129

16

when that incident of 02.11.1984 had occurred somewhere between 6.30

am to 7.00 am. According to this witness victim-deceased Narender Pal

Singh hiding on the roof of his house jumped from the roof in a hope that

he would escape or would be given some kind of help for his rescue by

his neighbouring persons but then Dharamvir (since deceased) part of

the mob noticed victim Narender Pal Singh and shouted. Accused

Girdhari Lal came running armed with lathi, accused Balidan Singh

(Retd.) Subedar (since deceased) and accused Capt. Bhagmal (Retd.)

(A5) came and the mob surrounded Narender Pal Singh who was given

lathi blow injuries and then burnt near the house of this witness. Witness

further claims that she saw her other two cousins Raghuvinder and

Kuldeep Singh being attacked and taken away by the mob. Evidence of

other witness then showed that Raghuvinder and Kuldeep Singh were

also found killed. Analysis of evidence of this witness shall be taken up at

a later stage when arguments of defence counsel is referred to at

subsequent stage.

PW-2 Lal Chand Khimani is a witness who purchased house no.

RZ-1/129 somewhere in October 1993 but the witness denies to be

aware of any such fact that in the year 1984 this house was in occupation

of Smt. Jagdish Kaur with her family. Witness, however, states that plot of

this house property was in two parts, one part belonging to Jagdish Kaur

and the other part was in the name of Narender Pal Singh and

Raghuvinder Singh and these facts stood reflected from the documents.

SC No.26/2010 16/129


17/129

17

Witness reiterates in his cross examination that he did not have any

personal knowledge if Narender Pal Singh and Raghuvinder Singh were

residing in Village Palam.

PW-3 Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma is a witness residing in close vicinity

and neighbourhood of PW1 Jagdish Kaur. He is resident of house no.

RZ-110, Rajnagar, Palam colony, Delhi. Witness deposes position of

house of PW1 as situated on the corner of the street in which house of

this witness was situated in 1984. He further deposed that said house of

Sh. Kehar Singh i.e. husband of PW1 was in occupation of persons who

were Sikhs and they were MES contractors and used to be addressed

thekedars. Witness deposed that he had constructed his house in 1976.

Witness states in his deposition that on 01.11.1984, as he reached

his house he came to know that some crowd had killed Kehar Singh and

his son who was aged around 15-16 years. He further states that wife of

Kehar Singh and her children came to his house to take shelter and he

provided them shelter. Other thekedars, witness came to know, were

taking shelter in the house of one Mr. Srivastav. Witness further states in

evidence that on next date i.e. 02.11.1984 at around 8.30 am morning as

he left his house for his work he noticed two thekedars with one more

person jumping from the wall. Witness corrected himself and deposed

that he saw one thekedar with one more person jumping from the roof.

He did not go for work on that date and after 30-40 minutes he came to

know that both those persons had been killed at Manglapuri chowk.

SC No.26/2010 17/129


18/129

18

PW4 is the real brother of victim/deceased Narender Pal Singh and

Raghuvinder Singh. He was employed and posted at Airforce Station

Kanpur and he reached Delhi on 08.11.1984 on being informed about

death of his brothers. He found the house of his brothers RZ-15, Shiv

Mandir Marg, Rajnagar, Palam Colony, Delhi, completely burnt and he

could not trace or locate dead bodies of his brothers. He went to

Gurudwara Airforce Station and there he met his sister-in-laws Harbhajan

Kaur, Daljit Kaur and he met there his younger brother Jagsher and sister

Jagdish Kaur and they all narrated to this witness the incidents of killings

of brothers of this witness and husband and son of Jagdish Kaur. Witness

states that he then gave complaints regarding killing of his brother

Narender pal Singh and Raghuvinder Singh and another complaint

concerning death of his cousin Kuldeep Singh and he identified that

complaint as Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. He also identified a complaint

given by his sister-in-law Daljit Kaur as Ex.PW4/C. PW5 is an official

witness from MCD Green Park, South Zone, Delhi and witness exhibited

death certificates Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/E. Witness then proved deaths of

Narender Pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Kehar Singh

and Gurpreet Singh entered and recorded in the relevant register and

those entries were further proved by him as Ex.PW5/K to Ex.PW5/L.

There was not much dispute or controversy on this witness.

PW-6 is another material witness and according to his evidence in

October/November 1984 he was residing with Narender Pal Singh,

SC No.26/2010 18/129


19/129

19

Raghuvinder Singh and their wives Harbhajan Kaur, Daljit Kaur and their

children in house RZ-15, Shiv Mandir Marg, Rajnagar, Delhi. He was then

17-18 years of age. Adjoining house on the left side was of Sh. Ramavtar

Sharma and across street was the house of Jagdish Kaur. Witness states

that they all were working as MES contractors and Kuldeep Singh also

used to help them whenever there was heavy workload. On 31.10.1984,

witness left his house for work and during day time he heard about Smt.

Indira Gandhi shot and he reached his house as usual by around 9.00

pm. On 01.11.1984, while this witness and his brother were present on

breakfast table someone came and informed Narender Pal Singh that

Sikhs were being killed and thus they should not go out. Smt. Rajni

residing in a nearby house also came and informed this witness and his

brother that situation was not congenial and they should not go out of

their house and accordingly this witness and other family members went

to the house of Rajni. Witness came out after sometime to park his

motorbike inside the house and he did park bike inside his house but

then saw a mob coming. Instead of crossing street to reach house of

Rajni, witness entered into adjoining house of Ramavtar Sharma. Witness

heard mob raising slogans in sikho ko maro, in gadaro ko maro,

hindustan me ek sikh be zinda nahi bachna chahiye. Witness then

claims that after about 10 minutes he heard shrieks and noise from

outside and from the window above the bed of a room he peeped and

saw that mob armed with lathis and sarias entered into the house of his

SC No.26/2010 19/129


20/129

20

sister Jagdish Kaur. The mob dragged Kehar Singh and Gurpreet Singh

and in that assault Kehar Singh fell down inside the house and he was

attacked with iron rods. Gurpreet in order to rescue himself ran into the

street but mob caught hold of him and assaulted him with iron rods and

killed him and then mob disbursed. Witness further states that he then

came out of the house of Ramavtar and went to his sister Jagdish Kaur

who was weeping. This witness took a cot and went to the place where

Gupreet was lying. This witness, Jagdish Kaur and one more person then

brought Gurpreet on that cot to the house of Jagdish Kaur. Witness saw

Kehar Singh lying on the floor with huge amount of blood on the floor.

