JUDGMENTS

U N D E R   S E C T I O N S   :   1 8 8 / 1 4 8 / 4 3 6   I P C   R E A D   W I T H   S E C T I O N   1 4 9   I P C

S E S S I O N   C A S E   N o.  :   3 4 / 9 5

F O R E W O R D

Recently there have been two land mark Judgements which are of special interest to all the 1984 murder and mayhem affected Sikhs families.

A. First Judgement directly relates to worst affected area of Trilok Puri in Delhi. The learned Judge, Shri . S.N.Dhingra Additional Sessions Judge Karkardooma, in telling terms has condemned the murderers, the police and the administration. All have connived for perpetrating these horrible crimes and failed to take any action to punish the guilty. The learned Judge in his Judgement observed " Lt. Governor Gavai , Commissioner of Police Mr. Kaul, and other police officers like Mr. Jatav, Seva Dass , R.D. Malhotra etc. and their political masters under whose instructions the entire police force of Trilok Puri area and Palam Colony area and other areas were made inactive, and became supporter of rioters. They are the real culprits and the persons against whom investigations should have been done to find out their roles and the roles of their political masters". The Judge after berating the police and the administration has decided that the sentence to the accused persons should not only commensorate with the heinousness of the crime, but should be such that it should not only be adequate punishment for the crime but it should have detterent effect on others who intend to choose the path of crime.

B. The second Judgement is in a case Bhajan Kaur Vs. Delhi Administration by Justice Anil Dev Singh, Judge Delhi High Court. The learned Judge in his judgement has clearly and forcefully decided that it is the responsibility of the State to provide protection to the life of an individual . Failing which it must pay due compensation to the victim's family. In this and similar cases the due compensation must be Rupees 3.5 lakhs and not just Rupees 20 thousand given so far.

Copies of the two judgements are being printed and made available to the publicso that they can know as to how the Government,police & administration connived to annihilate the innocent poor people of our country during 1984. Readers are also requested to take up all such cases with the authorities to help the victims to get the enhanced compensation expeditiously.

14th March 1997 J.S. AURORA
President, The Sikh Forum

BRIEF FACTS : This case has arisen out of 1984 riots. Trilok Puri was the worst effected area in Delhi during 1984 riots. The carnage that took place in Block No. 32 of Trilok puri was hair raising. Approximately 2800 Persons were killed as per the officials estimates in Delhi. Out of these 2800 Persons about 400 were killed in Trilok Puri itself and according to prosecution case 95 bodies of those who were murdered in Block No. 32, Trilok Puri only, were recovered on 2.11.1984 itself when Senior Police Officers visited Block No. 32, Trilok Puri ultimately around 9.00 P.M. for the first time.

The prosecution case is that on 2.11.1984 at about 5.45 P.M. message was received at Police Station through Control Room that "MAAR KAAT" was going on the Trilok Puri. This message was recorded vide DD entry No. 12A and the total Police force which moved towards Trilok Puri from police station consisted of one SI Manphool Singh and one Ct. Pat Ram. They proceeded on foot from the police station and reached Trilok Puri Block No. 32 after about 45 minutes. When SI Manphool Singh reached Block No.32 on foot from police station, he found one P.C.R. Van already there at the corner of Block No. 32 . Thereafter i.e. after the reaching of Manphool Singh, came Shoorvir Singh Tyagi with 2-3 police persons of his staff. There was no other force with them. Some force came with other Senior Police Officers afterwards. It is stated by Manphool Singh , S.I. who is I O of the case that after the force came there, he with the help of other constables etc. apprehended 107 persons, rioting and arsoning from different galis of Block No. 32 .There were several injured persons, several ladies and children.Ladies and childern were then removed from there to police station while the several persons who had been injured in the riots, were removed to hospital. He recorded the statement of one Rijju Singh and on the basis of this statement of Rijju Singh he sent Ct. Pat Ram for registration of a FIR at police station ,Kalyan puri. Ct. Pat Ram got FIR No. 426/84 registered with police station , Kalyan Puri and came back with the copy of FIR.

In his alleged statement, Rijju Singh had told the police that he was living at Block No. 32/124, Trilok Puri and was running a shop in a Khokha outside his room. There were about 300 houses belonging to sikhs in Block No. 32,30 & 34 Trilok Puri. All the sikhs were having different professions. After the assassination of Prime Minister of the country on 31.10.1984, on 1.11.1984 around 2.00 P.M. non-sikhs came to Block No. 36 in thousands and they started rioting in Gurudwara. Thereafter, these persons came to Block No. 32 and told us that we had killed Indira Gandhi. When we did not agree to this, they started pressing to us to admit that we had killed Smt. Indira Gandhi and they started rioting. On 2.11.1984 also they continued rioting and at about 3.30 P.M. these rioters, who were thousands in numbers came to Block No. 32 and within no time, the riot took ugly turn and rioters started acting like devils. They burnt the houses of sikhs, they threw brick bats on the houses, they looted the houses, they killed the sikhs, women and children and threw them in burning fire. Due to the riots several persons died. He (Rijju Singh ) somehow saved his life and ran away from there but his wife Gyan Devi and his four children aged between 18 years and 7 years were missing. Several other persons of Block No. 32 also saved their lives by running away from there. His brother-in-law Kartar Singh got killed at the hands of rioters. He might be able to identify some of those who had been caught on the spot.

The 107 persons allegedly arrested from the spot were taken to police station where a list of these persons was prepared. Their personal search was taken and on the next day they were produced before Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari, who sent all of them to Judicial Custody. It is also stated in the challan that on the evening of 2.11.1984, 95 dead bodies of those sikhs who had been killed and murdered were collected from different galis and houses by Manphool Singh SI with the help of the other police force, and these were sent for post mortem, through SI Roshal Lal.

FIR No. 426 of 1984 which was recorded on 2.11.1984 became the omnibus FIR of the riots of 1984 in Trilok Puri, The riot victims of Trilok Puri who had either come to the police station, Kalyan Puri of themselves, or removed there by police or by military, were ultimately placed in a relief camp at Farsh Bazar, police station.

These riot victims of Trilok Puri had their tale of woes to narrate. Each one of them had lost a near and dear at the hands of rioters. When they were at police station, Kalyan Puri no FIR was registered on the basis of statements of these riot victims who had come to police station from Trilok Puri. After they were shifted to Relief Camp at Farsh Bazar, they were interrogated by Manphool Singh S.I. In their interrogation, each and every riot victim named some of those who were responsible for killing their nears and dears, however no separate FIR was registered, about the murders of nears and dears of riot victims within the jurisdiction of police station, Kalyan Puri. No list of those 95 deadbodies was prepared after getting them properly Identified from riot victims by SI Manphool Singh who was I O of the case. 95 persons had been murdered on that day in that Block. Their burnt remains or half burnt bodies were removed by police but no attempt was made to get the scene photographed and to seize the instruments of killing and the material with which they were burnt by the rioters. Police did not obtain 'police custody' of even a single rioter allegedly arrested by the police on the spot to find out from them the other various accomplices and to recover the instruments of murders, the source of getting kerosene oil, petrol etc. by which sikhs were burned alive.

Out of 107 persons, the charges against 93 accused persons were framed by this Court on 4.12.1995. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Other accused namely Suraj Bali, Tilak Raj, Vijay Kumar, Pooran Masi , Rafiq, Nanhe Khan S/o Maqsood Khan, had expired, and accused namely Jai Kishan, Shamim Mohd., Rajinder, Naresh Pal, Pyare Lal ,Mohd. Ismail, Ghan Shyam S/o Rama Swami were declared PO. One accused Asgar was not appearing and proceedings against him were stayed as an application was filed by his counsel that he is mentally unsound. Application was accompanied by Certificate issued by Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences.

PW 8 is Inspector Manphool Singh who was posted at Kalyan Puri as S.I. on 1.11.1984. It was he who was given the DD No. 12 A when wireless message was received at police station that 'MAAR KAAT' was going on in Trilok puri. In his testimony, before the Court, PW-8 had stated that riots had started in Block No. 1 to 10 of Trilok Puri on 1.11.1984. While he was there he received information on wireless that he should go to JPN Hospital as one riot victim had died there in the hospital after receiving injuries with kirpan. He proceeded to JPN Hospital on foot. He was not provided with any vehicle either to petrol the area or to go to hospital. So from Trilok Puri to JPN Hospital he went on foot and reached at the Hospital at about 2.00 A.M. in the night. He remained in the hospital through out that night and the next day of 2.11.1984 and reached back at police station around 5.45 P.M. The moment he reached at the police station he was told to go to Block No. 32,Trilok Puri and he proceeded towards Block No. 32, Trilok Puri along with one Ct. Pat Ram on foot and reached at Block No. 32 after about 45 minutes at about 6.30 P.M. When he reached there, Control Room Van was already there. He found houses of Block No. 32, and 30 on fire. These houses were of riot victims who were sikhs. On seeing the police, rioters moved in back lanes. When more police force came, these rioters who had moved in back lane, were surrounded by the police and caught. In all 107 persons were apprehended on the spot. Manphool Singh recorded statement of one Rijju Singh and sent for registration of FIR. As the number of rioters apprehended at the spot were more and the police force was less, they were all sent to police station, 'Jamatalashi' memos were prepared at police station and apprehended persons had signed those memos. Memos are on record.

It is stated by Manphool Singh, SI that he remained on the spot i.e. Block No. 32, Trilok Puri collecting dead bodies from the area through out the night. All these deadbodies were put by him in two M.C.D. Vans, one half bodied truck and one Nissan truck. Dead bodies were removed from Block No. 32 and 30. The persons who were arrested on 2.11.1984 were produced before Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari on next day and they were sent to Judicial Custody by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.

PW-7 is Shoorvir Singh Tyagi. On 2.11.1984 he was SHO of police station, Kalyan Puri. He stated that riots had started in his area on 1.11.1984. On 2.11.1984 at about 5.45 P.M. information about present incident was received through wireless and at that time he was on petrolling duty in the area. He went to Block No. 32 from the side of Block No. 36 and reached at the spot. SI Manphool Singh was already there. He found some houses and jhuggis were still on fire. A PCR Van also reached there. He stated that after reaching there he got the injured persons sent to hospital through Police Van. He sent message to Senior Police Officers for sending more force as he was having only 2/3 Constables with him and there was information of big riots and the rioters were to be arrested and after some time police force started coming there and with the help of the force SI Manphool Singh apprehended 107 rioters from the spot. These 107 rioters after having been arrested, were sent to the police station and case was registered against them. A list of rioters was prepared. The affected families of block No. 32 and 30 were advised to take shelter in the police station and gov-ernment vehicle was provided to transfer them to police station. Case against the rioters, on the basis of statement of Rijju Singh, was registered. SHO Shoorvir Singh Tyagi was suspended from the post of SHO between 2nd and 3rd November, 1984 night. He was suspended because he had not given timely information to Senior Officers about the riots. He stated that on 1.11.1984 also he had received several information of rioting. These informations were given to him by police person who were in the area. No public person had come to police station for lodging the report of rioting. He himself gave the reason that public might not have come to police station out of fear.

PW-2 is Rijju Singh on the basis of statement of whom FIR No. 426 was recorded. In his testimony before the Court he stated that in November he was residing at 32 / 124, Trilok Puri with his wife, two sons Jeet Singh and Dalip Singh and two daughters. On 1.11.1984, around 10-11 A.M. while he was sitting in the park in front of his house, he found people had collected on the roof of Masjid and non-sikhs had also collected on the road side. They were both Hindus and Muslims. When he asked the reason of their collecting there, they told him to go inside the house and nothing would happen. He went to vegetable shop. While he was at the vegetable shop, he found the Muslims who had gathered at Masjid, started shouting slogans and throwing burnt torches (Paleetas). The mob that had collected, started rioting. They first proceeded towards Gurudwara of Block No. 32, Trilok Puri and set Gurudwara on fire. Rioters after setting Gurudwara on fire, started putting houses and shops in Block No. 32 on fire. He concealed himself in a vacant room of one Sonari and saw the rioters burning the entire Block No. 32. The group of rioters were searching left out sikhs with torches. They were talking amongst themselves as to how many sikhs they have killed. On second day, the riot continued and he was rescued by the police on the night of 2.11.1984. By the time police had come, many sikhs had been killed. He was brought to police station, Kalyan Puri where he told police officers that his family members should be searched. They might have fled to Chilla Village. He was told by the police officer, harshly, to keep sitting. On next day, one of his acquaintance, Sadhu Singh met him there. They requested one police person with a gun to search for relatives of Rijju Singh. He stated that he told the police that rioters burnt sikhs' houses and burnt alive sikh persons in Block No. 32. He, however, could not identify any of the accused persons.

