1984 anti-Sikh riots: Absence of fair trial may cause loss of hope in legal system, says Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has ordered a retrial in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case related to the killing of a man in Ghaziabad’s Raj Nagar area, saying if a fair investigation and trial is not provided in the matter, it “may result in a loss of hope in our legal system and compromise the interests of society”.

A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar passed the order on August 11, after taking cognisance of the matter on its own to determine the correctness of the 1986 verdict as it prima facie found fault in the investigation and the earlier proceedings conducted in a “hasty manner”.

The bench observed that the trial court’s erroneous decision resulted in “miscarriage of justice to the man’s wife and children, and deprived them of their fundamental right to a fair trial, since the additional sessions judge committed several manifest errors of law”.

“These errors have resulted in miscarriage of justice which is evident from the fact that a grave offence of murder and arson with communal overtones has neither been investigated properly by the investigating agency nor tried in right stead by the additional sessions judge. Resultantly, the victims, including the wife and children of the deceased Harbhajan Singh, have been deprived of their valuable fundamental right under Article 21 to a fair investigation and trial which, if not rectified, may result in a loss of hope in our legal system and compromise the interests of society,” the bench said.

The court said CBI failed to undertake sufficient efforts to collect evidence.

According to the prosecution, the victim’s wife had alleged that certain people set her husband and her house on fire, resulting in his death.

However, the trial court acquitted the four accused in May 1986 of the charges of arson and murder, saying there were contradictions between the woman’s statements given to police and in court.

The court had also pointed out the delay in filing the complaint.

In its order, the court noted that more than 40 years had passed since the incident and said it “undoubtedly falls within the category of an ‘exceptional case’, warranting setting aside the acquittal order passed in May 1986, and consequent direction for a retrial”.

“We are cognisant of the fact that over 40 years have passed since the occurrence took place. However, that by itself ought not to deter us from making the present direction for further investigation, since the alternative would entail turning a Nelson’s eye to the needs of the society at large and the rights of victims, including the complainant and her children, to a comprehensive free-and-fair investigation. The CBI is expected to carry out such further investigation on a best-effort basis to gather whatever evidence is available today,” the bench said.

The court said it appears that sufficient efforts were not made to associate all natural witnesses during the investigation, including the children of the deceased who were present at the time of the incident, and any neighbours, including the persons in whose house the complainant and her family had taken shelter after the mob had burnt their house down, as well as others who may have been present.

“Similarly, no effort was made to trace out the corpse of the deceased Harbhajan Singh, as also articles stolen from the house of the complainant,” the bench said.

The judges took note of the submissions made by the amicus curiae, senior advocate Vivek Sood, that a “bloodbath took place after the assassination of late Indira Gandhi” and as a result of the violence, widows, children and persons residing in the vicinity ran away for their safety and took shelter elsewhere, which naturally meant they would not have been readily available for investigation.

That, however, would not absolve the investigating agency of its duty to make sure that the best evidence was gathered by taking recourse to the powers accorded under the CrPC, so that any gaps in the evidence could not be misused subsequently at the trial by the accused to get off the hook, the court said.

“We are of the opinion that the proceedings have been conducted in a hasty manner,” the bench said, adding, “The failure of the investigating agency as also the additional sessions judge cannot inure to the benefit of the accused.”