Witness then again took shelter in the house of Ramavtar Sharma and

took Gurdeep younger son of Jagdish Kaur with him inside the house of

Ramavtar Sharma. Witness there cut the hair of Gurdeep with scissors.

Witness remained in the house of Ramavtar Sharma till about 10.00 pm

and then he came out of the house and he being mona (without long hair)

he could not be identified by anybody to be a Sikh. Witness claims that

somewhere between 10.00 pm to 11.00 pm that he saw a vehicle arrived

and stopped near turning of the gali at Shiv Mandir Marg. It was

Ambassador car, around 30 to 40 persons collected there. Accused

Sajjan Kumar, Member of Parliament, came out and inquired from

persons whether they had completed the work which had been assigned

to them and accused with those persons went towards the house of this

witness and again came back near his car. Accused Sajjan Kumar then

SC No.26/2010 20/129


21/129

21

asked persons that they had not executed the work properly. One of the

persons then told Sajjan Kumar that thekedars were being saved by

Hindus and then Sajjan Kumar urged that those Hindus who were giving

shelter to Sikhs be killed and their houses be burnt and then accused

Sajjan Kumar left with his car. Accordingly, PW6 claims to be a witness of

the incident where mob attacked and killed Kehar Singh and Gurpreet

Singh in their house and then he is a witness to the incident where

accused Sajjan Kumar addressed mob exhorting them to execute their

work assigned to them and his utterance to the mob that even those

Hindus who provided shelter to Sikhs be killed and their houses be burnt.

Testimony of this witness thus is also on the role of accused Sajjan

Kumar to consider and adjudicate the charge of conspiracy and charge of

abetment. An exhaustive and lengthy cross examination proceeds on this

witness by defence counsels which continued on several dates and

analysis of his evidence shall be taken up when arguments made by

defence counsel questioning veracity of the witness is referred to.

PW-7 Joginder Singh claims to be resident of house WZ-54,

Rajnagar, Palam Colony, Delhi, at the time of the incident of this case.

This witness was got married in January 1984 and he claims that his in-

laws were staying and residing at Rajnagar, near Gurudwara in a house

WZ-241. Witness claims that on 31.10.1984, the then prime minister of

India Smt. Indira Gandhi was killed by security guards, there were small

incidents of beatings to Sikhs. On 01.11.1984, at around 7.30 am, this

SC No.26/2010 21/129


22/129

22

witness with his wife came out of Gurudwara and saw a huge mob

coming from Mehrauli road side. Witness could identify accused Balwan

Khokhar, Krishan Khokar, Mahender Yadav and Capt. Bhagmal, Rajaram

and Gulati from amongst the mob. Mob was with lathis, rods, jellies etc.

and that mob comprised people from nearby villages and colonies. The

mob went to the house of this witness. Witness heard Sikhs shouting that

Gurudwara had been attacked. Around 20 to 25 Sikhs including this

witness assembled in front of Gurudwara but then mob had set

Gurudwara on fire and looted the house of Jasbir Kaur and then mob

burnt truck of Harbans Singh. Mob led by Balwan Khokar, Krishan

Khokar, Mahender Yadav again arrived. Accused Mahender Yadav and

Balwan Khokar were on a scooter whereas Krishan Khokar was on foot.

Balwan Khokar and Mahender Yadav caught hold of Sardar Nirmal Singh

who was there standing near Gurudwara and they asked Nirmal Singh to

accompany them as they wanted to talk to him. They took him with them

and witness then came back to his house. He further deposed that police

arrived after about two hours and police officials took the swords from the

Sikhs.

Witness further states in evidence that on 02.11.1984, he was

hiding in the house of his father-in-law and watched from the window that

police then whenever came Sikhs used to come outside in a hope that

they would get any help but police then would go away and then mob

would come and would burn those houses where Sikhs used to come

SC No.26/2010 22/129


23/129

23

out. Witness says that he cut the hair of his father in law and in return

father in law cut his hair. Witness then went to the house of his uncle

Baldev Raj Khanna residing at WZ-253 and there other Sikh person

namely Joginder Singh Ct. in Delhi police was also taking shelter. This

witness is also then subjected to a very lengthy and exhaustive cross

examination spreading over several dates.

PW-8 is the official who had produced proceedings and records of

Justice Nanawati Commission of Inquiry to CBI pursuant to a letter

written and issued by Special Secretary, Home dated 24.10.2005.

Witness proved the extract of the report along with list of the record

comprising six pages as annexed with the letter as Ex.PW8/B.

PW-9 is witness Smt. Jasbir Kaur. In the year 1984, she was

stenographer posted in Delhi Secretariat and she was residing in house

WZ-124, Rajnagar, Palam Colony, Delhi and her family comprised her

husband Kamaljeet Singh, father in law Makhan Singh and mother in law

Baldeep Kaur. She states that on 02.11.1984, at around 10.45/ 11.00 am,

a mob of rioters attacked their house but prior to that she and her children

had been brought to the house of a neighborer by her husband. Witness

there heard noises maro maro pakdo pakdoand that process continued

till 4.00 pm. Witness spent night in that house where she was taking

shelter. She further states that in the incident of 02.11.1984 her husband,

her mother in law and her father in law were killed and their house was

damaged completely but then she had not witnessed the occurrence

SC No.26/2010 23/129


24/129

24

herself and had not seen persons who were part of the mob. She claims

to have lodged a complaint addressed to the SHO PS Delhi Cantt. and

she proved it as Ex.PW9/A. She further claims that police never

contacted her after filing of her complaint Ex.PW9/A and police never

recorded her statement and she was also never summoned by any

committee or commission. In cross examination by Counsel Sh. I.U. Khan

for accused Sajjan Kumar witness admitted that she had not seen Sajjan

Kumar, Member of Parliament involved in the riots in the area. In cross

examination witness further states that she did not know if Jagdish Kaur

used to reside in the same area at a distance of around 3-4 houses from

her house. She further states to clarify that since she used to go to her

office, there was hardly any time for knowing anybody. She also did not

know Jagdish Kaur.

