State vs . (1) Prem Chand Jain on 20 September, 2014

[Cites 68, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . (1) Prem Chand Jain on 20 September, 2014

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII 
            (NORTHWEST) ROHINI COURTS: DLEHI
Session Case No. 201/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0027182008

State                                Vs.                  (1)   Prem Chand Jain
                                                                S/o Ramji Lal Jain
                                                                R/o Y149/ 50, 
                                                                JJ Colony, Nangloi,
                                                                Delhi
                                                                (Since Expired)

                                                          (2)   Ram Niwas @ Tunda
                                                                S/o Dalip Singh 
                                                                R/o Y754, JJ Colony,
                                                                Delhi
                                                                (Since Expired)

                                                          (3)   Satpal Gupta
                                                                S/o Late Chander Bhan
                                                                R/o 49, Ashok Mohalla,
                                                                Nangloi, Delhi41
                                                                (Acquitted)

                                                          (4)   Ram Pal Singh Rana
                                                                S/o Late Sh. Babu Singh
                                                                R/o C22/F, Vijeta Vihar,
                                                                Sector13, Rohini
                                                                (Acquitted)

                                                          (5)   Dalel Singh
                                                                S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh 
                                                                R/o Village Qutubgarh, 
                                                                Delhi - 39

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi                           Page No. 1 of 268
                                                                 Presently residing at
                                                                B130, Sawan Park,
                                                                Nangloi, Delhi
                                                                (Acquitted)

                                                          (6)   Karam Singh
                                                                S/o Late Sh. Kaptan Singh
                                                                R/o House No. 2031, 
                                                                Sector6, Bahadurgarh,
                                                                Haryana
                                                                (Acquitted)
FIR No.:                       418/1991
Police Station:                Nangloi 
Under Sections:                147/148/149/302/359/195A/ 487/ 436/ 
                               201/217/109/506/34 IPC
Date of committal to Session court: 21.9.1995

Date on which orders were Reserved: 20.9.2014

Date on which Judgment Pronounced:20.9.2014


JUDGMENT:

(1) Vide this judgment I propose to dispose off two charge sheets filed by the Investigating Agency in respect of the present FIR bearing No. 418/1991. The first charge sheet is only against Prem Chand Jain for the riots/ alleged killing of Swaroop Singh, father of Gurbachan Singh and his two relatives Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh on the early morning of 2.11.84 at the house of Sh. Ram Dass Patwari and the second charge sheet is against six accused namely Prem Chand Jain, Ram Niwas @ Tunda, Satpal Gupta, Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, ASI Dalel Singh and Head Constable St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 2 of 268 Karam Singh for inciting the mob/ unlawfully assembly on 1.11.84 around 10/11 A.M. at Y15, JJ Camp no.1, Nangloi regarding the alleged killing of Sant Singh @ Santokh Singh @ Sat Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla S/o Channa Singh R/o JJ Colony Camp no.1, burning/looting by the mob of house of Gurbachan Singh and his family members.

(2) As per allegations, on 1.11.1984 between 10:00 AM to 2:30 PM at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi all the accused namely Dalel Singh (the then Sub Inspector), Karam Singh (the then Constable), Ram Pal Singh Rana (the then SHO Police Station Nangloi), Satpal Gupta and one Prem Chand Jain (now deceased) along with five hundred to seven hundred unknown persons (not arrested) were member of an unlawful assembly with the common object to kill the members of the Sikh community and in prosecution of the common object of the same committed rioting duly armed with deadly weapon which rioters had used as weapons of offence and was likely to cause death.

(3) It has also been alleged that all the accused being members of unlawful assembly instigated the rioters to kill the members of the Sikh community namely Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh which they knew likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. Further, as per allegations pursuant to the said instigation the members of the Sikh community namely Santokh Singh @ Sat Singh @ Sant Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla both sons of Charan Singh were murdered.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 3 of 268 (4) Also, as per the allegations all the accused persons being members of unlawful assembly, committed dacoity by looting the household properties of Gurbachan Singh situated at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi and while doing so they killed Sat Singh and Darshan Singh. It has also been alleged that the accused persons were the members of unlawful assembly with the prosecution of the common object to commit mischief and burnt the dwelling house of Gurbachan Singh situated at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi.