In his cross-examination, he stated that when he was at police station two full truck loads of deadbodies were brought to police station.

PW-5 is Head Constable Pat Ram. He stated that he was asked by the IO Manphool Singh to accompany him to Block No. 32. They went on foot to Block No. 32, which was about two and half Km. from the police station. He did not remember as to how many more police officers or police persons were at the police station at that time. When they were going towards Block No. 32 riots were taking place on the way also. But Manphool Singh SI who was accompanying him, did not intervene in those riots and he headed towards Block No. 32 only. When they reached there rioting was still taking place. There were several injured persons in Block No. 32. SHO had also reached the area within 5 minutes of their reaching. Some of the injured persons were sent to hospital by the IO. Accused persons were arrested from the spot and brought to the police station . First thing which the police did at the spot was to remove the injured sikhs, those who were alive, to the Hospital. He stated that he was helping in removal of the injured persons from the places where they were lying, to the vehicle. There might be approximately 10 to 15 injured persons. He stated that all those persons who were found rioting at the spot were arrested and passerbys were not arrested nor any person was apprehended from his home. These rioters were not arrested from one single place. They were at different places and they were arrested from different places within Block No. 32. Police had also chased some of the rioters. A large police contingent had reached there at the spot by the time rucca was being written. He stated that when he took rucca, names and addresses of accused persons who were arrested on the spot were not with him. He stated that he did not personally apprehend any of the accused persons. He was only assisting Manphool Singh in apprehension of accused persons along with other police persons. Their name & addresses were written by Manphool Singh, SI. He also stated that Sardar Ji (Rijju Singh) who gave statement to Manphool Singh was not injured.

Witness Badan Singh is the I0 of the case who investigated the case after Manphool Singh. He stated that he was posted at East District, Delhi as Reserve Inspector. On 4.12.1984, he was temporarily posted to Crime Branch in investigation of riot cases. He recorded the statement of various witnesses and arrested those accused persons who were not earlier arrested. He got the burnt houses photographed, prepared a list of those persons who were killed during riots from the information collected through the victims to the extent it was possible. List of burnt houses of various Blocks of Trilok Puri is Ex. PW-6/A. List is of more than 100 houses which had been burnt in Block Nos. 21, 30, 32, 33 and No. 36. Out of these 100 house 77 houses are of Block No. 32. Ex. PW-6/B is the list of jhuggis which had been burnt. This list consists of 29 jhuggis. Ex. PW-6/C is the list of Gurudwaras burnt at Trilok Puri. There are two Gurudwaras, one of Block No. 32 and second is of Block No. 36. It also consist of two numbers of burnt shops of Block No. 32 situated in house No. 124 and 30 . This list consist of names of 146 person killed. Photographs marked 'A' to 'D' were taken by the photographer. These photographs are of burnt houses. He stated that accused person in this case were already on bail when he was handed over investigation. After completion of investigation challan was filed by him through SHO Satvir Singh Rathi whose signature are at point A. Challan was Ex. PW-6/A.

In cross-examination, this witness had stated that it took several months in investigation of these cases. He was assisted by one H.C. If he needed more staff he used to take it from police station. All the accused persons interrogated by him denied their hands into the riots. He did not recover any instrument of attack during the investigation. He stated that he used to go to Relief Camp almost daily to record the statement of victims. He also went to the new residents of the victims after the victims had left Relief Camp, to record their statement.

PW-1 is Shi S.L. Khurana of Executive Branch of Police Head Quarters. He has proved on record the copies of Curfew Order & Prohibitory Order. Copy of the Curfew Order is Ex . PW-1/A. Copy of Prohibitory Order is Ex . PW-1/B. While Prohibitory Order was issued on 31.10.1984, curfew order was issued on 1.11.1984. As per Ex. PW-1/A Curfew Order was issued from 6.00 P.M. on 1.11.1984 till further order. Witness identified the signatures of then Commissioner of Police S.C. Tandon. He also proved on record the complaint Ex. PW-1/C, made by Sh. V.P. Marwah, Commissioner of Police concerning violation of the curfew orders and for prosecution of the accused persons u/s 188 IPC.

PW-3 is ASI Ganga Ram. He has proved on record FIR No. 426/84. He stated that this FIR was recorded around midnight at about 12:15 on the night of 2nd and 3rd November, 1984, on the basis of rucca sent by SI Manphool Singh through Ct. Pat Ram.

PW-4 is Sanjeev Bhalla L.D.C. from Home Police Department. He has placed on record notification duly certified by Deputy Secretary Home concerning appointment of committee consisting of P. Subhramanyum Poti, retired Chief Justice of Gujrat High Court and P.A. Rosha, retired I.P.S. Officer. Terms of reference of this Committee are given in the notification on Ex. PW-4/A. PW-4/B is another notification dated 30.10.1990 replacing Mr. Justice J.D. Jain in place of Justice P.S. Poti who relinquished his office. Ex. PW-4/C was notification dated 3.10.1990 replacing P.A. Rosha with V.K. Agarwal who relinquished his office.

The testimony of the witnesses examined by prosecution in this case does not give complete picture of the events that took place in Trilok Puri, Block No. 32 on 1st and 2nd November, 1984. However, from the testimony, it is clear that a fiendish violence was unlashed on innocent persons and a wild frenzy of terror, murder, loot and arson had made the residents of Block No. 32, Trilok Puri numb by shock and grief. Out of 107 persons who were arrested by the police on the night of 2nd November, 1984, a few of them were named by the widows, mothers and sisters of those sikhs who had been killed, in their statements to the police. There is no public witness cited for identifying any of these persons as the one who was participating in the riots. The police in fact did not make any of the available public persons as witness of participation of these persons in the riots. The testimony of H.C. Pat Ram, Shoorvir Singh Tyagi and Manphool Singh SI shows that when the police reached Block No. 32, they found most of the houses burning and several injured persons. They removed those injured persons to the hospital. Manphool Singh did not choose to record the statement of any of the injured person who was removed to the hospital, for lodging of FIR. He alleges that Rijju Singh made his statement there in Block No. 32, but Rijju Singh is a witness of general violence, murder and arson. He was concealing himself somewhere in the area. He did see a large crowd of rioters indulging in burning Gurudwaras, houses, shops killing sikhs but since he was himself trying to save his life and of his family, he did not perhaps come out face to face with the rioters, and therefore, could not Identify any of them. He came out of his hiding only when police came and was taken to police station where his statement was recorded. It is not that police could not have recorded the statement of those who were eyewitness to this violence. It is not that the witnesses were not available. According to police ' own admission several injured persons were removed to hospitals. These injured persons were those who had suffered injuries to their person at the hands of rioters and nears & dears had been killed in the violence perpetuated by the rioters, but from the record and the circumstances it seems that police was less interested in bringing truth out and was more interested in suppressing the facts. What has been revealed by the prosecution and the police is much less than what has been concealed by the prosecution and the police.

A perusal of FIR register at police station, Kalyan Puri, containing FIR No. 425/84 shows that prior to recording of FIR No. 426, one FIR No. 425 was recorded at the police station, Kalyan Puri vide DD No. 15 A at 8.45 P.M. on 2.11.1984. This FIR was lodged by R.D. Malhotra, ACP of Kalyan Puri and Gandhi Nagar police station. In his complaint which is subject matter of this FIR, he stated that " one Lt. Col. informed from Darya Gunj that in Block No. 34, Trilok Puri there has been a big riot and appropriate action should be taken. D.C.P. directed him to go to the spot. When he reached the spot, he came to know that in Block No. 32 there were several sikh quarters. On 1.11.1984 the persons in the neighbourhood of this block attacked these sikh houses and even during the night, the persons from the neighbouring places attacked these houses. They burned several houses and killed several persons. SHO, Kalyan Puri, Shri Shoorvir Tyagi had come to the spot but he made no arrangement for the protection of the lives of these sikh persons or their property. Motor Cycle rider Munshi Ram who was petrolling in this area and who had come to the area, gave information about the burning of houses and killing of sikhs, and he asked for sending more force to protect the life & property of these persons . He gave this information to Duty Officer ASI Jugti Ram. ASI Jugti Ram did not take any action to protect the life and property of these persons nor he informed Senior Officers about it. Today on 2.11.1984 there have been big riot at this place in which several houses had been burnt and several persons have been killed. Even about this incident of that day, SHO, Shoorvir Singh did not inform to his Senior Officers nor he made any arrangement for protecting their lives and property. He did not register any case despite cognizable offences being made out nor he arrested any of the rioters responsible for this carnage. Because of these reasons, these three persons (i.e. Shoorvir Singh, Munshi Ram and ASI Jugti Ram) have not fulfilled their official duty properly, and they have committed offences u/s 217 and 221 IPC,and u/s 60 of D.P. Act and a case be registered against them and the investigation be handed over to Satvir Singh Rathi Incharge Anti Auto Theft Squad. Senior Officers have been informed of this incident. The complaint was sent by through Mr. Ramesh Chand, Ct."

This FIR No. 425 of 1984 reveals in so many words as to what was done by the police in Block No. 32, Trilok Puri. This is not the only FIR which reveals the action of the police and specifically of Shoorvir Singh Tyagi. FIR No. 424 dated 1.11.1984 of 3.20 P.M. is another FIR. This FIR was lodged at the report of SI Roshan Lal. In this FIR it is stated by SI Roshan Lal that he was on petrolling duty alongwith Ct. Surinder Singh and Ct. Rajinder Singh in Kalyan Puri area and he received information that in Block No. 11 a large crowd had assembled. On receiving this information he along with constables went to block No. 11, where he found Sh. Mathan Singh alongwith constables Amrit Ram, Prem Singh, Bal Kishore already there. While he was there HC Kanwar Singh, Gajender Singh, Mahender Singh, Mohd. Ali also reached there during petrolling. At about 3.20 P.M. near Main Road of Kalyan Puri near Sanjay Market all these persons met and found that there was a large crowd on two sides and both sides were arguing with each other. During that time some persons came from Trilok Puri made noise and started stoning and burning Khokhas. On this some sikhs went on the roof tops of their houses and started firing from their guns. SHO alongwith Ct. Ashok Kumar, Tej Singh, Naresh Kumar reached at the spot on Government vehicle and he tried to convince and disperse the crowd but crowd did not listen to him and they continued in arson, beating and damaging the property and firing from the guns. SHO finding no alternative, in order to control the mob asked constables to fire. Ashok Kumar Constable fired 7 rounds and Gajender Singh also fired 7 rounds from their 303 rifle in the air. The crowd on this ran away from there and ran towards Khichri Pur Block No. 13 and Kalyan Puri, Vinod Nagar. SHO arrested Shubh Singh s/o Aval Singh alongwith one single Barrel gun and few pellets (Charras ) and Masala Barood, Kabool Singh s/o Budh Singh with one double barrel gun and four live cartidges, Khalsa Singh s/o Boot Singh with one single barrel gun and few Charras and Barood , Dhamra Singh s/o Baru Singh with one single barrel gun and few charras and barood , Saheb Singh s/o Savita Singh with one single barrel gun and few charras , Parsa son of Nathu Singh with one double V.V.L. gun and four live cartidges, Joginder Singh s/o Hakam Singh with one double barrel gun and few Charras, Shyam Singh son of Govind Singh with one broken double barrel gun, Dilbagh Singh s/o Kanwar Singh with one gun and few charras, Desha Singh s/o Chakku Singh with one double barrel gun and few Charras. He stated that these persons were apprehended as they violated Section 147, 148, 149, 436 IPC.

Similarly in FIR No. 423/84, SHO Shoorvir Singh is himself the complainant. In the FIR he stated that on 1.11.1984 at about 2.30 P.M. when he was on petrolling duty alongwith constables and fire arms, he reached Block No. 4 &5 at 2.20 P.M. and took SI Manphool Singh alongwith him and went to Block No. 27, Trilok Puri where HC Rajbir Singh, Ct. Pat Ram, Ct. Rama Nand were already present and they told him that in Block No. 34, Trilok Puri people were roaming in groups and they were talking about the future of the country and about assassination of Prime Minister and they were entering into argument with each other and the situation was quite tense. On this, he (SHO) took HC Rajbir Singh also with him and reached Block No. 32,alongwith Manphool Singh , Pat Ram etc. He found that a large crowd was there in Block No. 32, and they had gathered in groups. In the meantime some people came there in the form of an aggressive crowd and started stoning and started burning khokhas, Jhuggis and started beating sikhs. HC Rajbir Singh and Ct. Pat Ram at the directions of the Inspector Shoorvir Singh fired 5 rounds each in the air in order to control the mob but the crowd kept on rioting and went towards Block No. 36 where they also indulged into arson and stoning. On seeing this he (SHO) fired 5 rounds from his service revolver but the crowd kept on swelling. Brick bating and stoning started between sikhs and other persons. He noticed the commission of offences u/s 147/148/149/426/436 IPC and got the case registered at police station and gave FIR to Manphool Singh SI for investigation of the case and left him at the spot and then made arrangement for sending Constable Pratap Singh to hospital who had received injuries in the stoning. This rucca was sent to the police station, according to FIR registered at SI . No. 423 under the signatures of SHO Shoorvir Singh.