PW10 is again a material witness who was a young girl aged

around 15 years in the year 1984 and she was residing in a house

RZ/WZ-241, Rajnagar, Palam Colony, Delhi, and her family comprised her

father Nirmal Singh and two brothers namely Nirpal Singh and Nirmolak

Singh. Her father was a transporter by profession who used to run a taxi

stand in Anand Niketan. Entire family was Sikh by religion. Witness

claims that on 31.10.1984 as it was assassination of the then prime

minister of India Smt. Indira Gandhi by her security guards there were

some stray incident and her father reached home early. At around

6.30pm on that day Balwan Khokar who used to speak himself as

SC No.26/2010 24/129


25/129

25

nephew of Sajjan Kumar come along with his brother Kirshan Khokar to

the house of this witness and asked her father to employ/ keep Krishan

Khokar as a driver. Her father Nirmal Singh told Balwan Khokar that there

was no vacancy and if there was any requirement he would inform

accordingly in 3-4 days. Witness identified accused Balwan Khokar,

Krishan Khokar. Witness claims that her father asked Balwan Khokar that

Sikhs were being attacked and Balwan Khokar then told that since Sajjan

Kumar was his maternal uncle he would ensure that no attack take place

in their colony.

Witness states that her father was President of Gurudwara and on

that intervening night of 31.10.1984 'Granthi' of Gurudwara came to her

house and informed her father that some police personnel had come in

Gurudwara and accordingly her father and mother then went to

Gurudwara and they had a talk with police personnels and those

personnels informed that they were deployed to safeguard Gurudwara.

This witness went to Gurudwara in the morning at around 5.00 or 5.30

am and police was present but during the midst of prayer police

disappeared. Witness then heard slogans and she rushed to her house

and saw a mob coming which was headed by Balwan Khokar, Mahender

Yadav and the owner of Mamta Bakery. They all were armed with rods,

sarias, jellies etc. and they were raising slogans Indira Gandhi amar

rahe, in sardaron ko maro, inhone hamari maa ko mara hai. Witness

became scared and apprehensive that mob may not dishonour Guru

SC No.26/2010 25/129


26/129

26

Granth Saheb and she rushed back to Gurudwara to pick up Guru

Granth Saheb and her younger brother Nirmolak Singh aged around 9

years also accompanied her. Mob attacked them but she could save

herself but Nirmolak fell to the custody of mob but being a child he

managed to come out of their clutches. Accused Mahender Yadav and

owner of Mamta bakery then exhorted mob ise maro, ye saap ka bacha

hai. Witness then picked up Guru Granth Saheb and came back to her

house. Mob had already arrived there and they had damaged the wall

and gate of the house. Father of this witness then came out of the house

and tried to convince mob that they were not responsible for killing of

Indira Gandhi. Some part of the mob went away and other part of the

mob set a truck on fire which belonged to Harbans Singh. Sikhs collected

and resolved to save themselves but meanwhile police arrived. Balwan

Khokar, Mahender Yadav and Krishan Khokar also arrived and Mahender

Yadav bowed down to the feet of the father of this witness and offered to

compromise the situation and he offered to pay compensation for the loss

and damages. Father of this witness and other Sikhs declined to

compromise the matter. Police personnels then took kirpans from Sikhs

and went away. Nirmal Singh, father of this witness was then taken by

Balwan Khokar and Mahender Yadav on their scooter and witness then

rushed towards direction where her father had been taken away and she

then saw scooter stopped near the shop of Dhanraj where mob was

already present. Balwan Khokar there declared that Sikh had been

SC No.26/2010 26/129


27/129

27

brought by him. Mob caught hold of father of this witness, Ishwar Sharabi

sprinkled kerosene oil on Nirmal Singh but then match box was not

available with anybody and on that occasion a police officer Inspector

Kaushik demeaned the crowd for even not keeping a match box and

Inspector Kaushik then gave a match box to Krishan Khokar and Krishan

Khokar set father of this witness on fire. Mob then left that site. Father of

this witness tried to save himself by putting himself in a naala nearby. On

that occasion, Captain Bhagmal then tied victim, father of this witness,

with a rope provided by Dhanraj. Wife of Mr. Dua provided kerosene oil

and father of this witness was again set on fire. Victim again jumped into

the naala and a pujari of nearby temple then again called the mob. Mob

arrived again. Balwan Khokar then hit victim with rod and Mahender

Yadav sprinkled some white powder whereby the victim was burnt.

Witness then came back to her house and found her mother lying

unconscious and her house was burning. Police personnels were present

but nobody helped. One Santok Singh Sandhu serving in Airforce and

residing in their neighbourhood managed Airforce vehicle and this

witness and her family were taken to Airforce Station Palam.

Witness further states in her evidence that on 02.11.1984 she

proceeded in an Airforce vehicle got arranged and provided by Wing

Commander L.S. Pannu and some jawans also accompanied her in order

to rescue Sikhs from that area and near Manglapuri witness saw a mob

raising slogans. She claims that she saw a police vehicle wherein

SC No.26/2010 27/129


28/129

28

accused Sajjan Kumar was standing and addressing the mob ek bhi

Sardar jinda nahi bachna chahiye, jo ghar Sardaron ka bacha hai, use

bhi jala do, in Sardaron ko maro inhone hamari maa ko mara hai, ye

saap ke bachche hai. As advised by jawans, witness could not proceed

further and took their vehicle back to Airforce Gurudwara. She further

states that on 05.11.1984, Balwan Khokar came to Airforce Gurudwara

with milk and biscuits and accused tried to inquire about this witness and

her family members but then someone identified him and said that

person was responsible for riots and Balwan Khokar then managed to

escape. Witness further states that police came to her as well her mother

in Airforce Gurudwara and only inquired about loss or damage suffered

by them and on 11.11.1984 her mother submitted the application claiming

compensation. Witness further deposed that she was 16 years of age in

1984 and was a student and thereafter she joined Sikh Student

Federation and she was then implicated in false cases of TADA and she

remained in jail for many years but then in one case she was acquitted

and in another case she was discharged. She further states that her

statement was recorded by Magistrate in January 2009 and she proved

that statement Ex.PW10/A which had been got recorded by her before a

Magistrate u/S 164 Cr.PC.

