|
BEFORE JUSTICE NANAVATI COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ( Witness No : 97 ) Name : Shri Ram Mehar On SA In October-November, 1984 I was working as SHO Police Station Gandhi Nagar. Cross Examination by Shri H.S.Phoolka, Senior Advocate on behalf of Nov ’84 Carnage Justice Committee : In a discussion at the district level it was decided that all cases of deaths during the riots should be registered as offences u/s 304 I.P.C. and not u/s 302 I.P.C. Accordingly even though 8 partly burnt dead bodies were recovered, an offence thereof was registered u/s 304 I.P.C. It was registered as FIR No.318/84. Subsequently on 9.11.84 it was converted into section 302 I.P.C. I had received instruction from senior officers and on that basis the offence was converted from 304 to 302 I.P.C. I cannot name the senior officer as I do not remember. This policy decision was communicated to me orally. I was not present when it was so decided. I was informed about the policy decision on 1.11.84. As far as I remember it was conveyed to me in the evening. I cannot name the person who had informed me as I do not remember the name. As far as I remember the mob which had collected in the area of my police station had started committing offences from about 11.00 AM onwards. They had continued to commit offences at these places and in respect of all of them one FIR was registered. FIR number is 315. Only one FIR was registered as all the offences were treated as continuing offences. The file which is now shown to me contains copies of all the FIRs registered at the Police Station and also reply to the questionnaire by the present SHO Police Station Gandhi Nagar Shri Dharampal Sharma ( the file is given Exhibit No.W84/15). FIR No.315 covered four or five incidents. FIR No.318 covers incidents in respect of killing of 8 sikh persons and burning of 9 vehicles. Some complaints were received subsequently with respect to the incidents that had happened in the same area. They were also investigated alongwith the FIR No.318. Chargesheet in FIR No.318 was filed only with respect to the incident of 8 deaths and burning of vehicles near that place. It did not include the incidents mentioned in the complaints which were received later. The complaints were investigated separately. The case was closed as untraced initially. Later on it was reopened. I do not know why the case was reopened. I am shown the report made by the Special Riot Cell which is in file 91/74/JJC/87/JRPC ( which is now given Exhibit No.W97/1 ). In that report it is mentioned that the case was reopened on the basis of recommendation made by the Commission. It is also mentioned in the report that Ms.Ajay Kaur had named Shri H.K.L. Bhagat in her affidavit making allegations against Shri Bhagat. It is also correct to say that it is mentioned in the report that Shri Bhagat was not to be challaned in view of the letter from Shri M.M.Kutty, Secretary Home. I am shown one letter written by Mr. M.M.Kutty, JS (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi addressed to the Commissioner of Police (Delhi). It is dated 28.04.1993 containing in file Exhibit No.W97/1. I cannot say anything about the following paragraph No.2 of the letter " 2. In this case the Committee has recommended re-opening the investigation of case FIR No.318/84 P.S. Gandhi Nagar. The matter has been considered in this department and the Lt. Governot has approved to re-open investigation in case FIR NO.318/84, P.S. Gandhi Nagar and entrust it to the Riot Cell of Delhi Police. With regard to the reference made of Shri H.K.L.Bhagat no action may be taken at present till a decision is taken by Ministry of Home Affairs" After reopening the case the challan was filed in 1993. It was filed against 8 persons. Shri HKL Bhagat was not one of the accused. From the case diary I say that after reopening the case, statement of Ajay Kaur was recorded during further investigation. Her statement u/s 161 is not in the file as it was produced in the court during the cross examination. It was exhibited in the court for contradicting her. It was recorded on 23.5.1993.