(5) In so far as the accused Dalel Singh (the then Sub Inspector), Karam Singh (the then Constable) and Ram Pal Singh Rana (the then SHO of Police Station Nangloi) are concerned, it has been alleged that they being public servants knowingly disobeyed the directions of law, did not protect the life and property of the members of the Sikh community. Further, it is alleged that the above accused being public servants were legally bound to apprehend the offenders who were charged and liable to be apprehended for offence under Section 147/148/149/302/436/396 Indian Penal Code punishable with death and life imprisonment, omitted to apprehend such person or intentionally allowed to escape or intentionally aided them in escaping.

BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

(6) Following the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi the then Prime Minister of India by her two Sikh Security Personnel's, riots took place in St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 4 of 268 different parts of the country including Delhi and its impact reached Nangloi on 1.11.1984. Fearing that they may be target of such riots, the family of Sardar Swaroop Singh including his four sons, daughters, daughters in law and brothers in law of sons huddled together in their house at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi but at 10:00 AM about 500 NonSikhs attacked the houses and in whatever may be that followed Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh, Santa Singh @ Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla lost their lives and many of those who survived were made to get their hair cut in the Police Station.

(7) In the month of May 1985 the Government of India appointed a Commission headed by Mr. Justice Ranganath Mishra to enquire into the allegations as regards the incidents of organized violence which took place in Delhi and other places in India and to suggest ways, means and measures for rehabilitation of victims, and for prevention of reoccurrence of such incidents and the commission invited affidavits from victims or from their family members affected in the riots. On 9.9.1985 one Gurbachan Singh S/o Late Sardar Swaroop Singh filed two affidavits i.e. one in English dated 4.9.1985 and another in Gurmukhi (Punjabi) script dated 9.9.1985 before Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission wherein he had alleged that on 1.11.1984 at about 10:00 AM about 500700 nonSikhs attacked their house and started throwing stones and bricks bats on them and within few minutes they set on fire all the three doors of their house on which he along with his younger brother Kuldeep Singh, Gurmeet Singh and two other members of St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 5 of 268 Sikh community who had also entered their house at that time for shelter defended themselves from the top of their house. According to Gurbachan Singh they shifted the female members of their family along with his father Swaroop Singh and relatives Amrik Singh and Tarlochan Singh and children in the house of their neighbour known as Patwari on the back side. In the meanwhile DTC buses and Haryana Roadway Buses brought hundreds of nonSikhs who were armed with Lathies and the mob swelled into about 2000 persons. Gurbachan Singh further alleged that about Ten Police officers were also present at the spot and they were encouraging the mob to kill them. He had alleged that he saw Sajjan Kumar, the then Congress (I) MP of their area standing amongst the mob and he i.e. Sajjan Kumar was directing the mob to attack them with more and more force and to kill them. Gurbachan Singh also stated in his affidavit that among the mob he could identify several persons of the locality, some of them are Prem Chand Jain R/o Y149, Nangloi, JJ Colony No.1, Delhi;

son of Milk Vendor of the same locality i.e. 22 Block; son of Dr. Gupta who is having his shop at Nangloi Chowk; one person 'Khal Merchant' known as Tunda; one kiryana shopkeeper in the back lane and his brother in law. Gurbachan Singh alleged that they all i.e. he and his three brothers were having swords in their hands but the other two members of the Sikh community who took shelter in their house were not having any arms with them and the two other Sikh neighbours were also unarmed and therefore all St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 6 of 268 the four members of Sikh community were killed by the mob. At about 2:00 PM or 2:30 PM a train from Rohtak side came and stopped near the Gurdwara in their colony from which 2000 NonSikhs alighted some of them were carrying iron rods whereas rest of them were carrying kerosene oil containers and all of them attacked them with full force. He had alleged that his father Swaroop Singh; brother in law Amrik Singh and his brother in law Trilochan Singh were taken out from the house of neighbourer and were killed by striking iron rods on their heads and then sprinkling kerosene oil upon them and then set them on fire. This was done by Prem Chand Jain and the above persons and at that time Sajjan Kumar (MP) was also present there, after which he and his two brothers fled away from the spot by protecting ourselves with the swords. Gurbachan Singh had alleged that police refused to record his stated and took him away the shelter on 3.11.1984 and when he insisted that his statement be recorded with the name of the culprits who committed murders, Ram Pal Rana SHO Police Station Nangloi reprimanded him and told him that they had already registered the FIR on 1.11.1984. He had further alleged that throughout the date of 1.11.1984 when they were being attacked time and again by the Non-Sikh mob, Ram Pal Singh Rana (SHO Police Station Nangloi) remained present on the spot. He in his affidavit dated 9.9.1985 in Gurmukhi further alleged that on 3.11.1984 the MLA of the area namely Bharat Singh along with the Mohalla President Raj Kumar along with armed police officials forcibly took them to the Police Station where around 250 St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 7 of 268 members of Sikh community were present and their hair were got cut from the Barber.