PW-11 is the Joint Secretary-Home, NCT of Delhi and this witness

had issued an order providing sanction for prosecution u/S 153-A IPC in

this case and he proved that order dated 01.01.2010 as Ex.PW11/A.

SC No.26/2010 28/129


29/129

29

PW-12 Manjit Singh is again a witness residing in Rajnagar, Part-II,

Palam Colony, Delhi when these riots took place. He says that he was

having long hair (keshdhari) when the incident occurred. His entire family

was followers of Sikh religion. He says that his brother Kulwant Singh left

the house on 01.11.1984 at around 7.30/ 8.00 am and their house was no.

H-111, Gali no.8, Rajnagar Part-II, Palam Colony, Delhi. As soon brother

of this witness left the house, witness heard slogans Indira Gandhi

jindabad, Hindu ekta jindabad and then Gurudwara was attacked and

that Gurudwara was a two minutes walk distance from his house. After

sometime a mob came raising slogans and again attacked Gurudwara.

Witness says that somewhere in the evening his friend a boy 'Kala' came

and cut the hair of this witness telling that witness could save himself only

by that way. Witness along with Kala took a round of the area and witness

saw dead bodies and some of them in a burnt condition. On 02.11.1984,

at around 7.00 am, witness again heard the mob raising slogans and

announcing that if Hindu had given any shelter to Sikh he should outs

him. Witness with his father was taking shelter in the house of one

Omparkash Kapoor and on being asked both of them came out of the

house and reached their home. Mob knocked the door of their house and

inquired if any Sikh was residing in that house and witness succeeded in

convincing the mob that it was not a house of Sikhs. Father of this

witness in that process was concealing himself in a store room above

kitchen. Mob left and then friend of this witness Kala arrived and cut the

SC No.26/2010 29/129


30/129

30

hair of father of this witness. In cross examination witness admitted that

in a statement given to CBI in the year 2006 he had stated that he had

not seen Sajjan Kumar the then Member of Parliament in the mob and he

stuck to the correctness of that statement.

PW-13 is the Metropolitan Magistrate Sh. R.L. Meena who had

recorded some statements u/S 164 Cr.PC.

PW-14 is a Judicial Magistrate from Punjab and in the year 2008

while posted as Judicial Magistrate, First Class in Amritsar had recorded

statement of Smt. Jagdish Kaur u/S 164 CrPC and he identified that

statement as Ex.PW1/E. This witness had also recorded statement of

Jagsher Singh which he identified as Ex.PW6/A. Witness stated that

statements were made voluntarily free from any pressure or concoction.

PW-15 Manoj Pangarkar is the Investigating Officer who was SP,

CBI and investigation of the present case was taken over by him on

22.11.2005 and then he was deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI.

Examination in chief of this witness in a little above two pages then

proceeds for a very lengthy and exhaustive cross examination and

completed after several dates. PW-16 is a police official Head Constable

who in the year 1984 was posted in Police Post Palam Colony, PS Delhi

Cantt. and during October/ November 1984 he was daily diary writer. He

exhibited the daily diary register beginning with a date 25.09.1984 and

ending with a date 07.11.1984 and he proved that register as Ex.PW16/A.

He further proved true extract dated 31.10.1984 / 01.11.1984 and upto 5th -

SC No.26/2010 30/129


31/129

31

6th November 1984 as Ex.PW16/B. Witness then proved and exhibited

each date roznamcha entries. Prosecution argued from this evidence that

no untoward incident had been recorded in any of these daily diary

entries and that supported contention that entire State machinery had

come to a standstill despite serious offences of killing and setting

properties on fire by mob had taken place in the area. Finally PW-17 Anil

Kumar Yadav is the CBI Officer who had taken over the investigation of

this case in February 2009. Witness states that investigation conducted

by his Predecessor had disclosed complicity of Delhi police official SI Bal

Kishan the then Incharge Police Post Palam, SI Ram Niwas and Mr.

Kaushik. SI Bal Kishan and SI Ram Niwas could not be joined in

investigation as they had expired and identity of Mr. Kaushik could not be

established in the absence of further particulars. He further deposed that

a complaint from Kuldeep Singh disclosed involvement of one HC Satbir

Singh of Police Post Palam but then Kuldeep Singh resident of house no.

36-37, Rajnagar, Palam, was found to have expired and investigation

could not proceed against HC Satbir Singh. Witness has been then cross

examined quite exhaustively by defence counsels.

On conclusion of examination of prosecution witnesses, accused

persons when examined to explain incriminating evidence and

circumstances against them, they pleaded complete denial. Accused

have then examined seventeen witnesses in defence.

Arguments were heard wherein advocate Sh. I.U. Khan appearing

SC No.26/2010 31/129


32/129

32

for accused Sajjan Kumar, Advocate Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma argued for

rest all other accused and advocate Sh. S.A. Hashmi joined Counsel Sh.

Anil Kumar Sharma in further arguments on behalf of Balwan Khokar and

Krishan Khokar. Advocate Sh. Jakhad then appeared on behalf of

Captain Bhagmal and addressed his arguments. On behalf of the

prosecution Special Public Prosecutor Sh. R.S. Cheema alongwith

advocate Sh. D.P. Singh from the CBI argued the case. Both sides then

submitted written arguments also. I have given a scrutiny to these

arguments including written submissions and have taken analysis of the

evidence and material on record in light of the contentions and arguments

raised by both sides.

It has been argued by Counsel Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma that present

case relates to killings of five victims namely Kehar Singh, Gurpreet

Singh and that incident was of 01.11.1984 and killing of three further

persons namely Narender Pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh and Kuldeep

Singh murdered on 02.11.1984. It is submitted that initiation of the

present criminal case was consequent upon some findings recorded by

Justice Nanawati Commission and FIR of this case was re-registered by

CBI on the basis of those report. It is submitted that initially FIR of this

case no.416/84 had been registered with the police on 04.11.1984 by

Smt. Daljit Kaur. It is argued that Daljit Kaur had been rescued by Airforce

police officials and she reported the matter with the police after having

remained in a camp at Airforce Station and thereby a report was an

SC No.26/2010 32/129


33/129

33

outcome of due deliberation. It is argued that other victims did not prefer

to lodge any report though similar assistance and opportunity was

available to them and any such report even if given was confined to

averment as is reflected from a report Ex.PW1/D which is dated

13.11.1984.