The importance of knowing these FIRs lies to know as to what happened to these FIRs. FIR No. 423 which was lodged under the signatures of SHO Shoorvir Singh on his complaint about the tense situation of Trilok Puri was a fabricated FIR which SHO seemd to have fabricated to conceal his malified inaction and to shield his collusion with the rioters. SI Manphool Singh whose presence is shown in this FIR, in Block No. 32 & 36. Trilok Puri on 1.11.1984 in fact never visited Block No. 32 & 36 on 1.11.1984. He according to his statement made in the Court remained confined to Block No. 1 &10 of Trilok Puri where situation was allegedly tense and from those Blocks of Trilok Puri, he went to hospital on foot under the instructions of SHO, and then returned back to the police station on next day. This FIR was cancelled by the Vigilence. FIR No. 424 shows that SHO was very vigilent in seizing the arms and ammunition in possession of sikhs. He seized the arms and ammunition from 25 sikhs of Kalyan Puri and other areas. FIR No. 425 shows that no information was sent by SHO to any Senior Police Officer about the carnage and the fiendish violence which was taking place in Trilok Puri. SHO, therefore, not only did forgery by forging false FIR to collude with those who were rioting and killing the sikhs, killing innocent persons, setting fire to jhuggis, houses and Gurudwaras, and shops. He was acting in disarming sikhs thereby encouraging the rioters to attack. In his presence in Block No. 32, rioters were killing and pillaging and arsoning.

The picture, which comes clear from these facts is effectively depicted by Rahul Kuldeep Bedi in his article 'Politics of a Pogrom' in the 'Assassination and After' as under :

" Shortly after sunset on 1 Nov., the mob, busy in Block No. 32, Trilok Puri East Delhi, dispersed for dinner. It had built up an appetite. Killing, burning and pillaging the 400 odd sikh families in the Block had, indeed left them hungry. An hour later, their bellies full, they casually strolled back, to the two narrow lanes in the trans jamuna resettlement colony, forcibly plunged into darkness; to join those already hard to work.

A swarm of flies hovering over the back of a truck parked in the police station premises attracts us. Inside it lies half burnt , barely alive Tarseem Singh, lying atop several corpses, charred beyond recognition . He had come from Punjab to visit relatives in Trilok Puri and had been caught by the mob that morning, doused with kerosene and set afire. 'The Station House Officer (SHO) sahib knows about these deaths' , says the duty officer, 'but he is in Delhi since early morning in connection with some post mortem case and will deal with them on return. It is evident that the police are too preoccupied with their duties . They have no time for Block No.32.

It is not only the police apathy, in-action and absence there during the riots but the entire conduct of the police and the Government after the riots confirm a total lack of concern for those who had been killed and showing of a great concern for those who had killed.

It is not only that police did not do its duty of investigating the crime properly but it is that police deliberately did not collect the evidence against the accused persons who were involved in this fiendish act of murder of more than 200 persons in one Block. The record filed with the court shows that police was a party in protecting the accused persons and in wiping out the evidence against the accused persons. Every house that was burnt, was looted and the looted articles could be found out in the house of those who had looted the houses of sikhs. These persons were not unknown persons or who had come from somewhere out side Delhi. Most of the rioters were either from Trilok Puri itself or from the neighbouring places. Instead of taking house searches to find out looted articles, police adopted novel method of recovery of stolen property. The police made announcements in the area that all looted articles should be placed on the road by the rioters and no action would be taken against the rioters. Then police collected these articles lying on the road as unclaimed articles U/s 102 Cr. P.C. This process must have been repeated time and again by the police as the seizure memos placed on record by the police show that for about 20 days from time to time police used to visit the same places and recover the unclaimed articles lying at those places. In this manner, I0 Manphool Singh had recovered unclaimed articles from the streets of Block No. 30, 32 and 34. In all the seizure memos, the place of recovery has been shown on roads near cement pipes and park, near latrines and drains. It cannot be that the I.0. was going at the spots daily and seizing only part of the property, and leaving rest of the property there, to be seized on next day by another seizure memo. These seizure memos prepared by the Investigating Agency of seizing the property from the roads and not showing the recovery of the property from the house of the accused only helped the accused persons in wiping out material evidence of their participation in the riots. A large number of victims of riots had died, and the eye witnesses had either fled away from the area or were terror stricken, the recovery of looted property from the house of rioters would have been a most valuable evidence of the participation in the riots, but this evidence was deliberately destroyed by the investigating agency. If it is believed that upto 3.11.84, when the riots were actually taking place, the situation was such that it was beyond the control of the police and there was no participation of the police, it was merely helpnessness of the police; then the subsequent investigation of these crimes would have been done honestly by the police and the criminals and rioters, would have been brought to book. But the subsequent conduct of the police, in saving the rioters and in destroying the evidence would compel any court to draw an adverse inference against police and the investigating agency being hand in glove with the rioters and acting under the directions of those unseen powerful persons who were behind all this. Is it not surprising that 200 murders were being investigated by one SI with the help of a constable or Head constable here and there upto 22.11.84, and thereafter again when the I O changed, the entire investigation for all these murders was being done by another SI solely? If the murders of more than 200 innocent persons was not sufficient to require a high level investigation according to police norms? What more heinousness of a crime is required to attract a high level investigation, than 200 murders in one block of a colony and burning of equal number of houses and robbery and looting of equal number of houses. In the name of Investigation in all these heinous crimes, police has just done nothing except recording few distorted statements of surviving riot victims, mostly ladies who were widows, mothers or sisters of those who had been killed. Most of them were terror striken, numbed and dumbed by tragedy of losing of male members of their family seeing them being burnt alive before their own eyes. Perhaps most of them were not even in a position to describe the fiendish acts of the rioters. Moreover the attitude of the police in letting off the rioters and not recording the FIRs and in not recording those statement in which names of some of the influential persons were given had further filled them with the fear of recurring attacks upon them. This is amply clear from the observation of justice Rang Nath Misra Commission in its report, extracts given below :

"While deponents were being cross-examined, constant complaints used to be received of Interference and harassment at all the three places. Some of the victims stated that they were threatened by the local police, rioters of the locality as also others and were told not to appear before the Commission. In view of the grievances made and the multiplying complaints, the Commission had to send its Officers from the Investigating Team to different areas with a view to generating confidence in the vicitims and the summoned deponents in the main. On several occasions the Commission had even to direct police protection to be provided to persons who had been or were about to be examined before."

"It is fact and the Commission on the basis of satisfaction records a finding that first information reports were not received if they implicated police or any person in authority and the information were required to delete such allegations from written reports. When oral reports were recorded they were not taken down verbatim and brief statements, dropping out allegations against police or other officials and men in position, were written. Several instances have come to the notice of the Commission where a combined FIR has been recorded in regard to several separate incidents .

In fact a farce was being played in the name of investigation by the police and the Administration. If the proper and honest investigation of these crimes was done, a large number of police officials would have had to stand in the dock as accused person alongwith others. They could not have investigated the crimes to make themselves as accused persons. It was not something new. It has always happened that whenever either some influential person was involved in an offence or some senior police official was involved in the offence, police has always distorted the investigation and had deliberately mis-investigated, so as to absolve their senior officers or those powerful persons from the crime. Look at what happened in the investigation of FIR No. 425. This Investigation was handled by Shri S.S. Rathi, the SHO who had succeeded Shoorvir Singh Tyagi. FIR was by name against Shoorvir Singh Tyagi and Jugti Ram ASI. These two persons were arrested on the night intervening 2nd and 3rd November, 1984 . None else but ACP R.D. Malhotra was the maker of FIR. In his statement Shri. R.D. Malhotra, had specifically stated that no information was sent to police Head Quarters about the massacre and carnage and the riots going on in Block No. 32 on 1.11.1984 and 2.11.1984. But all the accused in this FIR were discharged as a result of investigation done by the police. What does that mean? That means only one thing that ACP R.D. Malhotra was a liar and he had lodged a false report. If he had lodged a false report, he should have been prosecuted for making a false FIR but it was a game being played by the police with the fate of the common man and police succeeded in its game. The same police, who remained ineffective during the riots, and against who several allegations were made, whether recorded or not, about participating in riots alongwith the rioters, in the commission of heinous crimes, was the Investigating agency in respect of FIRs. Could it be expected from this police that it would have investigated the crime? No doubt Riots Cell and Special Cell and Vigilence Branches were involved in the entire make believe facade, but all the officials were from the rank and file of the Delhi Police and you cannot expect a Sub Inspector, Delhi Police to give an investigation report that his DCP or ACP was involved in the crime or a politician or any powerful person was involved in the crime.

This was not to be done because those who were ruling the country, were not interested that the criminals should be brought to the book. The attitude of the Administration and the Government was fabling from the very beginning. The Government was not even prepared to appoint any Inquiry Commission into the riots. It is only when the demand for inquiry acquired an emotive fervour in trouble torn Punjab that the appointment of Justice Ranganath Misra Commission was announced U/s 3 of Commission of Inquiry Act. Prior to 1984 more than 10 Commissions to inquire into Communal disturbance, had been appointed under the Commission of Inquiry Act. Notable among those are Malegaon (1967), Jainpur and Suchetpur (1967), Ranchi and Hatiya (1967), Ahmedabad (1969), Bhivendi (1971), Jamshedpur (1979), and Hyderabad (1984). All these Inquiry Commissions were appointed soon after the disturbances took place. Only in case of Male Gaon the time gap between the riots and the appointment of Commission of Inquiry was a little more than one month. It is only case of 1984 carnage that Commission of Inquiry was appointed after six months. The Commission could not commence its work properly as it wanted to have its own Investigating Agency U/s 5(A) of the Act. The Administration was not cooperative, and the Commission was obliged to issue a stern order on 5.11.85 and the Investigating Agency of the Commission could take a shape in Nov., 1985 i.e. one year after the riots. The Commission submitted its report in August, 1986. The Government took six months' time to place it before Parliament and it was placed before Parliament in Feb., 1987. The Commission after coming to conclusion that the riots in Delhi were not organised by the ruling party as a whole, recommended setting up of further three Committees. First was to ascertain the death toll in the riots. Second Committee was to inquire into deliquencies and the good conduct of police, and third committee was to recommend registration of criminal cases and to monitor the result there of. The Committee which was to inquire into deliquencies and good conduct of the police identified a dozen police officials who had done a credible job in the riots and recommended action against 72 police officials. The report suggested summary dismissal of six police officials. They included the high ranking Senior Police officials like Chandra Prakash, Seva Dass and Hukam Chand Jatav. The complete report of this Committee has not even been published. This report indicted 5 of then DCPs and four of then ACPs and 22 of then SHOs including SHO Trilok Puri , Shoorvir Singh. The Administration and the Government did not take any action against any of the police officials. Those police persons who were arrested on the evening of 2.11.84, were reinstated and reestablished and later on promoted. No departmental action had been taken against any of the police officials for any of the act or omission done by the police. All this reflects the kind commitment the Government had towards bringing the guilty to the book. It is not only this. When CBI Team after investigating a case against Sajjan Kumar and finding him to be involved in the riots, went to arrest him on 11.9.1990, a mob surrounded them and they were held captive for more than four hours. As per affidavit filed by CBI later in the Court, "Delhi Police was prepared to disperse the mob subject to assurance from CBI that he (Sajjan Kumar ) would not be arrested." CBI also disclosed that the file relating to the case prepared by Jain Banerjee Penal was found in the office of Sajjan Kumar. According to CBI the then Government Counsel R.K. Anand never returned the file. Sh. Anand in this case represented Sajjan Kumar and got him anticipatory bail while CBI team was held captive. What action was taken by administration against the accused who had collected a mob and threatened of lynching in case of his arrest.