(8) On 9.9.1985 Smt. Krishna the mother of Trilochan Singh (deceased) and also filed her affidavit dated 30.8.1985 before Justice Ranganath Commission alleging that on 31.10.1984 her son in law namely Amrik Singh came from Bombay and in the evening he along with her son Tarlochan Singh went to Y15, Nangloi JJ colony No.1, Delhi where sister of Amrik Singh was married. She alleged that on 1.11.1984 in the morning she came to know that members of Sikh community are being beaten and as such she and her husband felt that she should bring back Tarlochan Singh and Amrik Singh from Nangloi where she reached at 7:00 AM and at about 8:00 AM she started back because the children told her that they would come soon but near Punjabi Bagh the Road was blocked and hence she returned back. According to Smt. Krishna at about 10:00 AM the Non - Sikh mob of about 500 armed with sticks attacked the Sikh houses and two more members of the Sikh community from outside came running and took shelter in their house. She further alleged that Tarlochan Singh, Amrik Singh and Swaroop Singh and four more members of the Sikh community were killed by NonSikhs by striking Iron Rods on their heads and then sprinkling Kerosene Oil upon them and then setting them on fire. According to Smt. Krishna, Gurbachan Singh brother in law of Amrik Singh and son of Swaroop Singh with two of his brothers were having swords with them and then they ran for safety with the help of swords. She also alleged St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 8 of 268 that on 2.11.1984 in the morning she and other women folk of assassinated members of Sikh community went to the Police Station for help but the police turned them out. She further alleged that when the aforesaid killings took place, a police Jeep with sixseven police officials was present on the scene and she herself saw dead bodies of more than 100 members of Sikh community lying outside on the roads and streets and the houses of all the members of Sikh community were looted and burnt. According to Smt. Krishna, the police refused to lodge her report despite the fact she had visited the Police Station Nangloi for about thirty times within a span of one and a half month after the carnage but her report was never lodged. (9) On 4.4.1986 Gurbachan Singh was examined before Justice Ranganath Commission. In August 1986 Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission submitted the report of enquiry to the Government of India and pursuant to the recommendation of the commission, Government appointed three different committees for follow up actions regarding the implementations to be made of recommendations suggested in the report. (10) In December 1990 one of the Committee headed by Mr. Justice J.D. Jain, retired Judge Delhi High Court and Sh. D.K. Aggarwal retired I.P.S. Officer made recommendations to register fresh cases relating to the incidents of Riots 1984 which were not properly investigated or otherwise due to lapses committed on the part of the Government Machinery. On 6.6.1991 Sh. S.L. Chopra, Secretary to the Committee (Jain Aggarwal Committee) wrote a letter addressed to the Administrator, Union St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 9 of 268 Territory of Delhi for registration of fresh case on the basis of affidavits of Gurbachan Singh and Smt. Krishna, which affidavits were forwarded along with the letter to the Delhi Government. Pursuant to the same on 28.8.1991 the present FIR No. 418/1991 was registered on the basis of affidavits of affidavits of Gurbachan Singh and Smt. Krishna after which investigations were conducted by the then ACP Sh. K.P. Sharma. Thereafter on 8.1.1993 sanction order for prosecution of accused Ram Pal Singh Rana, ASI Dalel Singh and HC Karam Singh was passed and on 18.2.1995 charge sheet in the present case was filed in the Court. On 17.2.1998 Sh. A.B. Tandon the then Special Public Prosecutor moved an application for splitting of charge sheets in respect of incidents dated 1.11.1984 and 2.11.1984 which request was allowed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.A. Khan (the then sessions Judge). In terms of the application filed by the Special Public Prosecutor Sh. A.B. Tandon, on 14.2.2004 a separate charge sheet was prepared and filed in the Court only against Prem Chand Jain for the riots/ alleged killing of Swaroop Singh, father of Gurbachan Singh and his two relations Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh on the early morning of 2.11.84 at the house of Sh. Ram Dass Patwari whereas another/ separate charge sheet was prepared by officers of Riot Cell against six accused persons namely Prem Chand Jain, Ram Niwas @ Tunda, Satpal Gupta, Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, ASI Dalel Singh and Head Constable Karam Singh for inciting the mob/ unlawfully assembly on 1.11.84 around 10/11 A.M. at Y15, JJ Camp No.1, Nangloi and the alleged killing of Sant St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 10 of 268 Singh @ Santokh Singh @ Sat Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla S/o Channa Singh R/o JJ Colony Camp no. 1 and also burning/ looting by the mob of houses of Gurbachan Singh and of his family members. Sequence of Events:

 Sr. No.              Date                                             Events

1.          31.10.1984                 Brutal   Assassination   of   Smt.   Indira   Gandhi,   the   then

Prime Minister of India by two Sikh Security Personnel's.