This contention is of little help in deciding the criminal charge

against accused of this case as a report lodged by Smt. Daljit Kaur and

registered as FIR 416/84 was separately investigated and accused

concerning that report stood tried in 1986 itself. There remains no

question for consideration that report lodged by Smt. Daljit Kaur was an

outcome of due deliberation. It was rather unfortunate, as has been

contented and argued by ld. Special Public Prosecutor that where killings

were taking place by rioting mob in Rajnagar Palam area each and every

incident of killing ought to have been registered as a criminal case by the

police and it was completely unfair on the part of police of PS Delih Cantt.

to have clubbed all subsequent complaints to be investigated as a part of

FIR 416/84. Any such procedure adopted by police to club incidents of

killings and other offences committed by accused persons at different

places and on a different point of time was unknown in a procedure of law

and it reflected inaction on the part of law enforcing agency and further

reflecting upon State machinery coming to a complete standstill during

that period of 2 to 3 days when the rioting mobs were taking to streets

and had been indulging in acts of violence and killings and setting

SC No.26/2010 33/129


34/129

34

properties on fire unchecked and unresisted by law enforcing agency. As

regard complaint Ex.PW1/D a perusal reveals that it was submitted to

SHO PS as a cyclostyle form signed by Smt. Jagdish Kaur and is dated

13.11.1984 wherein particulars recorded were as regards loss of life and

it is mentioned Kehar Singh and Gurpreet, name and age of persons

injured; nil, name and age of persons; nil, loss of property column then

shows loss in respect of house at Rs.45,000/- and in respect of

household the loss is mentioned as Rs.1,25,000/-. As regard column any

source of income it is mentioned nil and finally column any other

information it is recorded nil. It appears to be as rightly argued from

prosecution side that any such report given to the police rather reflected

that deaths and killings of the family member of the applicant was sought

to be compensated only and if applicant Jagdish Kaur was in a belief and

conviction that enforcement machinery for the killing of her family

members was not to act and take any cognizance of those incidents. It is

argued and contended in the written submission by ld. counsel that CBI

started investigation in 2005 and what happened from 1984 to 2005 had

not at all been mentioned in the chargesheet. Why material available

inbetween that period had been withheld by CBI. It is submitted that

investigation of this case had been once taken up by Riot cell of Delhi

police somewhere in the year 1992-93 and counsel referred to statement

of Smt. Jagdish Kaur recorded during that process and counsel argued

that all that material not brought before the court reflected unfair

SC No.26/2010 34/129


35/129

35

investigation and should be considered creating serious doubt in the

prosecution case. Counsel then referred to statement of Smt. Jagdish

Kaur as Ex.PW1/C which was recorded before Justice Nanawati

Commission and advocate Mr. Gandhi representing Delhi police came up

with a statement that though four chargesheets had been filed on the

basis of FIR 416/84 but no chargesheet was filed concerning death of

husband and son of witness Smt. Jagdish Kaur as police had not been

able to trace witness and investigation was considered as closed.

Counsel argued that when no witness or any material was available

concerning the deaths of the victims of this case then investigation by CBI

in 2005 onwards was an attempt to present a case as solved by false

implication of accused persons. Counsel referred to statement of

Investigating Officer PW-17 which showed that Smt. Jagdish Kaur did not

co-operate despite ample opportunities and that material provided

sufficient reasons and grounds for sending the case untrace. Ld. Special

Public Prosecutor Sh. Cheema, on the other hand, argued that when no

FIR had been registered concerning the killings of this case and no

investigation was taken up and rather police official performed a role of

silent spectator and in some instances, instigating the mob as is now

being reflected from the evidence, there was infact no evidence or

material collected by Delhi Police to chargesheet the culprits and thus, no

such adverse inference was to be drawn that CBI had failed to place all

that material before the court. Counsel Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma then

SC No.26/2010 35/129


36/129

36

referred to report of justice Nanawati Commission and referring to para

16.7 pointed out that Commission concluded that there was credible

material against Sajjan Kumar and Balwan Khokar for recording a finding

that they were probably involved as alleged by witnesses, it is argued that

no witnesses had named Sajjan Kumar in FIR 416/84 even pertaining to

killings of five persons of this case prior to Nanawati Commission. It is

argued that report of Nanawati Commission cannot be taken any help or

assistance by Court as it does not constitute evidence.

Counsel then took up individual witnesses and argued that the

witness Jagsher Singh had never lodged any complaint despite he

claiming to have witnessed killings of this case. No reasons have been

given by witness for not having lodged a report with the police. He further

admits that he had not even submitted any affidavit before any

commission of inquiry. Ld. Counsel Sh. Cheema argued that let evidence

of the witness be analyzed and taken scrutiny in peculiar set of

circumstances that no action was being taken by the police and none of

the victim had faith in Delhi police to lodge a report for fair investigation

into any of those incidents. Counsel Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma then referred

to witness Nirpreet Kaur and witness states that she or her mother did not

lodge any complaint with the police and only on 11.11.1984 her mother

had submitted the application seeking for a compensation and provided

some incident details in that application. Counsel argued that witness

now claiming to be a direct witness of some facts was a attempt to create

SC No.26/2010 36/129


37/129

37

evidence and the law would not permit to believe such an evidence. On

the other hand it has been argued from prosecution side that same

reason is to be considered and examined as to why no report was lodged

by this witness or by her mother with the police and the reason was

complete inaction on the part of police. It is argued that where mother of

this witness submitted an application claiming compensation in

circumstances itself reflected that focus was to get compensated for loss

and damage rather then any hope for getting justice for acts of criminality

committed by mob.