In Nov. 1984 and thereafter when the victims of 1984 riots were demanding justice and punishment to those who were responsible for killing of the innocent persons, the rulers of the day fixed a price of Rs. 10,000/- per head and that was the end of the justice for them. No interest was taken by those in the power to see that the criminals are booked and punished. Citizen's Commission which was constituted by prominent citizens of this country including Shri Govind Narain, Shri Rajeshwar Dayal, Shri B.F.H.S. Tayabji, Shri. T.C.A. Sri Niwasvardhan and Shri. S.M.Sikri wrote a letter dt.20.12.84 to the then Home Minister Sh. P.V. Narsimha Rao, appealing for taking certain steps so that justice could be done to the victims (Page 50 Citizen's Commission Report). But it seems that neither the Home Minister nor the Minister of law & Justice nor any one else in the Government was interested in doing anything except window dressing or doing an eye wash by issuing statements. But when it came to saving the prominent persons in the Government each one was taking lead from other. They would not register cases against them and they would give such statements which could save the prominent leaders. Sh. R.S. Sethi, the then District Magistrate gave following testimony before Justice Ranganath Misra Commission :

From the above statement of the District Magistrate, it appeared that during rioting he was freely moving about in the areas where riots were taking place and was able to see the mob and their leaders who were participating in the riot and among those leaders of the mob, there was no political leader. District Magistrate is the highest functionary of a District for the maintenance of law & order. If he was moving freely and seeing the rioters' mobs, indulging in riots, what more information was required by the District Administration for curbing these riots. Cannot it be said that he did not take timely steps to curb the riots as he was a party to the riots and he gave this statement just to save some few powerful persons, Under Sections 130 & 131 of Cr.P.C. power has been given to the Executive Magistrate of the highest rank, who is present at spot of riotous assembly, which cannot be dispersed otherwise than by use of armed forces to summon armed forces. Such Magistrate can require any officer in command of any person or group of persons, belonging to armed forces to disperse the assembly with the help of armed forces under his command and to arrest and confine such persons forming assembly of rioters as the Magistrate may direct. Sub-Section 3 of Section 130 Cr. P.C. make it mandatory for every such officer of armed forces to obey the requisition of armed forces and to obey the orders of Executive Magistrate for dispersing the mob. If Shri R.S. Sethi was a witness to the riots and rioters' mobs and killing of the persons and could say with the authenticity that there was no political leader of any party among the rioters, than he was also a party to the killings of these persons by not performing his duty. Same Shri R.S. Sethi told the Commission as under.

In answering the question of the Commission as to whether it was a case of positive negligence or one of callousness or inattention, Shri Sethi stated :

The highest duty of the Government is to protect the citizens. where a Government refuses or neglects to protect the citizens, the very legitimacy of the Government or its executive wing which is responsible for protecting is questioned and doubted. A ruler whose subjects are not given protection when they are oppressed by criminals, murderers and cheats is as good as dead, though living (Mannu Smriti VII ).

The citizen required protection not only against thieves, cheats and thugs but also against wicked officers of the rulers. Royal favourites and more than all against greed of the ruler himself. The king should ensure the people against these fears (Kamandka-v).

"The police-political nexus has been brought out very strongly in a case reported from Calcutta. An Indian Administrative Service Officer who was holding the rank of Secretary to the West Bengal Government had written an article in a national daily 'The Telegraph', Calcutta, that a friend of his had approached the Station House Officer of the police station of his jurisdiction and complained to him about the danger that he apprehended to his life from certain people who he had named. Since SHO would not move in the matter, the I.A.S. Officer himself had spoken to the Additional Superintendent of Police of the District. Inspite of this, no action was taken and his friend was murdered by the very person against whom complaints had been made at the police station. The officer writes: ''The man who have committed the heinous deed are known. Will they be brought to Book? I do not think as.......... More than the men who wielded the instrument of death, it is those whose patronage they enjoy, who deserve to be hanged............ Do the minions of law dare touch them? The answer is no'' (Page 53)

Murders in Trilok Puri had taken place in November, 1984. Report u/s 173 Cr. P.C. was filed by the police before the court on 20.12.85. The accused persons named in the report u/s 173 Cr. P.C. were summoned to appear in the court in December, 1985. From Dec. 1985 till July, 1995, the order sheet of the court in this case has been nothing but an attendance register of the accused persons. For almost ten years the accused persons used to come to the court, take a date and go back. The case was never opened. The case involved 194 accused persons. Out of these 194 persons, 107 were those who were allegedly arrested by the police on the spot and remaining were those who were arrested by the police later on, on the basis of statements of victims. But statements of victims showed that murders had taken place at different blocks of Trilok Puri and in each block at different places; the dates of murders were also given by the victims as Ist, 2nd or 3rd November. Instead of preparing separate challans for each murder, prosecution sent for trial 194 accused persons before the court at Shahdara. The Courts at Shahdara were house at a Railway Platform in a dingy small place. The rooms which were called as court rooms were worse than even store rooms. They could not have accommodated more than 10 to 15 persons at a time. The law required that the evidence and the proceedings of the court should be carried in the presence of the accused persons. It was, therefore, practically not possible for any court functioning at the old building of Shahdara Courts to carry on these proceedings. This fact was very well in the notice of the Administration and in the notice of the prosecution. The Presiding Officer of the court had written to the Distt. Judge about this fact that the carrying of trial in the court room of Shahdara (Old building) was not possible and an appropriate venue of trial, where such a large number of persons can be tried, should be allocated. In the order sheet itself the Presiding Officer recorded the difficulty of not carrying the trial further. But this happened twice only. The case, therefore, kept hanging till May, 1993 because there was no place for the trial of the accused persons and the trial of the 194 accused persons was not possible in the so-called court rooms at old building of Shahdara. These court rooms used to leak from the roof and the poor Government of this country could not provide a better building for the courts to function, till 1993. It suited most to the accused persons, to the Administration to the Ruling Party and to the Judges as well that the case should be pushed aside month after month and year after year. So the case was pushed aside for about 10 years.

This would have certainly not been the position if the victims of the riots would not have been ordinary poor persons who did not matter at all in this system. Pick up the case of murder of any VIP or any important person and you will find that the speed and the efficiency with which this system works. The System fails to work and stops working when the victims are poor. So it is not the system which is to be blamed but it is the persons who man this system who are to be blamed. It is the inherent bias against the poor in the society which puts a brake on every system relating to the relief for the poor.

" The Court has no reason for existence if it merely reflects the pressures of the day. Our system is built on the faith that men set apart for this special function, freed from the influences of immediacy and from the deflections of worldly ambition, will become able to take a view of longer range than the period of responsibility entrusted to Congress and Legislatures ".

It is tragic that criminal justice Administration has been administered differently for different persons. It has been nothing but a paper tiger against anti-social combinations, against rich and influential offenders, and it has proved to be a paper bonanza for socially oppressed and suppressed victims. 49 years after independence, our guilt by default or dubiety on the charge of ineffectiveness of criminal justice system against rich, influential or those who weild political power has been proved beyond reasonable doubt as the cases against these either do not reach to the courts and when they reach to the courts, they are seldom finalised and the blood, tears and cries of victims go unheard.

In a democratic society court system plays a crucial role in seeing that the mighty machinery of the government and the hands of rich and powerful do not oppress the weak and improvished. A sense of purpose and commitment to the constitutional value that 'Rani' and 'Mahtrani' are equal before law has to be there.

When the people who have long been exploited in the transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate the truth and their legal and constitutional right of equality before law, and when they come to believe that law in larger sense cannot fulfil its primary functions to protect them, and their families, it does incalculable damage to the society.

Unless the system rewrites itself and the investigating agencies are liberated from the clutches of executive, there is little possibility of faithful and honest investigation by investigating agencies against influential and politically powerful offenders.

The members of legislature, ministers and judges all take oath of upholding the Constitution of India and of discharging their duties without fear and favour. Each one is supposed to uphold the basic principle of equality before law. Search the record of legislature and you will find that much time has been devoted in the Legislature over delays in the investigation of one or two VIPs murders but no anxity has been shown over the delay in investigations against VIPs involve in 1984 riots. When a fugitive from law, who had come to India in order to evade sentence to be awarded to him, died in jail, primarily due to his ailments and drinking habits, there was uproar in the legislature and a commission has been appointed, but when a hawker in streets of Delhi is beaten to death for not giving few kilograms of mangoes free of cost to the police, there is no uproar, nor there is a commission promptly appointed.

Second category people are meant for the kicks of the police and administration. They have separate wards in the Government hospitals. For them there are separate queues. Their murder does not bother any one. They are tools and instruments for first category people. They are votes and votes only.

Justice is what justice does, not what justice talks. The law is much more comfortable sentencing an ordinary clerk for accepting a bribe of Rs. 100/- or Rs.200/- than sentencing a Minister or Chief Minister who piles up crores and crores of rupees by fixing his commission on every ton of cement or on every bag of sugar or on every contract. We have reached the status of an impotent society a society where persons accused of murder and rape can become ministersa society whose capability of maintaining elementary security of ordinary citizen is in doubt.

The growing gap between the law and the life is dangerous to both and we have little time to choose if we are at all to arrest the snow balling movement of violence, corruption, criminality and disregard for discipline. Where violence begins and criminality begins, democracy dwindles, for its foundation is the peaceful co-existence of the people on an equal footing and the governess of the country in accordance with the constitutional values fearlessly and honestly.

We are in the 50th year of independence, and no serious effort has been made to humanize the police and to make them realise that poor and weaker are equally part of society. The crime investigating agencies of India, police, CBI and similar other agencies are gifts of colonial era of British Empire. They are aimed to sub-serve their political masters faithfully. They are basically hostile to the poor and weaker section of the society. The system strikes at the poor and weak doubly. When the poor is victim of this crime, the police very often would not register the case, and if case is registered police will not bother to investigate it properly and if per chance the rich man is the offender, against the poor, police will barter with him. If a rich and influential person is victim of the crime, the standards of police immediately change. It is not only the cries of widows or of mothers and sisters who saw their husband, sons and brothers being butchered in 1984 riots, but it is the cry of every that poor and ordinary person who is oppressed by rich and influential person, that justice is denied to him. Whether the poor is of Utrakhand or of Bhojpur or of Bhivandi. Justice Krishna lyer in his book 'Justice & Beyond' has observed :

" The political leaders know that the people are poor and the poor have more cause to set wrongs right than the rich; and yet, in the name of the little man whose little pencil collectively makes ministers, is it not fair to ask that new designs of justice institutions should be drawn? We have done nothing during these decades to simplify the system or institutionalise other organs, we cling, with colonial loyalty, to a system of Victorian vintage."                                                                                                                               ( Page 20 )

Out of 107 accused persons arrested on the spot, 93 who are facing trial before the court have taken the plea that they have been falsely implicated by the police. The police inorder to shield the inaction against the real culprits have apprehended them from their houses and shown them as rioters. They were not actually involved in the rioting . It is submitted by the accused persons that the entire prosecution story of having them caught during rioting, is a false and cooked up story. It is stated that had anyone of them been involved in rioting, killing or arsoning some instrument like Dandas,iron rods, knives etc. or the inflammable material like kerosene, petrol would have been recovered from them. No recovery of any kind of the incriminating material from them shows that they were not the persons who participated in riots but they were persons who were rounded up later on to show that some action had been taken by the police during the riots. It is further submitted by the counsels that case diaries in this case were prepared at 8.30 A.M. on 3.11.84 and there was sufficient time with the police to fabricate the case diaries and to implicate accused persons falsely. Their personal search memo etc. were also prepared at police station on 3.11.84 and most of the accused persons were caught from their houses and brought to police station with the assurance that they would be let off after sometime but they were falsely implicated in this case.

It is also submitted that they were not produced before any Magistrate on 3.11.84. They were just taken to Tis Hazari Court where they were kept sitting in police vans and the Magistrate passed order remanding them to judicial custody, without actually seeing as to who has been produced. Then they were brought back to police station and sent to jail only on 4.11.84. It is submitted that in view of absence of any arm or ammunition or any weapon of offence having been seized by the police from the accused persons, no charge u/s 147 ,148 was made out against the accused persons. It is also submitted that the testimony of police persons of having arrested 107 accused persons on the spot should not be believed. It is stated that the police persons Shoorvir Singh, Manphool Singh and Pat Ram were not worth believing. Shoorvir Singh was suspended on the night between 2nd and 3rd November, 1984 because of his criminal negligence of non-intimating the situation to his senior officers. It is submitted that Manphool Singh had also not told truth to the court and if his testimony is tested on the facts and circumstances, it would be found that he was telling lies. It is further submitted that if Manphool Singh was busy in collecting the dead bodies from the spot and sending them for post mortem, and he was also busy in sending injured persons to the hospitals and in sending ladies and children to the police station , there was no possibility of his getting time to record any statement at the spot. It is argued that Rijju Singh, the public witness has also stated that he did not make any statement at the spot. It is further stated that on the spot Senior Delhi Police Officers had come . There were several vehicles available and still it is stated by Pat Ram that he went from the spot to police station on foot. It is argued that when there were so many injured persons and dead bodies on the spot, police would not have wasted time by sending Pat Ram to the police station on foot for registration of FIR. It is further submitted that Pat Ram who allegedly carried rucca to the police station, did not carry the names of 107 persons arrested on the spot. It is also stated that non-giving of the names of the arrested persons along with rucca was fatal to the prosecution case as the prosecution had ample opportunity to change these names and to leave those who had been arrested, and to apprehend those who were innocent. The counsels stated that the police had prepared the list of 107 persons only afterwards by collecting persons from here and there on different excuses and showing them as rioters.