Read over and found correct ( RAM MEHAR
)
( G.T. NANAVATI ) ( Witness No : 97 ) Name : Shri Ram Mehar On SA The witness volunteers that the policy decision which he had referred to earlier was really the result of discussion with the concerned ACP. [ Cross examination continued ] It is not true that I have given the above explanation under pressure of any senior police officer. Information regarding imposition of curfew was received by me at about 11.00 PM on 1.11.84. Regarding promulgation of section 144 Cr.P.C. order I was informed in the evening of 31.10.84. I had not arrested anyone from the mob on 1.11.84 as strength of the mob was too big compared to the police force which I had. The mob consisted of thousands of persons. The mob was mainly on main road of Gandhi Nagar. There was a mob on Jheel Chowk also. There were small mobs in almost all the galis of all the areas. I was posted as the SHO in that area two years prior to 1.11.84. I continued as SHO Police Station Gandhi Nagar till 17.11.84 and then I was transferred as SHO Police Station Farsh Bazar and I remained there till the beginning of 1985. I was aware of the bad characters of the area. I had not seen any bad character in the mob. There were some persons in the mob whom I knew. Some persons in the mob were from the locality and others were from outside. I had not seen people coming in my area in trucks and buses. I had also not seen the mob moving in the area in buses and trucks. I was patrolling in my area since about 7.00 AM on 1.11.84. Some people had opened shops in the morning of 1.11.84 but after some time they had closed them. All the shops had been closed by about 11.00 AM. The shops were closed by the shop owners themselves and I had not closed them. I had not seen any mob compelling the shop owners to close the shops. Throughout the day the mob was moving around in my area. The mob had collected since about 11.00 AM. The mob had gone on swelling and it might have the strength of about four to five thousand. At 11.00 AM the strength of the mob was about 1000. I had fired some shots to disperse the mob on 1.11.84. I do know if anyone was injured in the mob as a result of the firing. I had made an entry in the Roznamcha chart in respect of the rounds fired by me. The FIR in respect to the incident in the bazaar was filed by SI Nathan Lal. SI Nathan Lal was on duty. Two or three constables might have been with SI Nathan Lal. I had two armed constables with me. Now I say that I had not resorted to firing on 1.11.84. It is possible that the ASI and constables referred to in the duty chart might have been dropped by me some where in between the route. I am however definite that when I had gone to the main bazaar only two armed constables were with me. SI Balwant Singh, SI Raghuveer Singh, SI Nathan Lal and some constables could have been there in the main bazaar in the morning of 1.11.84 as they were posted there. Higher officers had visited the area within my Police Station but I cannot say who had visited on 1.11.84 and who had visited on 2.11.84. The DCP had visited my area on 1.11.84 or 2.11.84. I used to pass on the messages regarding the situation in my area. The message were passed through wireless. The first such message was sent at about 11.07 AM. The said message was conveyed by my police station to higher officers but I cannot say to whom it was conveyed. The message was also conveyed by the District Control Room to CQ ( Concerned Quarter ) call sign. The army had come in my area on 2.11.84 at about 3.00 PM. The army had staged flag march in my area. One officer and some constables were sent along with the army to guide them. Army’s action was independent of itself. We did not have any joint patrolling with the army. It is not mentioned in duty chittha contained in file exhibit W84/13 that some police officer was assigned duty with the army. I do not know if it is so mentioned in the record. I remember that SI Nathan Lal remained on duty with the army. I do not remember the name of the commanding officer of the army. I had met him on 2.11.84. There was discussion regarding the situation in the area but they had informed me that they would take orders from their higher officers only and not from the police. I had informed the army officers about the sensitive areas in my area. In fact, I had told them that the whole Gandhi Nagar area was sensitive. The violence was throughout the area of Gandhi Nagar. I had informed the army officers as where the violence acts had taken place though I had not shown them the specific points. Since the army was moving in the vehicles I had pointed out the Gurudwaras which were on the route. I had informed them that there was Gurudwara inside also but they told me that they would pass through the main roads only. I had pointed out the pockets where Sikhs were residing but that was only from the route of the flag march. I had not moved along the whole route with them but I told them while I met them on the route. I had informed the army officers about the pockets and even the galis where the Sikhs were residing. I cannot say if the army had gone inside the gails as I was not alongwith them all along. I do not know if army had posted a picket at Jheel Gurudwara. It is true that on 3.11.84, Jheel Gurudwara was set on fire and one sardar was burnt alive. The police had resorted to firing and one Hindu was killed. The army had also come there. Army had reached there before I reached that place. SI Nathan Lal was with the army. When I had reached that place I had noticed that the culprits were being taken into custody. Some firing had taken place before I had reached that place and some firing had taken place when I reached that place. I cannot say whether the Hindu who was killed in the firing died before or after I had reached that place. The police was firing the shots and not the army. I do not know if the army had resorted to firing on any of those days in my area. There was one death of sardarji on 1.11.84 but that information reached to me not on 1.11.84 but on 2.11.84. The dead body was not recovered. 