Witness Jagdish Kaur PW1, it is argued, had lodged a report on

03.11.1984 but takes a contradictory stand that police took her signatures

on two blank papers. It has been counter argued from prosecution side

that even if Jagdish Kaur had approached police to lodge her report, it

was either avoided or if something was noted that was not brought in

record of the police. It is argued that her complaint/ petition for

compensation dated 13.11.1984 which is Ex.PW1/D would suggest the

same situation that victims for getting justice for criminal acts committed

by the mob were to satisfy themselves by compensation for the loss of life

as well property. It is argued by ld. defence counsel that affidavit

Ex.PW1/A submitted by witness Smt. Jagdish Kaur before Justice

Ranganath Mishra Commission on 07.09.1985 and her statement dated

31.12.1992 Ex.PW16/A as well her statement dated 20.01.1985

Ex.PW4/B would show that Sajjan Kumar is not shown involved in any

SC No.26/2010 37/129


38/129

38

manner in any of the incident. Counsel submitted that witness now

naming accused Sajjan Kumar and describing his role was a reflection on

her veracity and she was unbelievable witness. Counsel refers to cross

examination of the witness where a question is put that prior to witness

submitting her affidavit in Nanawati Commission in 2000 name of Sajjan

Kumar had nowhere appeared and witness answers questions in

affirmative. It is submitted that in these circumstances testimony of

witness Smt. Jagdish Kaur becomes doubtful and it was liable to be

rejected. Ld. Counsel Sh. Cheema on the other hand submitted that it

was only in the year 2002 when witness found opportunity to give her

statement before Justice Nanawati Commission and if she narrated an

incident mentioning involvement of accused Sajjan Kumar then her

evidence was not to be rejected only by the reason that at on earlier

occasion and point of time she had not named Sajjan Kumar. It is argued

that infact prior to the investigation of incident of the present case taken

up by CBI, Delhi police had shown and exhibited complete inaction.

Counsel Sh. Sharma then argued that there was no reason or

justification to reopen the case in 2005 as per the memorandum of action

taken report on the report of Justice Nanawati Commission, CBI failed to

point out what material appeared for CBI to take up investigation in

October 2005. It is counter argued that infact Justice Nanawati

Commission report had revealed involvement of accused persons when

affidavits as well statement of some of the victims were examined by the

SC No.26/2010 38/129


39/129

39

commission and consequently on the recommendation of the

Government of India that further investigation through CBI was directed.

Counsel then argued that in the present case there were two sets of

accused, one set of accused named from the very beginning but

investigation agency had no evidence against them and second set of

accused named in the year 2000. It is submitted that investigating agency

earlier having concluded that it was not a fit case to be sent for trial then

CBI had no justification in filing the chargesheet. Argument is

misconceived. If certain names had appeared as perpetrators of serious

crimes of murders and rioting in the very beginning then investigating

agency taking a stand that it was not a fit case to be sent for trial was a

stand which suggested in support of the argument of prosecution that

State machinery was not infact directed towards prosecution of the

culprits and consequently no fair and effective investigation was taken up.

Counsel Sh. Sharma further argued that witness is giving a changed

version as regard the role of accused persons. That point concerning the

credibility of the witness will be seen when evidence of witness PW1 is

analyzed. It is then argued that except witness PW1, PW4, PW7 and

PW10 no other witness has named accused persons. Prosecution is

heavily relying upon PW9 Jasbir Kaur, PW12 Manjit Singh on the issue of

conspiracy but then both the witnesses have admitted that Sajjan Kumar

was not involved in the riots in their area. It is argued that PW3 Ramavtar

Sharma has been got declared hostile. It is further submitted that though

SC No.26/2010 39/129


40/129

40

accused persons have been named by PW4 Balvinder Singh but his

evidence is only of hearsay in nature.

Counsel then taking up the challenge to evidence of PW1 argued

and submitted that there are three statements by this witness and these

are her affidavits Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B which she had submitted

before Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission and Justice Nanawati

Commission and then her statement recorded before Nanawati

Commission as Ex.PW1/C. It is submitted that whatever the witness Smt.

Jagdish Kaur wanted to say without assistance of any investigating

agency, she stated in those documents. Counsel then referred to

testimony of the witness where she states that in the year 1985 she came

to know that Ranganath Mishra Commission has been instituted. She

was working in a Stitching center run by government for riot victims and

she was not under any threat or pressure from any corner and she

narrated all facts in her affidavit. Witness deposed that she had named

Sajjan Kumar in that affidavit but she was confronted on that point. It is

argued that where the witness has deposed that affidavit was sworn and

submitted before Commission which suggested a voluntary act on her

part no ambiguity was left. Counsel then referred to second affidavit

Ex.PW1/B which was submitted by witness before Nanawati Commission.

Witness was confronted with that affidavit when it did not bear date,

month or year. Counsel pointed out contradictions in two affidavits and

submitted that version of the witness was not to be believed in view of

SC No.26/2010 40/129


41/129

41

variance in two statements.

Counsel further submitted that complaint/ report Ex.PW1/D given

by this witness Smt. Jagdish Kaur and then her statement dated

31.12.1992 Ex.PW16/A and finally her 161 CrPC recorded by CBI in the

present case, all these statement of witness were irreconcilable version of

the incident and witness accordingly was unbelievable and unacceptable.

It has been counter argued by prosecution side that witness PW1

Jagdish Kaur is a truthful and wholly reliable witness. Her testimony is

natural and convincing and can be accepted without corroboration. It is

argued that she is a witness of extraordinary courage as despite large

number of killings in the area around her residential house including the

killings of her husband and son and when it was virtually a breakdown of

State and administrative machinery which could be seen from the

circumstance and situation that not a single victim had been removed to

hospital and dead bodies were lying rotting for days, witness made

repeated attempts to visit police station and lodge a report. She herself

performed funeral of her husband and son by creating funeral pyre made

of broken household articles by herself. When she claims to be a direct

witness of all the happenings, there was no reason to not to believe her.

It is further argued that a desperate attempt on the part of this

witness to seek justice further suggests some truth in her version.

Despite being left in a pitiable condition and homeless and with a burden

of surviving children she took all pains to file an affidavit before Justice

SC No.26/2010 41/129


42/129

42

Ranganath Mishra Commission. Her deposition in the present trial that

she had lost faith in Delhi police and thus she considered no point in

pursuing for justice with Delhi police stands supported from the

circumstances that police lodged a single FIR and kept on clubbing

complaints in that FIR. Only 5 charge sheets were filed in court whereas

there were killings beyond those small number of cases sent for trial in

court.