It is stated by the counsels for accused persons that no offence u/s 188 IPC was made out against the accused persons as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused persons had knowledge of the promulgation of curfew order and until and unless it is shown that announcement of the curfew order was made so as to bring it to the knowledge of accused persons that there was curfew, accused persons could not be convicted for offence u/s 108 IPC. It is also submitted that the complaint made by the Commissioner of Police u/s 195 Cr. P.C. was a defective complaint and could not be relied upon as his complaint was vague in nature. It is stated that attachment of separate list of offenders along with the complaint shows that the Commissioner of Police had not himself applied the mind and he had signed the complaint in a sterio type manner. It is submitted that none of the accused persons has been seen by either the police officials or by any public person indulging in specific act of violence i.e. either arsoning, or looting or killing of the sikhs. In view of this that none of the accused person has been seen by any of the police official indulging in any act of violence or act of rioting, the accused persons cannot be held guilty of the charge u/s 436 IPC.

It is submitted by Ld. Counsels that Shri Shoorvir Singh Tyagi was a patent liar and his statement is a proof of his speaking lies. Therefore, his statement should be rejected in toto. It is submitted that according to Shoorvir Singh Tyagi police persons from police station and military officials had marched in block No. 32 around 2 and 2.30 P.M. on 2.11.84. If there had been any such march of the military officials and the police in Block No. 32, they would have come to know about the burnt houses, killed sikhs and other destruction done in this block. It is also submitted that against the SHO Shoorvir Singh FIR No. 425 was registered at the behest of R.D. Malhotra and he was suspended from the post around midnight of 2nd and 3rd November. The testimony of SHO, therefore, cannot be believed. About Manphool Singh, It is stated that Manphool Singh had gone to the spot on receiving of DD Entry 12 A about 'MAAR KATT' going on in block No. 32. Manphool Singh remained at the spot from 6:30 onward and saw the rioting. He, therefore, became an eye witness and an eye witness cannot be an IO. The investigation done by Manphool Singh, therefore, was defective. He is an interested witness, and his testimony should not be considered. Similarly, statement of Pat Ram is assailed on the ground that he was merely supporting his senior officer and his testimony, therefore, cannot be believed.

SHO Shoorvir Singh Tyagi had stated in his cross examination that announcement of curfew was made on loud speaker within the entire area since morning of 2.11.84. He had given oral instructions for making announcements. The announcement was made using police vehicle by him and other police persons. He has further stated that when he reached block No. 32 around 6:30 P.M. he found some houses and jhuggis still on fire. He sent message for Fire Brigade and sent message to Senior Officers for sending more police force as he was having 2/3 constables with him. He was able to hear 'HO HALLA' of rioters at the corner of Block No.32 but he was not able to see any of the rioter from the place where he was standing. He gave directions to Manphool Singh and other police persons to go inside block No. 32. The rioters who were in Block No. 30 and 32, and around, were apprehended and arrested. 107 of them were arrested on the spot. All the rioters were arrested in block No.32 and around block No.32. Situation in block No. 30 was not as worst as in block No. 32. Manphool Singh used to take round of galis of block No.32 and within 15/20 minutes he used to bring more rioters with the help of force. All 107 rioters were arrested by 10/10:30 P.M. Riots had subsidised because of the arrest of 107 persons and after 10:30 P.M. no rioter was apprehended. Manphool Singh in his examination in chief and cross-examination had stated that on seeing the police force rioters had moved in the back lanes of Block No. 32. When more police force came there then these rioters were surrounded and after surrounding they were caught hold. In all 107 persons were apprehended on the spot. He stated that most of the rioters were apprehended under his supervision and with his help and the names of these rioters were given in a list of rioters prepared. He stated that he could not give the names of all the rioters apprehended orally. He could only say that first name in the list was of Shyamvir. This name he remembered because this was the name mentioned in the summons issued to him. He stated he could not tell which of the rioter was caught from which gali and at what point of the gali and at what time. When the rioters were being apprehended there were 20-25 Jawans from the staff of senior officers who were helping in apprehending the rioters. DCP who had come on the spot was also running along with him behind the rioters to apprehend them and to surround them. A number of ACPs from different areas had come there after the arrival of DCP. DCP had reached at the spot around 7:15 PM and the apprehension of rioters continued upto 10:45 P.M. The force which had come to help them in apprehending the rioters left immediately after the rioters were apprehended. He stated that since several persons were helping him apprehending the rioters, he could not say who apprehended whom. The rioters were apprehended in groups. The groups varied from 5 to 25 persons. After being apprehended, they were left in the care of other police staff which had come with Senior Police Officers near the place where SHO was there. He stated the names of the persons who were apprehended were written on pieces of paper by him and by other staff. These pieces of paper were then handed over to him at 11:15 P.M. when he had finished of the writing of rucca. He sent rucca along with these pieces of papers. He stated that he had not sent a list of 107 persons along with rucca. In fact, 107 persons who were apprehended on the spot were handed over to the SHO (who was on the spot before he started writing rucca). When he had started writing rucca the names of these 107 persons had not been copied down in the form of a list on one paper. List of 107 persons was prepared separately after copying them from the separate pieces of papers in the morning at about 8:30 A.M. or afterwards when he went back to police station after collecting dead bodies at the spot through out the night. He stated, however, 107 persons were counted by him on the spot and their names were written in the rough list. After sending rucca , SHO had also started sending these accused persons to the police station with the help of other staff available on the spot. He stated that the list appended with the FIR was not of 107 persons but it was of all the persons who had been arrested in this case. The list had swelled day by day as more and more rioters were arrested by the police. He had not given any consolidated list of the persons arrested, to the Duty Officer. However, the list of 107 persons was prepared by him at the police station when he reached there at 8:30 A.M. on 3.11.1984 and started writing his case diary. He stated when they reached at Tis Hazari accused persons were presented before Duty Magistrate and Duty Magistrate was requested to count the persons inside the bus itself as there was no police force to take up all the 107 accused persons to the Court Room. He stated that all the accused persons then were taken to jail in the same bus. Due to preparation of 107 warrants, it had become very late and the jail authorities refused to take the accused persons on that day inside the jail, so they were sent to jail on next day.

It is true that the conduct of then SHO Shoorvir Singh Tyagi during the riots was culpable and questionable. Similarly, the conduct of other police force of police station, Kalyan Puri was being motivated by the conduct of SHO himself. From the circumstances and from the testimony of SHO, it seems that SHO was taking rounds of the area on 1.11.1984. and 2.11.1984. It is also apparent from the testimony of S.H.O. that he was very well in the knowledge of magnitude of riots. He was also aware of the various spots in his area where the riots were serious and houses were being burnt and sikhs were being killed. His testimony in supplementary challan of this case also shows that he was in a position to control the mob. He and his police force was sufficiently armed with guns, service revolvers and if he wanted, the riots could not have spread and easily suppressed in the beginning. But it seems that a field day was announced by him for the rioters. But for the insistence of few Journalists who had come to know of the dance of death in Block No. 32, Trilok Puri and who had gone to Police Head Quarters to the Senior Officers, the police would not have bothered to look into Block No. 32. It seems SHO and Senior Police Officers were compelled by the circumstances created by 4 or 5 consciencious citizens to go to block No. 32 and to suppress the riots. But most of the damage had already been done when the police force reached there. It is ironical that after receipt of message through wireless at about 5.50 P.M. Manphool Singh started from police station on foot and reached Block No. 32 after 45 minutes and SHO who was equipped with a vehicle, reached in Block No. 32 after 50 minutes. What does it show? This merely shows that despite receiving a message that MAAR KAAT was going on in block No. 32, SHO was in no urgency to reach Block No.32, and he reached after Manphool Singh who was coming on foot from the police station. He was having his service revolver but he kept standing at the corner of Block No. 32 till Senior Officers, ACP and DCP did not come. The apprehending and arrest of rioters started only when these Senior Officers reached at the spot. According to SHO himself and according to Manphool Singh, SHO kept standing through out. He had not taken any pains in either surrounding the rioters or either suppressing the riot.

Nevertheless, once it had come into the knowledge of police that some reporters were going to report the news on next day, police was forced to commence the action and then 107 persons were apprehended from block No.32. The testimony of Manphool Singh, Pat Ram is very clear in this regard. They have categorically stated that these rioters were surrounded during rioting from the various galis of block No. 32 and then apprehended. A perusal of the list of those persons who were apprehended from block No.32 on 2.11.84 shows that the persons apprehended were not only of block No. 32. but they were of various blocks of Trilok Puri and Kalyan Puri and some were residents of jhuggis.

Keeping in view the circumstances of Block No. 32. where there were 95 dead bodies lying, several injured persons were there, several victims had come, it seems improbable that police would have rushed to the homes of various accused persons ranging from block No. 19 to 36 and other blocks of Kalyan Puri and jhuggis, in order to apprehend the persons. Police was at that time having so many jobs to do like collecting of deadbodies from the spot. As many as 95 deadbodies were collected on 2.11.84 or 3.11.84. by the police persons and sent for post mortem. Few injured persons were also removed to hospital. Some victims (women & children) were also removed to the police station. This was an enormous job to be carried by Manphool Singh, SI, with the help of other police staff and it does not seem probable that he would go to the homes of various accused persons who were residents of different blocks, different areas to apprehend them to make them accused in this FIR. Moreover, there does not seem to be any reason why Manphool Singh would go to these selected persons in different areas? No personal enmity has been alleged by any accused person against Manphool Singh. The plea of the accused persons that they were apprehended from their homes is, therefore, unbelieveable.

In their statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. even those accused persons who were living in block No. 32 and who were living adjoining to the houses where several sikh persons had been killed, they have stated that they did not hear anything, they did not see anything. They were not knowing about the riots or about the rioters. The houses in Trilok Puri are built in 22/25 sq. yrd. plots and in each plot there is one room and a verandah, which is also used as a kitchen and there is no other construction. There is common latrine block in these blocks of Trilok Puri and these latrine blocks are used by residents of Trilok Puri. There are common Municipal taps from where water is taken by the residents. Therefore, it is not possible for any resident of Trilok Puri to remain confined within the room for several days without coming outside the room. Every human being had to answer the calls of nature and so the residents of Trilok Puri were also bound to come out. It was not possible that they would not have seen the riots or the rioters or the massacre done there. So each and every accused who is resident of block No. 32, where such a large scale massacre had taken place had, spoken lies in the statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C.

The arrest of these accused persons on the spot has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that when these persons were arrested riots were taking place. It is also proved that curfew was promulgated in the area and it had been announced in the area. The recovery of 95 deadbodies and 77 burnt houses in block No. 32 show the nature of riots which were being indulged in by the rioters. The circumstances which are established on record, are that the houses and jhuggis were burning. The rioters were spread in the various galis of block No.32, Trilok Puri. Police reached there and found houses and jhuggis burning and heard sounds of 'HO HALLA' and riots. Police chased the rioters, surrounded them and 107 of the rioters were arrested on the spot. Under these circumstances, if a person alleges any special circumstance showing his absence from the site or proving that his presence on the spot was in respect of some other matter, or he was not participating in the riot, and he was merely a bystander then the onus of proof lies upon him. S. 106 of Evidence Act shifts the onus of proof on the person who has special knowledge of the facts. If any person who claims that although riots were taking place but he was not participating in the riots then he has to prove those circumstances which made him to violate the curfew and come out of the house and which made him appear on the spot and consequently his arrest.

In the defence the accused persons have examined 8 witnesses. DW-1 was dropped when his examination was being conducted as he was not supporting the accused. DW-2 is Naveen Govil. He brought record about the age of Heera Lal from Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School, Khichri Pur. According to record produced by him Heera Lal S/o Ram Singh had taken admission in the school on 12.5.82, in 6th Class. He left school after passing 8th class on 30.4.84. and his date of birth as per school record was 1.5.70. Copy of certificate issued by the school record was Ex.DW-2/A. From the testimony of this witness it would appear that on 2.11.84 this accused Heera Lal was aged about 14 years 6 months. He was, therefore, juvenile and the trial of his case should have taken place in Juvenile Court.