19 Sikhs were killed on 2.11.84 in the area. One more Sikh was killed on 3.11.84. On 11.11.84, I had received a complaint that five Sikhs were killed on 2.11.84 but their bodies were not recovered. Three more deaths were reported on 2.11.84 they were from Ajit Nagar area. Their bodies were also not recovered. On 6.11.84 it was reported to me that one sardarji was killed on 2.11.84. There was no incidence of violence on 4.11.84 but we had taken 36 persons into custody for violation of curfew. The deaths had taken place in Khatta Kailash, Gali No.17 Kailash Nagar, Gali No.10 and 11 Ajit Nagar. The distance between Ajit Nagar and Kailsah Nagar is not even half a kilometer but a man who is not familiar with the area would get lost in the gallis. There was a picket at 330 Ft. Road near Manjit Hotel and that was the nearest picket from Ajit Nagar. Ajit Nagar locality was adjoining that picket. In Ajit Nagar there was one house of which one room was treated as Gurudwara. There was picket near Dharampura Gurudwara which is also close to Ajit Nagar. [ The witness volunteers and states that pickets were changed from time to time depending upon the situation and therefore all the details are not mentioned in the list containing in file Exhibit No.W84/13. ] I cannot say whether in the night of 1.11.84 there was a picket in Ajit Nagar. There were pickets near that area on 2.11.84 morning. One picket was near Dharampura Gurudwara. I do not know if there was picket on 330 ft road in the morning of 2.11.84. There was no other picket there but there was mobile patrolling. The nearest picket from Gurudwara Dharampura is at 330 Ft Road. There were other pickets in my area on 2.11.84. One was near Railway Bridge. One was at South Kailash Nagar. One was at Jheel Chowk. One was at Jheel Gurudwara and there was a picket at Main Bazar also. The distance between Ajit Nagar and Gandhi Nagar is about a half a kilometer. No incident had taken place at Dharampura Gurudwara on the night of 1.11.84. I had received a message from the Control Room on 1.11.84 at night; the message was to the effect that there was tension at the said Gurudwara. The message was received at 2115 Hrs., in fact, I was there present at that time. It is not correct to say that I had gone to Gurudwara as I was informed that some Sikhs with kirpans had gathered there. No incident has taken place at that place. I had gone to the Dharampura Gurudwara as it was reported to me that there was tension. I had remained in that area for about 10 to 15 min. There was no crowd there and therefore I left that place. I had not waited there for more than an hour as there was no tension there. I was taking rounds in that area. I had received a message from DCP to proceed to Krishna Nagar area but I had not gone there as there was tension around Dharampura Gurudwara. When I had stated earlier that there was a bogus complaint received that some Sikhs with open swords were moving, that was not with reference to Dharampura Gurudwara area. It is not correct to say that I am now changing my answer and saying that that information was with respect to some other area. The tension had developed as a result of gathering of sardars near the Gurudwara as the question of safety of the Sikhs was concerned. On the night of the 1.11.84 I had also gone to the Gurudwara at Jheel Chowk and Ajit Nagar. There was no tension either at Ajit Nagar Gurudwara or Jheel Chowk Gurudwara. The incident of 8 Sikhs being burnt alive near Ajit Nagar Gurudwara had happened some time in the afternoon on 2.11.84. I had seen many Sardars in the Gurudwara when I had gone to Dharampura Gurudwara in the night of 1.11.84. There was no crowd on the road but people were seen moving around. The Sikhs within the Gurudwara were found by me worried. I had seen about 20 to 30 persons passing by the Gurudwara. I had not arrested anyone of them because they had run away on seeing the police. The gate of the Gurudwara was closed and no body had tried to come near the Gurudwara. There was about 250 Sikhs inside the Gurduwara. I had seen them from outside and I had not entered into the Gurudwara. I had a talk with some persons who were within the Gurudwara. No damange was caused to Dharampura Gurudwara between 1st and 5th November, 84. It is wrong to say that I had gone to that Gurudwara and remained there for about an hour and seven minutes as I had received information that lot of Sikhs had gathered there with swords and kirpans with them. On 2.11.84 in the morning at about 4.14 A.M., I had received a message from Control Room that some Sardars were standing at Gali No.17/18 of Gandhi Nagar with open swords and were also throwing hand grenades ( Hath Gola ) and some noise of shots having been fired was also heard. On receiving this information I had gone to that place. The information was found to be false. I cannot say, as I do not remember whether ACP or DCP had also come there. [ further cross examination deferred ]
Read over and found correct
( RAM MEHAR