It is argued that witness having stood firm in her cross examination

wherein she was subjected to a very long cross examination spreading

over dates, her testimony provides a basis to believe her and no

circumstance or fact appeared from her cross examination to hold or

describe the witness unreliable or untruthful. She is a truthful witness as

she did not add any name as the participant in the killings of her husband

and son beyond the names she had given in her 161 CrPC statement. It

is submitted that she has named only accused Balwan Khokar in the

incident of killing of her husband and son. She did not deviate to assign

any specific or grave role to persons so named. In the incident of killing of

her cousins on 02.11.1984 she has named only accused Girdhari Lal and

Capt. Bhagmal as part of the mob who attacked the victims.

It is submitted that improvement or contradiction though was

essentially a test of the credibility but then underlying search was to know

any motive behind any such improvement or deviation. If testimony of

witness in its entirety appeared true then contradictions were to be seen

SC No.26/2010 42/129


43/129

43

in that perspective. It is argued that some deviations pointed out from the

testimony of this witness were concerning matter of details like a witness

being clean shaven at a particular point of time or her different residential

address at different period of time and accordingly such deviations would

not have any adverse effect on her veracity.

It is further argued that no motive has been attributed to witness for

false implication. It is submitted that in the cross examination as many

233 suggestions have been given and there were overlapping

suggestions like influence of Delhi Gurudwara prabhandak committee,

Akali Dal or even CBI but witness emerged without any dent on her

veracity. No material has come to suggest if the witness named accused

in her deposition for any extraneous influence or pressure.

Evidence of the witness suggested that there was no possibility of

any mistaken identity. There was no serious or effective challenge to her

status as eye witness of this case. A reference has been made to a

suggestion put to the witness (page 63 of deposition of witness in cross

examination) and the question is that was it correct that she did not want

to leave her children alone because of the incident seen by her. It

appears question was put when witness deposed that she did come out

of her house and she did try to reach police to lodge her report. Witness

has answered that since she had to do the cremation of her husband and

son and had to report the matter to the police, she did take up all that

exercise.

SC No.26/2010 43/129


44/129

44

Defence counsel Sh. Sharma then argued that Smt. Jagdish Kaur

had taken different stands on her alleged report dated 03.11.1984. He

referred to her statement that on 03.11.1984 witness when visited her

house she saw attackers looting her house. They had thrown out dead

bodies of her husband and son. She further deposed that she offered

prayer and then cremated her husband and son and then she went to

house of Mr. Omparkash and then at around 2 'O' clock on the same day

police van took her to Palamnagar Police station where they entered her

report. Counsel has then referred to Ex.PW1/B which is the affidavit

submitted by this witness Jagdish Kaur before Justice Nanawati

Commission in the year 2000. This affidavit mentioned that on

03.11.1984, she went to police station and they entered her report but no

action was taken by the police. Counsel also referred to complaint

Ex.PW1/D. Witness has then been confronted and shown her present

case 161 CrPC statement Ex.PW1/DA and it is stated by her in that

statement that on 03.11.1984 police took her and then she lodged

complaint. While lodging complaint she was threatened by police officials

not to name any big person else they would kill her remaining children. It

is argued that in her deposition before court in this case witness states

that when she reached police post Incharge police post was there

present. Airforce personnel were also present nearby. Incharge police

post recorded her report on a plain paper by writing few lines and got it

signed from her and he also obtained her signature on two blank papers

SC No.26/2010 44/129


45/129

45

and told her that he would prepare report after sometime. She was not

given copy of any such report though she had asked for the copy.

Counsel then referred to cross examination of the witness appearing at

page 105 where witness stated that she could not say if on 03.11.1984

police officials were not against her. She admits that behaviour of police

officials who took her to the police post was not bad. It is argued that

prosecution contention that Smt. Jagdish Kaur made a statement to the

police on 03.11.1984 and that statement was removed and not available

on record was unacceptable and unbelievable. It is argued that adverse

inference is to be drawn against the prosecution when CBI did not take

up any inquiry on that aspect. It is submitted that no statement regarding

contents of that complaint has been recorded. Witness could have

narrated contents of that complaint. Counsel then referred to evidence of

investigating officer Manoj Pangarkar PW15 where he admitted that

despite making best of his efforts he could not locate any such statement

of Smt. Jagdish Kaur dated 03.11.1984 in the police record.

As regard statement of this witness Jagdish Kaur dated 03.11.1984

it is the argument and contention of the prosecution that PW1 has

consistently maintained that she had eventually succeeded in getting her

statement recorded by police officials of Police post Palam on

03.11.1984. In this regard testimony of witness in court in this case dated

02.07.2010 appearing at page 25 is referred to. It is argued that

subsequent circumstances duly established that statement of this witness

SC No.26/2010 45/129


46/129

46

had infact been recorded on 03.11.1984 but the same might have been

removed from record for extraneous reasons. It is submitted that witness

makes a reference to her statement dated 03.11.1984 in her affidavit

Ex.PW1/A filed before Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission. She also

makes a reference to this statement in her affidavit Ex.PW1/B submitted

before Justice Nanawati Commission and then in her statement recorded

before Justice Nanawati Commission. It is submitted that even in the

disputed statement Ex.PW16/A allegedly recorded by Riot cell Inspector

B.D. Tyagi on 31.11.1992 there is a reference to a statement dated

02.11.1984 made by this witness to police post Incharge SI Balkishan. It

is submitted that all these subsequent circumstances would suggest that

infact statement of this witness had been recorded, whether on

02.11.1984 or on 03.11.1984. Ld. Prosecutor then referred to a

suggestion put to the witness (page 105 in cross examination) and the

suggestion refuted by witness is that on 03.11.1984 since police officials

were concerned about her safety that police officials themselves had

taken her to the police post. It is argued that though in suggestion a

distorted fact has been put to the witness but it is the case of defence

itself that witness did go to police station on 03.11.1984. It is submitted

that adverse inference is to be drawn to the effect that entire State

machinery not only came to a standstill but was averse to the cry for

justice and a possibility of an influential person getting that report

removed was not to be ruled out and on that score justice cannot be

SC No.26/2010 46/129


47/129

47

sacrificed by drawing adverse inference against the veracity of the

witness.