DW-3 is Ganga Pd. son of Girvar Singh. DW-5 is Sh. K.C. Tripathi. Time Keeper in DESU and DW-6 is Sh. I.K.Bhatnagar Insp. DESU. Ganga Pd. has stated that on 2.11.84 he was working as a lineman in Mayur Vihar with more 4 persons namely Prem Chand, Ram Avadh, Shiv Nath and Sukh Ram. He stated that accused Prem Chand remained on duty with him on that day along with other from 12 noon to 8 P.M. DW-5 had brought attendance register concerned attendance of accused Prem Chand. He brought attendance register for the month of November, 1984 . Name of Prem Chand appears at SI. No.42. The attendance register shows that he was present on 1.11.84, 2.11.84 was his rest day but he was assigned duty and after 2.11.84 he was shown absent upto 6th. He stated no record was maintained as to what time the labour left the site. Every labour leaves the site before schedule time, no record is maintained. DW-6 is I.K. Bhatnagar. He has stated that he was on leave on 1.11.84 and 2.11.84 so he had no personal knowledge about accused Prem Chand having come on duty but he stated that a work sheet is given to the Supervisor of Labour in which the names of labours are given and the work sheet marked 'A' was such a work sheet and according to this work sheet Prem Chand was on duty on 2.11.84. Normaly the duty hours are from 12 noon to 8 P.M.

DW-4 is Kamal Singh. He is son of Kartar Singh. He had stated that three accused persons Om Prakash, Heera Lal and Sunil were living in block No. 21 of Kalyan Puri. There was a park opposite police station Kalyan Puri in block No.19 where poor persons had been brought and a Camp had been made. The locality persons of Kalyan Puri and his children had gone to help them for offering tea. The three accused persons along with his children had also gone to serve tea to the Camp persons at about 8 A.M. on 3.11.84. He also went to the Camp. After some time the police rounded up these three accused persons because they were non-sikhs helping the riot victims and took them away. He asked as to why they were taken, then police told them that they would be released after some time. In cross-examination he stated that all these accused persons met him in front of his house as the way to police station passed through his house. No riot had taken place in his area on 2.11.84. Block No. 32 was about 2 Kms. away from his house. He stated that his colony people had collected funds by contributing a rupee or two each for providing tea etc. for the riot victims staying at the Camp. There were other several non-sikhs from different blocks who had gone to Kalyan Puri Camp to serve tea but he was not knowing their names. He was knowing the names of only these three accused persons who had accompanied him to the riot victims. He learnt about the accused persons having been implicated in the riot case of Trilok Puri after about 10-12 days.

DW-7 is Sohan Singh, S/o Alla Singh. He had stated that he knew accused Ganga Saran who lived in his neighbourhood in block No.30. His house was opposite the house of Ganga Saran. His two sons Baljeet Singh and Ranjit Singh were killed in 1984 riots. Accused Ganga Saran saved his life. He also saved life of two brothers namely Jaginder Singh & Jassa Singh who were living in the area. Accused remained guarding them at their house upto 8 P.M. on 2.11.84. He remained guarding their house on 1.11.84 from 10 A.M. to 2.11.84 upto 8 P.M. He did not participate in riots.

PW-8 is Karnail Singh DCP Vigilence. He had brought the Vigilence file concerning investigation of FIR No. 423. He stated that FIR No. 423 was cancelled as the subject matter of FIR No. 423 was covered by FIR No.426.

The 8 DWs which have been examined, have been examined in respect of Heera Lal, Prem Chand, Om Parkash, Ganga Saran. In respect of Heera Lal evidence has come about his being below 16 years on the date of riot. The evidence has also come that he was apprehended when he had gone to Camp to help the riot victims. Heera Lal being Juvenile should have been tried by the Juvenile Court. His trial before this court is vitiated and he cannot be convicted by this court.

As far as evidence concerning Prem Chand is concerned, witness produced by him seem to be reliable. The Time Keeper has produced the record of the office. The record seem to be genuine. It stands proved from the record that he had joined duty at 12 noon. His duty was to switch on the street lights. Normally the street lights in month of November are switched on around 6 P.M. There is possibility that after switching on the lights when he came back to his house in block No.32 Trilok Puri, he was apprehended by the police along with other rioters.

The testimony of Sohan Singh who himself is a sikh and his two sons were killed in 1984 riots would show that Ganga Saran was instrumental in saving his life and he was not among the rioters. There seems to be little possibility of his deposing falsely in favour of any of the rioter because his own two sons Baljeet Singh and Ranjit Singh were killed by the rioters. I , therefore, consider that Ganga Saran was apprehended by the police but he was not a rioter.

Testimony of DW-4 Kamal Singh would show that Om Parkash, Heera Lal and Sunil were apprehended at Relief Camp. All the three accused persons have the same stand in their statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. Keeping in view the conduct of the police a doubt is created in the mind about these three accused persons having been arrested on the spot.

From my above discussion I come to conclusion that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that curfew had been promulgated in the area on the evening of 1.11.84. The imposition of curfew was made known to the people in Delhi through various announcements made in the Newspapers and public media like Radio, Television. SHO Shoorvir Singh Tyagi stated that he had got curfew announcement in the morning of 2.11.84. Some of the accused persons have admitted that they were having knowledge of the curfew being in the area. I, therefore, come to the conclusion that the curfew having been imposed was within the knowledge of the accused persons. Accused persons despite there being curfew, violated curfew order. A complaint for prosecution of the accused persons has been made by then Commissioner of Police Ved Marwah and same has been proved on record as Ex. PW-1/C. Thus it is made out that accused persons are guilty of offence u/s 188 Cr. P.C.

From the testimony of Manphool Singh, Pat Ram, Shoorvir Singh, the three police persons who were on the spot, I find that the work of controlling the apprehended rioters, taking them to police station, collecting the deadbodies and loading the deadbodies into trucks and then sending these trucks to mortuary for post mortem of the deadbodies, sending surviving women and children to safe place, was an anormous work and it would not have been possible for Manphool Singh to get time for recording statement of Rijju Singh on the spot. It has come in the evidence of Rijju Singh that he was rescued by the police on 2.11.84. Thus his presence on the spot is not denied by him. However, he stated that his statement was recorded at police station, which looks near the truth. Manphool Singh could not have been able to record his statement at the spot. Therefore, I find that the testimony of Manphool Singh, Shoorvir Singh and Pat Ram regarding recording of statement of Rijju Singh on the spot does not inspire confidence and seems to be false. Consequently sending the rucca at the hand of Pat Ram from the spot to the police station also seems to be improbable. As it would have been normally, the 107 rioters which were rounded up in block No. 32, Trilok Puri and around in presence of Senior Police Officers like ACP, DCP were taken to police station and there statement of Rijju Singh, who was a riot victim was recorded and FIR was recorded. Apart from this part of testimony of these witnesses rest of the testimony seems natural and truthful. Merely because the witness has stated something false about recording of statement, the entire testimony of all the witnesses cannot be discarded. It is cardinal principle of the criminal jurisprudence that if a witness has given some false statement , only that part should be disbelieved and his entire statement should not be discarded. The job of court in criminal cases is to sift truth from falsehood. I, therefore, consider that rest of the testimony concerning apprehension of the accused persons on the spot, then taking them to the spot, removing all the deadbodies, finding several houses and jhuggis on fire, chasing of rioters by the police etc. is truthful testimony.

From the testimony of PW Manphool Singh, Shoorvir Singh Tyagi and Pat Ram, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons were constituting an unlawful assembly the object of which was to cause damage to the sikhs, burn their houses and kill them. This object of unlawful assembly can be inferred from the circumstances. The rioters were apprehended during the act of rioting although no witness had seen any specific act being performed by any of the rioters, but it was practically not possible for the police to see as to who was doing what.

From my above discussion of the testimony of the witnesses, I come to conclusion that all the accused persons except Prem Chand, Heera Lal, Sunil, Ganga Saran and Om Parkash had violated the curfew order promulgated in the area under the orders of Commissioner of Police knowing very well that the violation of the curfew order was causing damage to the life of sikhs and moveable and immoveable property of sikhs and it was intended to cause riot. I, therefore, hold them guilty u/s 188 IPC.

All the accused persons except Heera Lal, Sunil, Ganga Saran, Om Prakash and Prem Chand have been proved to be members of unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to kill the sikhs and to destroy their homes, to damage their moveable and immovable property, they are, therefore, guilty of committing offence punishable u/s 143 IPC and these accused persons committed rioting, being member of unlawful assembly, using force and violence in prosecution of the common object of killing sikhs and committing robbery of the property of sikhs, burning their houses. They are, therefore, guilty of offence punishable u/s 147 IPC.

When these accused persons arrested on the spot they were arrested committing rioting as a result of which several houses of sikhs had been burnt and 95 deadbodies were recovered from the spot. Police had found some of the houses and jhuggis still burning on the spot. Fire Brigade was called for extinguishing the fire. Accused persons were, therefore, charged u/s 436 IPC. The burning of houses of sikhs and killing of sikhs was a handy work of the rioters and rioters alone. These rioters were not charged u/s 302 IPC because the murders of sikhs had taken place on 1.11.84 and 2.11.84. Most of the deadbodies were charred and unidentifiable and on the basis of statement of near relatives some of those rioters who had committed murders, have been identified by relatives and witnesses and they are facing charges of murder.

From the circumstances it is evident that those houses and jhuggis belonging to sikhs which were found burning on the night of 2.11.84, when these rioters were arrested from the spot, were burnt by these rioters along with their other associates and other rioters who had escaped when the police came. The entire circumstances point out to only one thing that the houses and Jhuggis which were burnt on 2.11.84 were burnt by the rioters. The police had although not prepared a separate list of those houses and Jhuggis which were burnt on 1.11.84 and which were burnt on 2.11.84 but if we go by the statement of Shoorvir Singh all the houses and jhuggis were burnt on 2.11.84. Although the witnesses in other cases have stated that the burning and killing had started in block No. 32 on 1.11.84 itself and the rioters had become active right in the morning of 1.11.84, and they continued their fiendish dance of death and destruction upto the night of 2.11.84, and in some cases even in the morning of 3.11.84. I, therefore, come to the conclusion that the houses and jhuggis which were burnt, they were burnt by the rioters and police had arrested only 107 of them. Rest of the rioters were able to escape. These rioters have, therefore, committed mischief by fire by destructing the houses of sikhs and jhuggis of sikhs where they used to live and simultaneously putting on fire the moveable property of sikhs lying in the houses and jhuggis and thereby all the accused except five above stated are guilty of offence punishable u/s 436 of IPC.

I convict all the accused persons except Heera Lal, Sunil, Prem Chand, Ganga Saran and Om Parkash u/s. 147, 188, 436 IPC.

Accused Pyare Lal was declared P.O. during the trial. He was apprehended and a separate supplementary challan was filed by the police for him. All the witnesses examined in the main case were re-examined in his case and the entire evidence against him is on the lines as against the other accused persons. He has not produced any defence. I hold him guilty u/s. 147/188/436 IPC, and convict him under these provisions of IPC.

The above accused persons have been convicted but those who engineered the riots and who made these above poor persons as their tools for the riots are still at large. The then SHO Shoorvir Singh Tyagi showed his SHOORVIRTA by getting the innocent persons killed. His successor Satvir Singh Rathi showed his '' love for truth'' by suppressing the truth and eliminating whatever possible evidence against the culprits could be eliminated. Other police officers of police station Kalyan Puri faithfully followed their instructions for not taking any action. Manphool Singh the IO of the case did not conduct any raid, lest evidence against the others may come. Satvir Singh Rathi under whose supervision the investigation remained for about 20 days did not register cases on the basis of statements of victims. He in his statement has stated that only brief statements of the victims were recorded and their full narration was not recorded. The kind of brief statements which are produced in the court show how a farce had been played in the name of investigation and names of several accused persons were eliminated. Shoorvir Singh Tyagi and Satvir Singh Rathi could not have abdicated their duties and functions unless they had instructions from their superiors. According to Shoorvir Singh Tyagi he was informing his area ACP and DCP constantly about the situation but no additional force was being provided to him. His conduct shows that he was not even using the force which was available with him. ACPs and DCPs were very much in the knowledge of the riots and the murders and looting going on in Trilok Puri, but they did not bother to even go to riot affected areas on 1.11.84 or 2.11.84. They were compelled to go there as already observed by me at 7:00 P.M. on 2.11.84. District Magistrate R.S. Sethi was taking rounds of the areas, was looking at the riots and rioting mobs but did not call the army, which was his legal obligation and duty, to suppress the riots. He stated before Commission that police was acting under some kind of political pressure but from his statement and conduct it looks like as if he was also made inactive by the same political pressure. Lt. Governor Gavai, Commissioner of police Mr. Kaul, AddI. C.P. Mr. Neeraj Kumar ( deleted on 29.8.96 ) and other police officers like Mr. Jatav, Seva Dass, R.D. Malhotra etc. and their political masters under whose instructions the entire police force of Trilok Puri area and Palam Colony area and other areas was made inactive and was made supporter of rioters are the real culprits and the persons against whom investigations should have been done to find out their roles and the roles of their political masters. The same standards of law should had been applied to unearth the criminal conspiracy of these mass murders which were applied in Mrs. Gandhi murder case. In Kehar Singh vs. State (Mrs. Gandhi murder case) Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :

''Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it maybe difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the later does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meetings of two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. The relative acts of conduct of the parties must be conscientious and clear to mark their concurrence as to what should be done. The concurrence cannot be inferred by a group of irrelevant facts artfully arranged so as to give an appearance of coherence. The innocuous, innocent or inadvertent events and incidents should not enter the judicial verdict''.