2. 1.11.1984 Communal riots throughout the Country and particularly in Delhi erupted pursuant to killing of Smt. Indira Gandhi by two Sikh/ Security' Police men at her residence which subsided on 3.11.84.

3. May 1985 Government of India appointed a Commission headed by Justice Ranganath Mishra under the Commission of Enquiries Act, 1952 (U/s 3 of the said Act), to enquire into the allegations in regard to the incidents of Organized violence which took place in Delhi and other places in India and to suggest ways, means and measures for rehabilitation of victims, and for prevention of reoccurrence of such incidents and the commission invited affidavits from victims or from their family members affected in the riots.

4. 9.9.1985 Gurbachan Singh (PW1) filed/ submitted two affidavits,

(i) in English dated 4.9.85 and (ii) in Punjabi dated 9.9.85 before the commission narrating there in the incident of violence and alleged killing etc. (Both affidavits filed before commission on 9.9.85).

5. 9.9.1985 Smt. Krishna (PW10) filed her affidavit dated 30.8.85 on 9.9.85 before the Commission stating the incident of violence and killing of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh etc.

6. 4.4.1986 Gurbachan Singh was also examined before Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission.



St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi                                    Page No. 11 of 268
  Sr. No.              Date                                            Events

7.          August 1986                The Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission submitted the

report of enquiry to the Govt. of India in August 1986 and pursuant to the recommendation of the commission, Govt. appointed different three committees for follow up actions regarding the implementations to be made of recommendations suggested in the report.

The members of these Committees were replaced from time to time due to one reason or the other.

8. December 1990 One of the Committee headed by Mr. Justice J.D. Jain, retired Judge Delhi High Court and Sh. D.K. Aggarwal retired I.P.S. Officer started functioning from December, 1990 and the said Committee made recommendations to register fresh cases relating to the incidents of Riots 1984 which were not properly investigated or otherwise due to lapses committed on the part of the Govt.

Machinery. The aforesaid Committee made recommendations for registration of fresh case.

9. 6.6.1991 Letter of Sh. S.L. Chopra, Secretary to the committee (Jain Aggarwal Committee) to examine cases relating to riots addressed to the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and for registration of fresh case on the basis of affidavits of Gurbachan Singh and Smt. Krishna, which were forwarded along with the letter to the Delhi Govt.

10. 23.8.1991 Letter sent to Commissioner of Police by Dr. (Mrs.) Satbir Silas, Jt. Secretary (Home) for registration of fresh case as per the letter dated 23.8.91 and the affidavits received from the Committee.

11. 28.8.1991 Case FIR No. 418/91 (present FIR) was registered on 28.8.91 on the basis of affidavits of Gurbachan Singh and Smt. Krishna with an endorsement to Shri K.P. Sharma, the then A.C.P. Riot Cell, Delhi.

12. 28.8.1991 to Investigations were conducted by ACP K.P. Sharma October 1991 during this period.

13. December 1991 to Investigations were conducted by ACP Amarjeet Singh February 1992 during this period.



St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi                                   Page No. 12 of 268
  Sr. No.              Date                                            Events

14. February 1992 to Investigations were conducted by the then A.C.P. Rajiv October 1992 Ranjan during this period and final report was prepared/ submitted on 19.12.94 under his signatures and the same was forwarded for trial on 2.2.95 by the Chief Prosecutor, Riots Cell.

15. 8.1.1993 Sanction order for prosecution of accused Ram Pal Singh Rana, ASI Dalel Singh and HC Karam Singh for the commission of offences punishable u/s 109/114/217 & 221 IPC was passed.

16. 18.2.1995 Charge sheet in the present case was filed in the Court.

17. 17.2.1998 Application of Sh. AB. Tandon, the then Special P.P. Riot Cell for split/ separation of the charge sheet on account of different incident of 1.11.84 at about 11 A.M. and 2.11.84 in the early morning at the house of Ram Dass Patwari being misjoinder of persons and Charges in terms of Section 218/219 Cr.P.C. filed in the court of Sh. M.A. Khan, Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi.