)
( G.T. NANAVATI ) Name : Shri Ram Mehar On SA [ further cross examination continued ] It is true that as mentioned in the movement chart I had remained near Dharampura Gurudwara for 1 hour and 7 minutes. I say that my earlier statement that I was near the Gurudwara for about 10 to 15 minutes and the statement in the movement chart that I was at that place for about 1 hour and 7 minutes are both correct. I say that as mentioned in the movement chart that I was at the Gurudwara for one hour and seven minutes because that was my static position and I was near Gurudwara either at one place or the other for that time. It is incorrect to say that I have deposed falsely before the Commission. My attention is drawn to page no.6 of file exhibit No. [W-84/13] wherein it is stated that an information was received that there was a crowd at Jheel Gurudwara and that on receiving that information the force was sent and on seeing the police crowd had dispersed. I say that the said information was given to me by my subordinates. It is true that the report is signed by me. I cannot now say which subordinate has given this information. This statement on page No.6 of the file is not containing my report; it is at pages 6 to 9. My report bears the date 13.2.85. Pages 18 to 21 are annexures to my report. The report at pages 1 to 5 was made by me. That report was sent on 1.12.84. Pages 6 to 9 are not the annexures to that report. The report at pages 6 to 9 was not prepared by me. The report at pages 10 to 17 contains details regarding my movement. The report at pages 6 to 9 is a general report of the police station and I say that the contents are true. Without checking the record I cannot say which police officer had gone to Jheel Gurudwara. It is true as mentioned at page 11 of my report that after receiving information I had gone to Main Bazar regarding crowd at main bazaar. I had gone there and dispersed the crowd. It is also correctly stated in it that I dispersed the crowd in that area at 2.30 PM. It is also true that I had dispersed the crowd there at 5.45 PM. It is correctly stated that on page 12 that from 5.45 PM to 8.55 PM I had tried to disperse the crowd and extinguish the fire in the main bazaar. It is false to say that I had not arrested anyone from the crowd because of the instructions from the senior officers. I say that they were not arrested because the crowd was very big. It was not necessary for me to resort to firing on 1.11.84 as the crowd could be dispersed even otherwise. I had not used tear gas because it was not available at the police station. I had not arrested anyone on 1.11.84 from the crowd as it was not possible to catch those persons in the crowd. I had made efforts but was not successful. The looting and burning of shops was not done in presence of the police. It is true that on 1.11.84 at 23:52 Hrs. I had received the message that the Commissioner of Police had passed an order of shoot at sight if the crowd was found indulging in looting and burning. It is true that after receiving the order I had resorted to firing on 2.11.84. It is true that I had resorted to firing sometime between 11.15 AM to 3.20 PM at Main Bazar Gandhi Nagar and the adjoining Subhash Road and Gurudwara Dharampura where there were big mobs. I cannot say whom I had recognized from the mob. The mob was raising slogans that ‘Indira Gandhi Zindabad’ and ‘Indira Gandhi Amar Rahe’. Some persons from the mob were carrying sticks and iron rods. The iron rods were not very long. They were of the length of about 3 to 4 ft. I had not noticed anyone in the crowd carrying kerosene tin or any other tin. I had tried to find out how the shops and houses were set on fire. I had come to know that the crowd had used kerosene, petrol etc. I cannot say if any sample was collected from any place where the burning had taken place to find out what was the substance used by the culprits. On 31.10.84 at 23:45 Hrs., I had received a message that Sikh officer should not be send on Law and Order duty but they should be assigned some other duty in the police station like duty officer lock up duty. It is true that in the FIR No.316 one more death of 9.11.84 was also covered. I say that I had done so because the place of incident was the same. It is true that initially two persons were arrested in the challan in this case. Later on supplementary chargesheet was filed whereby two more persons were challaned. Raj Kumar and Anil Kumar who were accused in this case were arrested by Krishna Nagar Police on 7.11.84. They were produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate and he refused to take cognizance therefore they were taken to SDM. He also did not accept the complaints. Therefore, they were released on bail by the Krishna Nagar Police. These facts were mentioned in the chargesheet with respect to FIR No.316 because both Anil kumar and Raj Kumar could not be arrested later on and chargesheet against them was filed as Proclaimed Offenders (P.O.s). It is written in the wireless log book on 3.11.84 at 13:44 Hrs. that a message was received from SI Nathan Lal that one person was burnt and had died and two 3-wheelers were also burnt and the press reporters are on the spot. In reply to this message at 1346 Hrs. I had sent a message that my position is at Dharampura Gurudwara, which is tense, SI Nathan Lal be told to remove the dead body. [ Right of cross examination by Central Government reserved]. Read over and found correct ( RAM MEHAR )
( G.T. NANAVATI )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|