The innocent persons who were killed in Trilok Puri and other areas of Delhi could not be denied justice one because they were sikh and other because they were poor. The ' rule of law' the basic principle of 'equality before the law' as enunciated in the Constitution required that all those who were involved in the conspiracy, those who helped in this conspiracy by their inaction should have been brought to the books and made to face the trial. A society not based on justice and '' rule of Law'' is on the path of destruction. Remember the words of 'Robery G. Ingersoil'

Manu Smriti has also said the same thing :

Dharma (rule of Law) protects those who protect it. Those who destroy 'Dharma' get destroyed. Therefore, Dharma should not be destroyed so that we may not be destroyed as a consequence thereof.

Dt / 27.8.1996 (S.N. DHINGRA)

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
SHAHDARA, DELHI.

IN THE COURT OF SH. S.N. DHINGRA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI

S/V Shyamvir Etc.
FIR No. 426/84
P.S. Kalyan Puri
S.C. No. 34/95.

I have heard the counsel on the point of sentence. It is submitted by the Counsels that all the accused persons belong to very poor state of society. They have become victims of the circumstances and the real culprits have not been produced before the Court. It is submitted that a lenient view should be taken. It is further submitted that many of the accused persons were Government Servant and only bread earner of their family and sending them to jail would deprive the entire family of their livelihood. The next submission on behalf of the accused persons is that the accused persons have been appearing in the Courts for about last 12 years. They have already undergone a lot of punishment by repeatedly appearing in the Courts for 12 years and that punishment was sufficient for the accused persons, and no further punishment should be awarded to them. It is submitted that some of the accused persons who were quite young in 1984 had married after 1984, and they have new families and the Court should take a lenient view keeping in view the long duration after which the case started, and the poverty, and the changed circumstances of the accused persons.

A protracted trial and delay in the trial is a normal feature of this system. It is true that in this case there was no contribution on the side of accused persons in getting the trial. delayed and

the delay has been totally due to lack of concern by the Administration and the courts, in producing the accused to trial and in starting the trial. But the Administration has always been interested in non-prosecution of the rioters. The entire conduct of Administration has been to take these cases in a casual manner. I, therefore, consider that the 12 years period of trial during which accused persons have been appearing, may be a mitigating factor, but cannot be equated with the punishment which the accused persons are liable to suffer. The changed circumstances of individual accused persons cannot be taken into account. The trial is always going to take some time and there may be lot of changes in circumstances of the life of individual accused during the short or the long span of the trial. The accused being Government servant, is no mitigating factor while considering the award of sentence, rather a Government servant should be more sensible towards the society and towards his obligation and duties.

The general sense of a disrespect for law has been due to over-leniency shown by the Courts, in awarding sentences in riots and general lawlessness cases. This accounts for rise of general riots in country and engineering of riots by vested interests, whenever they desired as well as this also accounts for rise of private armies and open declaration by the politician of raising '' Senas''. Hindu Shakti Sena, Ranvir Sena, Lal Sena, Adam Sena ,Blue Sena and Yellow Sena are a few examples to be counted of the present and future senas. The rise and growth of those senas is a proof of loss of effectiveness of criminal justice system as a deterrent factor. The sentence awarded to the riot accused persons should not only commensurate with the heinousness of the crime but should be such that it should not only be adequate punishment for the crime, but, it should also have deterrent effect on others who intend to choose the path of crime whenever it looks easy to them. The poor and downtroden who become the cannon fodder for the powerful, should realise that however strong be the hands of their masters, they are not stronger than the hands of law, and they cannot be saved from law by their masters. Sooner or later they are caught to be punished for the crime.

I, therefore, consider that the accused persons should be given such punishment which should take into account the protected trial which has been faced by the accused persons and simultaneously it should take into account the heinousness of the crime and the deterrent factor.

Keeping in view all above considerations, I award a sentence of 2 yrs. R.I. u/s 147 IPC to all the convicted accused persons for rioting, and a sentence of 6 months for violation of curfew orders,resulting into danger to human life and safety to human life, and resulting into riots. I, further award a sentence of 5 yrs. R.I. u/s 436 IPC with a fine of Rs. 5000/- for destroying houses dwelling places of sikhs by fire in block No. 32 and surrounding areas. In default of payment of fine, each convict will have to further undergo RI for a period of 3 months. All the sentences to run concurrently. Benifit of S.428 Cr P.C. be given to the convicts.

DT 27.8.96

(S.N. DHINGRA)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.

Mr. Adarsh Goel, Advocate, for Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Mr. Madan Lokur, Advocate, for UOI. For the Petitioner

I Constitution of India 1950 — Art.226 — "Writ" — Art. 21 — " Right to Life" — " 1984 Riots victims" — " Compensation" — Communal riots after assassination of Indira Gandhi — Killed number of persons — Whether it is State's duty to Protect the life of its citizens and the citizens has a corresponding right particularity under Art.21 of the Constitution? — (Yes)
Held : Article 21 is the Nation's commitment to bring every individual or group of persons within its protective fold. This Nation belongs to members of all the communities. They are equal members of the Indian society. Equality before law and equal protection of laws is ensured to them by Article 14 of the Constitution to them. None is to be favoured or discredited The conduct of any person or group of persons has to be controlled by the State for the lofty purpose enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is the duty of the State to create a climate where the cleavage between members of the society belonging to different faiths, caste and creed are eradicated. The State must act in time so that the precious lives of the people are not destroyed or threatened. Otherwise, Article 21 will remain a paper guarantee. Time is long overdue for adopting measures that have more than a hortatory effect in enforcing Article 21 of the Constitution. The State cannot adopt a '' do nothing attitude''. Like disease prevention, the State must take every precaution, measure and initiative to prevent terrorem populi of the magnitude represented by 1984 riots and in the event of an out-break of riots it must act swiftly to curb the same and not allow precious time to slip by, as any inaction or passivity on its part can result in loss of precious life and liberty of individuals amounting to violation and negation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The State has to enforce minimum standards of civilized behaviour of its citizens so that the life, liberty, dignity and worth of an individual is protected and preserved and is not jeopardised or endangered. If it is not able to do all that then it cannot escape the liabilty to pay adequate compensation to the family of the person killed during riots as his or her life has been extinguished in clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution which mandates that life cannot be taken away except according to the procedure established by law. (Para 10)

Held : I am of the opinion that the petitioner should have been paid at least a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation. Since the petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- to the petitioner with interest from October 1984 to the date of payment, which is quantified at Rs. 1.50 lakhs. The respondent will make the payment of Rs. 3.30 lakhs to the petitioner within one month. (Para 30).
This direction to pay enhanced compensation would be applicable to similar cases in order to secure parity and to alleviate the sufferings of the families of the victims who lost their lives during the Delhi riots of 1984. (Para 31)
Result : Petition Allowed.

Cases Referred :-
1. National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & another, JT 1996 (1) S.C. 163
2. Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 S.C. 2039.
3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others, AIR 1984 S.C.802.
4. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985)3SCC 545 (at page 572, para 32),
5. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 S.C. 420.
6. Kewal Pati (Smt) v. State of U.P. and others, (1995) 3 S.C.C.600.
7. Mrs. Sudha Rasheed v.Union of India and others, 1995 (1) SCALE 20.
8. Ajit Singh v. State of Delhi and others, 1995 (1) SCALE 54.
9. Durga Prasad Tomar and another v. State of U.P. 1995 (1) SCALE 146.

1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner, a widow of a riot victim, seeks enhancement of the amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- awarded to her on account of the death of her husband.

2. Shri Narain Singh, petitioner's husband, lost his life on November I, 1984, in the riots which took place after the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi. On the fateful day he was travelling by Bombay-Ferozepur Janta Express Train. According to the FIR No.355 dated November 1,1984, lodged at the Police Station New Delhi Railway Station around 12:30 noon, the train stopped at Tughlakabad Railway Station where 300-350 villagers surrounded it. They pulled out 25/26 Sikh passengers from the train and killed them. The persons killed included Narain Singh son of Jawahar Singh, resident of Village Bhalajala, Tehsil Taran Taran, District Amritsar, Punjab (for particulars see death certificate at page 6 of the writ record).

3. On October 20, 1986, after about two years of the incident, the Delhi Administration awoke to the need to compensate the petitioner for her loss and made an ex gratia payment of Rs. 20,000/- to her by means of a cheque, a copy whereof is at page 11 of the writ record. The grievance of the petitioner is that the amount paid to her is too meagre and the same should be enhanced to Rs.2 lakhs. The petitioner in support of her plea about the inadequacy of the compensation has averred that heirs of the persons killed by militants or the police have been paid Rs. 2 lakhs each as compensation. She also cites the example of victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

4. The short question involved in the writ petition is whether an ex gratia payment of Rs.20,000/- paid to a widow or family of person killed during riots would be in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution. I have heard Mr. Adarsh Goel, learned counsel appearing for the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, and Mr. Madan Lokur, learned counsel for the Union of India.

5. This case demonstrates how innocent lives were snuffed out by barbaric mobs indulging in an orgy of violence after the brutal killing of Smt. Indira Gandhi. It is not difficult to visualise the terror, pain and the suffering which must have struck the affected people not at the hands of beasts but fellow beings belonging to the same mother land to which the dead belonged. Bemoaning the loss of the near ones, how they would have preferred beast to human beings for company and must have yearned for a place free of marauding crowdsyearned for a place where fear would not enteryearned for a situation described in the following words of Gurudev Rabindra Nath Tagore

" If I were the soil, if I were the water,
If I were the grass or fruit or flower,
If I were to roam about the earth with beasts and birds,
there would be nothing to fear,
In never-ending ties wherever I go.
It will be the limitless me"

6. Communal violence and riots keep on manifesting with alarming frequency. It is State's obligation to create conditions where rights of individuals or group of persons under Article 21 are not and cannot be violated. It is for the State and its functionaries to evolve methods and strategies to ensure protection of life and liberty of a person or persons which is guaranteed by Article 21. It is obvious that there will be no use of the rights conferred by Article 21 if the State does not exact compliance of the same from its officials and functionaries and private persons. Votaries of violence may strike for different reasons but each time it results in negation of Article 21. Life and liberty is being threatened at the hand of anti-national and anti-social elements, caste champions, criminals and rapists, etc. In some parts of the country terrorists and religious zealots are destroying life in the name of religion. The way a person wants to worship his God should not be a matter for hate or contempt of an individual, jeopardising and threatening his liberty.

7. It is the duty and responsibility of the State to secure and safeguard life and liberty of an individual from mob violence. It is not open to the State to say that the violations are being committed by private persons for which it cannot be held accountable. Riots more often than not take place due to weakness, laxity and indifference of the administration in enforcing law and order. If the authorities act in time and act effectively and efficiently, riots can surely be prevented. Message must go to the mischief mongers that the administration means business and their nefarious designs would be thwarted with an iron hand.

8. Personal liberty is fundamental to the functioning of our democracy. The lofty purpose of Article 21 would be defeated if the State does not take adequate measures for securing compliance with the same. The State has to control and curb the malefic propensities of those who threaten life and liberty of others. It must shape the society so that the life and liberty of an individual is safe and is given supreme importance and value. It is for the state to ensure that persons live and behave like and are treated as human beings. Article 21 is a great land mark of human liberty and it should serve its purpose of ensuring the human dignity, human survival and human development. The State must strive to give a new vision and peaceful future to its people where they can cooperate, coordinate and co-exist with each other so that full protection of Article 21 is ensured and realised. Article 21 is not a mere platitude or dead letter lying dormant, decomposed dissipated and inert. It is rather a pulsating reality throbbing with life and spirit of liberty, and it must be made to reach out to every individual within the country. It is the duty and obligation of the State to enforce law and order and to maintain public order so that the fruits of democracy can be enjoyed by all sections of the society irrespective of their religion, caste, creed, colour, region and language. Article 21 is an instrument and a device to attain the goal of freedom of an individual from deprivation and oppression and its violation cannot and must not be tolerated or condoned. Preamble to the Constitution clearly indicates that justice, liberty and equality must be secured to all citizens. Besides, it mandates the State to promote fraternity among the people, ensuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. Article 38 of the Constitution also requires the State to promote welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order in which justicesocial, economic and political, pashall inform all institutions of the national life. These are the goals set by the Constitution, and Article 21 and other fundamental rights are the means by which those goals are to be attained. Therefore, it becomes the responsibility and avowed duty of the State to adopt means and methods in order to realise the cherished aims.