Counsel Sh. Sharma then argued that witness has changed entire

prosecution story regarding incidents of 01.11.1984 and 02.11.1984. It is

submitted that there was no reason to discard her statement dated

20.01.1985 Ex.DW4/B and her statement dated 31.12.1992 Ex.DW16/A.

PW15 Investigating Officer has confirmed the availability of these

statements on the judicial record.

The stand of the prosecution is that there is a serious doubt about

statement dated 20.01.1985. It is submitted that witness Smt. Jagdish

Kaur very vehemently and consistently denied to have given any such

statement. Reasons in the support are i) that Smt. Jagdish Kaur was not

in Delhi at all as she had left Delhi for Amritsar on 12.12.1984 and her

testimony of that fact appears at page 25/ 27. She asserts that she was

not in Delhi on 20.01.1985. ii) In her statement before Nanawati

Commission recorded on 08.01.2002 she has specifically stated that she

had shifted to Amritsar on 12.12.1984. iii) DW4 who proved this statement

admits that he did not know Urdu at all either to read or to write. iv) PW17

DSP Anil Kumar Yadav has specifically deposed that despite efforts SI

Arjan Singh could not be traced but then investigation revealed that

witness Smt. Jagdish Kaur was correctly disowning any such statement.

v) Statement appeared to have been doctored to destroy the case and to

give a clean chit to the perpetrators of crime.

SC No.26/2010 47/129


48/129

48

Similarly statement dated 31.12.1992 Ex.DW16/A shows and

appears as if Smt. Jagdish Kaur appeared before Inspector B.D. Tyagi

and volunteered a statement. Witness has very strongly denied to have

given any such statement. Her consistent stand is that she had no faith in

Delhi Police and she never appeared before Delhi Police after

03.11.1984. It is submitted that only in November 1988 that PW1 had

managed to have a roof of her own and had moved to her present

address Danga Pidit Colony. Address appearing in her alleged statement

Ex.DW16/A as 1713, Gurunanakpura, Amritsar, appeared to have been

lifted from her affidavit filed in 1985 before Justice Ranganath Mishra

Commission. A reference is made to testimony of PW17 DSP Anil Kumar

Yadav who states that on 28.12.1992 a notice for procuring presence of

Smt. Jagdish Kaur in Delhi was sent and notice reached Office of SSP

Amritsar on 31.12.1992 but it could not be served for want of her address.

Even otherwise there appeared no reason that PW1 would appear

voluntarily before Riot cell Officer. It is submitted that Inspector Mam

Chand DW16 who proved that statement purported to have been

recorded by Inspector B.D. Tyagi admitted that he knew nothing about

whether and how this statement came into existence. He further admitted

that as a matter of practice statement of female witness would be

recorded at her place of residence instead of calling her to police station.

It is further submitted by ld. prosecutor that daily diary report of Riot cell

for the relevant dates were got produced as Ex.DW16/PA and none of

SC No.26/2010 48/129


49/129

49

those entries mentioned arrival or departure of PW1 in Riot cell on

31.12.1992. It is further submitted that statement Ex.DW16/B recorded by

SI Ghanshyam Das under section 161 CrPC also falsified the alleged

recording of Ex.DW16/A.

It is further argued that purported statement Ex.DW16/A is a design

to screen the offenders when the occurrence of 01.11.1984 is tried to

have been shifted to 6.00 am in the morning. Maker of this statement

maintained that she did not identify any member of the mob. Omparkash

though a close neighbour is shown to have been living at some distance.

PW1 is shown to have stayed in her house with her children on the night

of 02.11.1984. Date of statement of witness before police post Palam on

03.11.1984 is changed to 02.11.1984. Witness is shown ignorant of any

fact regarding her three cousins killed on 02.11.1984. It is argued that

falsehood of statement can be seen writ large when tested on touchstone

of probability. Why would Jagdish Kaur travel from Amritsar to Delhi to tell

the Riot cell that she knew nothing about identity of the killers of her

husband and son and she had not witnessed killings of her cousins on

the following day. She had already submitted a detailed affidavit

Ex.PW1/A in September 1985 before Justice Ranganath Mishra

Commission. Only an insane person would take up any such exercise to

travel to narrate facts appearing in the purported statement.

Defence Counsel Sh. Sharma then argued that name of Balwan

Khokar figures for first time in affidavit Ex.PW1/A. Averment in affidavit

SC No.26/2010 49/129


50/129

50

suggested that deponent Smt. Jagdish Kaur was not at home and met the

mobsters prior to occurrence. A reference is made to statement when

the attack on Sikhs was going on I requested persons listed above to help

usit suggests if she met mobsters and was not at home. It is argued that

witness has completely changed her version in her affidavit Ex.PW1/B.

She gives entirely a different picture in para 3 and 4 regarding the alleged

incident of 01.11.1984. In this affidavit neither name of Balwan Khokar is

given nor any role is assigned to him and rather witness has named

Sajjan Kumar alleging him as leading the mob. Counsel again refers to

this affidavit where witness states that her husband was at home with his

family. MP Sajjan Kumar was leading mob. As regards killings she states

in the affidavit that persons entered in her house and started beating my

son Gurpreet Singh. He ran and was burned with powder to death and

they injured my husband which cause death of my son and husband on

the spot. It is further submitted that a detailed statement was given by

PW1 before Justice Nanawati Commission which is Ex.PW1/C but then

there is complete silence regarding incident of 01.11.1984. It is submitted

that in statement Ex.PW1/E witness refers to her children and presence

of Jagsher for the first time. Her evidence in this trial then gives a new

story and a fresh case. She gives a role to her deceased son Gurpreet

deposing that her son went to the roof and noticed burning of the houses

of Sikhs and he accordingly, advised PW1 to leave the children at some

safe place. Accordingly, witness deposes, she took her children to house

SC No.26/2010 50/129


51/129

51

of Ramavtar Sharma and there Jagsher was already present taking

shelter. It is submitted that witness has given a changed version

regarding killings also.

It is referred from her evidence where she names accused Balwan

Khokar as part of the mob who killed her husband and

Sajjan Kumar 1984 Anti Sikh Riots Case Judgement

Documents

Transcript of Sajjan Kumar 1984 Anti Sikh Riots Case Judgement