9. The sweep of Article 21 is wide and far reaching. Article 21 is not to be restricted to the violation of right to life and liberty committed by the State alone. That right is also to be protected and safeguarded by the State from being violated or interfered with by private individuals. In National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & another, JT 1996 (1) S.C. 163, the Supreme Court held that the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every person and it cannot permit any body or group of persons to threaten it. The Supreme Court in this regard held as follows :-

10. Article 21 is the Nation's commitment to bring every individual or group of persons within its protective fold. This Nation belongs to members of all the communities. They are equal members of the Indian society. Equality before law and equal protection of law is ensured to them by Article 14 of the Constitution to them. None is to be favoured or discredited. The conduct of any person or group of persons has to be controlled by the State for the lofty purpose enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is the duty of the State to create a climate where the cleavage between members of the society belonging to different faiths, caste and creed are eradicated. The State must act in time so that the precious lives of the people are not destroyed or threatened. Otherwise, Article 21 will remain a paper guarantee. Time is long overdue for adopting measures that have more than a hortatory effect in enforcing Article 21 of the Constitution. The State cannot adopt a " do nothing attitude". Like disease prevention, the State must take every precaution, measure and initiative to prevent terrorem populi of the magnitude represented by 1984 riots and in the event of an out-break of riots it must act swiftly to curb the same and not allow precious time to slip by, as any inaction or passivity on its part can result in loss of precious life and liberty of individuals amounting to violation and negation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The State has to enforce minimum standards of civilized behaviour of its citizens so that the life, liberty, dignity and worth of an individual is protected and preserved and is not jeopardised or endangered. If it is not able to do all that then it cannot escape the liability to pay adequate compensation to the family of the person killed during riots as his or her life has been extinguished in clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution which mandates that life cannot be taken away except according to the procedure established by law.

11. Variety of problems like economic inequities, rampant indiscipline, divide on religious basis, degradation of values and morality are afflicting the system. Do not such ailments actually promote, encourage and instigate violation of Article 21? I think they do. It is for the State to consider what corrective measures must be adopted to achieve the full realisation of the benefit of Article 21 to the people of this country. There are various factors apart from the ones stated above which are compounding the problem. For example, today the youth of the country is being feasted on movies which are filled with violence and obscenity. They are having a taste of a culture developed elsewhere and brought to them by powerful media. The songs and the dances sequences are also doing their bit in changing their moral fibre. Precious little has been done to remedy and rectify the situation. Let us give to ourselves and our children our own life traditions and culture which is essentially Indian. Five decades earlier the officials who were corrupt could be spotted and identified, but today corruption is rampant. Again very little has been done to eradicate it. State must address itself to question whether compliance with Article 21 is possible so long as these maladies in the society remain. If the State earnestly wants to improve the situation, there is nothing which can prevent them from removing the maladies which infest the public life today. Riots are manifestations of the illness. There has been little or no effort to cure the illness. The argument that the State cannot legislate or enforce morals, or law is not equipped to exact compliance with moral values, cannot be allowed to be pleaded. It is often said that " the devil himself knoweth not the mind of man". Yet the attainment of minimum standards of morality and civilised behaviour have motivated imposition of punishment and sanction by ordinary criminal laws. Again fundamental rights and directive principles of State policy have been founded on the bed rock of morality, human values and concept of justice. If the situation is allowed to drift and no corrective measures are taken, it will serve as an inexhaustible flash point for tumultuous disturbance of peace by anti-national & anti social elements.

12. The following decisions of the Supreme Court show the range of Article 21:

13. In Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 S.C.2039, it was held that Article 21 of the Constitution casts the obligation on the State to preserve life. This was a case where the Supreme Court held that doctors were duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving life, and every doctor whether at a Government hospital or otherwise was required to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life. It was further held that an injured person must be first treated even before the police is contacted.

14. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others, AIR 1984 S.C. 802, the Supreme Court observed that it was the fundamental right of every citizen in this country to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. In this regard it will be advantageous to extract part of para 10 of the judgement :-

" .... It is the fundamental right of every one in this country, assured under the interpretation given to Article 21 by this Court in Frances Mullin's case (AIR 1980 SC 849) to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly Clauses (e) and (f), of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore it must include protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse. Opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no Stateneither the Central Government nor any State Governmenthas the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials. ......"

It may be mentioned that the Supreme Court directed the State of Haryana to ensure that the private contractors exploiting the mines and quarries comply with the social welfare and labour laws enacted for the benefit of the workmen so that there is no violation of the right of the workmen to live with human dignity as enshrined in Article 21. As is evident from the decision of the Supreme Court, the obligation to secure compliance with the social welfare and labour laws by the contractors was placed on the State. In other words, it was the State which was held responsible for the protection of the rights conferred on the workers employed in the quarries and mines run by private contractors.

15. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3SCC 545 (at page 572. para 32), it was held that the sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far-reaching. In this regard it was held as follows :-

" If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. There is, thus, a close nexus between life and the means of livelihood and as such that, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life".

16. In Subhash Kumar v.State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 S.C.420, where relief was sought under Article 32 of the Constitution for directing the Director of Collieries, West Bokaro Collieries, Hazaribagh, and the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. to stop forthwith discharge of slurry/sludge from their washeries into Bokaro river, the Supreme Court held that Article 32 was designed for enforcement of fundamental rights of a citizen. It further held that right to live is a fundamental right under Article21 of the Constitution and it includes the right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. It was observed that if anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws,citizen should have a right to recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life. It may be noted that this was a case where the pollution was being caused by private parties and yet the court under Article 32 of the Constitution held that petition could be filed for enforcement of Article 21 to prevent pollution.

17. Thus, it is obvious from the aforesaid observations that it is the State's obligation to protect and preserve life. It must act and create conditions conducive for one to lead a life of dignity, a life which is livable as opposed to mere animal existence. This is bare minimal which the State is required to do under Article 21 of the Constitution.

18. It cannot be denied that the State recognised the factum of death of the petitioner's husband during the riots and it was in recognition thereof that the financial assistance in the form of compensation of Rs.20,000/- was given to the petitioner. This compensation to a widow or the family of a person who lost his life during the riots is highly inadequate. It is mockery of compensation for a riot victim. When a wife loses her husband, children their father, parents their son in a riot, it amounts to a cruel joke to give Rs. 20,000/- as financial aid to the family of a deceased. This paltry sum of Rs. 20,000/- cannot by any standard be the tower of their hope and strength. The very offer of such a sum would aggravate the pain and suffering, rather than reducing the same. The time when the blow is fresh, it is then that the family should receive adequate financial aid or compensation to ride over immediate financial crisis and look to the future with a glimmer of hope. It is true that life of an individual cannot be compensated by payment of money, but at the same time it relieves financial strain and alleviates the sufferings of the victims and their families. Financial aid of Rs.20,000/- as a measure of immediate relief is, as already stated, grossly inadequate and is far from being just, fair and reasonable. It is no victory for the victim.

19. What compensation should be awarded as a measure of immediate relief to a riot victim can be gathered from the following decisions of the Supreme Court:

20. In Kewal Puri (Smt) v. State of U.P. and others, (1995) 3S.C.C. 600, the Supreme Court directed the State of U.P. to pay Rs. 1 lakh to the wife of a prisoner who was killed in jail by a co-prisoner.

21. In Mrs. Sudha Rasheed and others v. Union of India and others, 1995 (1) SCALE 20, the Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the family of the deceased for custodial death in a writ petition filed by the widow under Article 32 of the Constitution.

22. In Ajit Singh v. State of Delhi and others, 1995 (1) SCALE 54, the Apex Court for the alleged custodial death of the son of the petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh subject to such further claims as the petitioner and the other heirs of the deceased may prosecute in a civil court.

23. In yet another case Durga Prasad Tomar and another v. State of U.P. and others 1995 (1) SCALE 146, where the victims were kept in wrongful confinement for a period of 7 days, the Supreme Court directed the State of U.P. to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the petitioners.

24. In Bhim Singh , MLA v. State of J. & K. and others, 1986 Crl.L.J. 192, the petitioner was directed to be paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- by the State as he had been illegally detained

25. Though the aforesaid cases do not pertain to riots, but broadly the quantum compensation or financial aid for the loss of a near one can be ascertained therefrom. The decisions show that the judicial trend is to award substantial compensation for illegal extinction or deprivation of life and liberty. The loss of life in jail at the hands of inmate or jail authorities and loss of life outside the jail at the hands of functionaries of the State or rioters bring the same tragic results for the families of the victims.in the matter of controlling the situation during the 1984 riots . In this regard, the Commission observed as follows:-

There is abundant evidence before the Commission that the Police on the whole did not behave properly and failed to act as a professional force. Telephone No. 100 which is meant for notifying for police assistance did not respond at all during that period. The police stations when contacted on telephone ordinarily did not respond and if there was any response it was a plea of inability to assist. The behaviour of most policemen was shabby in the sense that they allowed people to be killed, houses to be burnt, property to be looted, ladies to be dragged and misbehaved with in their very presence. Their plea was that they were a few and could not meet the unruly armed mob usually of hundreds or thousands. Some senior police officers had taken the stand that the community was in a frenzy and to meet the cruel mob greater strength of force was necessary. Obviously, the police could not expect that their number had to be equal to that of the miscreants. A professional police force by its expertise, experience and training was expected to meet any challenge and was not to seek cover under an umbrella of excuses based upon instructions in archaic Police Rules. Has any hero been heard of opening his scriptures when he suddenly meets a challenge to his life....................(Pages 33 & 34 of the in the matter of controlling the situation during the 1984 riots . In this regard, the Commission observed as follows:-

28. While considering the question of grant of compensation or ex-gratia payment to the petitioner and families of the victims killed during the riots, all the aforesaid aspects have to be kept in view. It is also noteworthy that the Supreme Court awarded Rs.1 lakh to Rs.7.5 lakhs for illegal curtailment of life as indicated in the aforesaid decisions. Therefore, obviously the compensation or ex gratia payment as a measure of immediate relief to the victim's family should be more than Rs.50,000/- and between Rs.1 lakh and Rs. 7.5 lakhs.

29. It has been brought to my notice by Mr. Adarsh Goel, learned counsel for the respondent- Govt. of NCT of Delhi, that widows of riot victims are being paid Rs. 1,000/- per month as pension. Learned counsel has produced on record a copy of letter No. F.9(38) R-1/DC/88/648 dated May 17,1996, from the Deputy Director (Relief-1), Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, to the Desk Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India North Block, New Delhi, along with report regarding progress of relief and rehabilitation measures in regard to riot victims of 1984. According to the report, 195 widows are getting pension. Be that as it may, the financial assistance of Rs. 20,000/-, which was to ameliorate the immediate effect and the long term effect of the killing of an earning hand, was highly inadequate and unfair.

30. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and also keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court I am of the opinion that the petitioner should have been paid at least a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation. Since the petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- to the petitioner with interest from October 1984 to the date of payment, which is quantified at Rs. 1.50 lakh. The respondent will make the payment of Rs. 3.30 lakhs to the petitioner within one month

31. This direction to pay enhanced compensation would be applicable to similar cases in order to secure parity and to alleviate the sufferings of the families of the victims who lost their lives during the Delhi riots of 1984. Accordingly, it is directed that the widows and families of the victims who lost their lives in the 1984 Delhi riots be paid a sum of Rs. 3.50 lakhs (Rs. 2 lakhs with interest quantified at Rs.1.50 lakhs ). The payment would be made to them by the respondent after adjusting the amount, if any, paid to them as ex gratia grant or compensation. It will also be open to the Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and the Union of India to consider the grant of compensation over and above the aforesaid amount depending upon the circumstances of the families of the riots victim. I would also direct the State to constitute a Committee to disburse the amount of compensation quantified as above to the families of those who were killed in riots after their proper identification. I order accordingly. The exercise should be completed within a period of four months. The State and the Union, as the case may be, will be well advised to locate the responsibility for the riots whenever and wherever they occur and the persons held responsible for the same should be made to pay compensation and the law should provide for confiscation of their properties so as to secure payment of compensation out of the assets so confiscated. In case it is found that an official or officials of the State did not act in time or were indifferent to mob violence, they should also be required to make reparations to the victims and face disciplinary proceedings.

32. With these directions and observations, writ petition is disposed of.