Justice M.A. Khan (the then Sessions Judge) ordered for Splitting/ Separate filing of challans in terms of the application of Sh. A.B. Tandon and on perusal of the record.

18. 14.2.2002 One separate charge sheet dated 14.2.02 was prepared and instituted in court against Prem Chand Jain only for the riots/ alleged killing of Swaroop Singh, father of Gurbachan Singh and his two relations Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh on the early morning of 2.11.84 at the house of Sh. Ram Dass Patwari.

19. 14.2.2002 Separate charge sheet was prepared on 14.2.2002 by officers of Riot Cell against six accused persons namely (1) Prem Chand Jain, (2) Ram Niwas @ Tunda, (3) Satpal Gupta, (4) Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, (5) ASI Dalel Singh and (6) Head Constable Karam Singh for inciting the mob/ unlawfully assembly on 1.11.84 around 10/11 A.M. at Y15, JJ Camp no.1, Nangloi regarding the St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 13 of 268 Sr. No. Date Events alleged killing of Sant Singh @ Santokh Singh @ Sat Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla S/o Channa Singh R/o JJ Colony Camp no. 1, burning/looting by the mob of house of Gurbachan Singh and his family members.

20. 4.3.2004 Charge framed against Prem Chand Jain S/o Ramji Lal Jain (only) for rioting and for alleged killing of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh of the incident of the night 1/2.11.84 (11 or 12 A.M.) near Patwari house Block, J.J. Colony, Nangloi, by the then Trial Court/Judge Ms. Deepa Sharma, New Delhi. Prem Chand Jain had died during the trial after framing of the charge against him Ms. Deepa Sharma, the then Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, also framed Separate Charges against Prem Chand Jain (2) Sat Pal Gupta along with their co accused namely Ram Pal Singh, Dalel Singh and Karam Singh for being members of unlawfully assembly, rioting and instigating the rioters to kill members of Sikh community, namely, Sat Singh and Darshan Singh Sons of Channa Singh and for burning/looting the property of Gurbachan Singh by the Mob.

21. 18.2.1987 Case FIR No. 67/87 U/s. 147/148/149/416 etc. IPC was registered at Police Station Nangloi where in Gurbachan Singh S/o Swaroop Singh R/o YBlock, J.J. Colony figured as one of the witness/ victim of the riots and his statements were recorded by the investigating Officers (separately discussed) in which no charge sheet has been filed till date. A copy of the said FIR has been placed on record and it is evident that the said FIR U/s.

147/148/149/341/416/427/436 IPC was registered on the statement of SI Ram Chander, Crime Branch dated 18.2.1987 as against Bharat Singh Congress (I) worker of Nangloi identified by Smt. Updesh Kaur W/o Trilochan Singh, R/o C126B, Tilak Vihar, New Delhi; Pratap Kaur W/o Fateh Chand, R/o 22695, Nangloi Delhi at present St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 14 of 268 Sr. No. Date Events C15B, Tilak Vihar, New Delhi and Gurbachan Singh S/o Sarup Singh, R/o X Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi Delhi at present C54A, Tilak Vihar, New Delhi as organiser of 1984 riots in which the rioters indulged into arson, loot etc. in the area of Police Station Nangloi.

22. 8.5.2000 to Government of India had appointed a Commission of 9.2.2005 Enquiry headed by Hon'ble Justice G.T. Nanavati vide notification dated 8.5.2000 with the terms of reference mentioned in the notification to enquire including the causes and course of criminal violence and riots targeting members of Sikh Community, sequence leading to the riots, lapses or dereliction of duty on the part of the public servants including police, recommending measures and follow up action.

The Commission submitted its report dated 9th February 2005 (Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry (1984 Anti Sikh Riots).

CHARGES:

(11) Charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 r/w 149, 396 r/w 149 and 436 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Satpal Gupta to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 r/w 149, 396 r/w 149, 436 r/w 149, 217 and 221 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Dalel Singh, Karam Singh and Ram Pal Singh Rana to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(12) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 15 of 268 proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:

List of Witnesses:

Sr. PW Name of Witness Details of witness
No. No.
1. PW1 Gurbachan Singh Public Witness - Complainant in the present
case
2. PW2 Kuldeep Singh Public Witness - Brother of the complainant
3. PW3 Devender Kaur Public Witness/ Eye Witness/ Sister of the
complainant who has turned hostile
4. PW4 Gurmeet Singh Public Witness/ Eye Witness who has turned
hostile
5. PW5 Dilbagh Official Witness who has proved the record in
respect of death of Swaroop Singh and
Trilochan Singh
6. PW6 Amarjit Singh Public Witness/ Eye Witness who has turned
hostile
7. PW7 Retd SI Balbir Singh Police Witness Draftsman
8. PW8 Insp. N.S. Minhas Police Witness - Duty Officer
9. PW9 Insp. Raj Singh Police Witness
10. PW10 Smt. Krishna Public Witness - Mother in law of deceased
Amrik Singh
11. PW11 Gurdeep Kaur Official Witness - Oath Commissioner
12. PW12 Insp. J.K. Tyagi Police Witness who had joined investigations
with ACP Sh. Amarjeet Singh
13. PW13 W/HC Chandra Police Witness who had provided information to
the Investigating Officer about the posting
details of Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, ASI
Dalel Singh and SI Raj Singh
14. PW14 HC Kishore Lal Police Witness - Clerk/ Munshi
15. PW15 Shripal Sisodia Official Witness - Oath Commissioner

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 16 of 268
Sr. PW Name of Witness Details of witness
No. No.
16. PW16 ASI Harpal Singh Police Witness who was the Driver of Inspector
Ram Pal Singh Rana
17. PW17 Jitender Singh Official Witness from Delhi Administration who
has proved having handed over the photocopies
of Seventeen documents relating to November
1984 riots to the police
18. PW18 Gopal Ram Official Witness who has brought the file from
Special Inquiry Cell regarding 1984 riots
19. PW 19 Ram Narayan Dohra Official Witness - Station Master at Nangloi
Railway Station
20. PW20 ASI OM Prakash Police Witness who was dropped by the
prosecution
21. PW21 Sh. K.P. Sharma The then ACP - Initial Investigating Officer
22. PW22 Dr. M.M. Kutty Official Witness - Joint Secretary (Home) who
has proved the sanction
23. PW23 Insp. Mam Chand Police Witness who had joined investigations
24. PW24 Mrs. Satbir Silas Official Witness Joint Secretary (Home)
25. PW25 ACP Amarjeet Singh Police Witness - Subsequent Investigating
Officer
26. PW26 DCP Rajeev Ranjan Police Witness - Investigating Officer
27. PW27 Ct. Pradeep Kumar Police Witness - Special Messenger
28. PW28 Sh. S.L. Chopra Official Witness - Secretary of the Committee
to examine cases relating to riots in Delhi
Defence Witnesses
29. DW1 Bale Ram Official Witness -Wireless Operator at Police
Station Nangloi
30. DW2 Attar Singh Public Witness - neighbour of accused Dalel
Singh
31. DW3 ASI Joginder Singh Police Witness who was posted with accused
Karam Singh
32. DW4 Ex. HC Daljeet Singh Police Witness who was posted with accused
Karam Singh

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 17 of 268
Sr. PW Name of Witness Details of witness
No. No.
33. DW5 Gopal Ram Official Witness who has placed on record the
report of Justice Nanavati Commission
34. DW6 ASI Manju Official Witness who has placed on record the
orders from Vigilance Cell
35. DW7 HC Sohan Singh Official Witness who has placed on record the
Service Book of accused Karam Singh
36. DW8 HC Tej Singh Official Witness who has placed on record the
Service Book of Kaptan Singh
37. DW9 ASI Muztaba Ali Official Witness who has placed on record the
file pertaining to incident of 1984 Riots
38. DW10 SI Satbir Singh Official Witness from Publication Section of
Delhi Police
39. DW11 Rajesh Kumar Official Witness who has placed on record the
flat allotment register

List of documents Exhibited and Marked:

Sr. Mark/ Exhibit Details of documents Proved by
No. No.
1. Mark A Statement of Gurbachan Singh Gurbachan Singh
2. Mark B Statement of Gurbachan Singh
3. Mark C Statement of Gurbachan Singh
4. Mark D Statement of Gurbachan Singh
5. Mark E Statement of Gurbachan Singh
6. Ex.PX Affidavit (in Gurmukhi) filed by
Gurbachan Singh before Justice Ranganath
Mishra Commission
7. Ex.PY Affidavit (in English) filed by Gurbachan
Singh before Justice Ranganath Mishra
Commission
8. Mark P4/1 Statement of Gurmeet Singh before the IO Gurmeet Singh
dated 8.10.1991

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 18 of 268
Sr. Mark/ Exhibit Details of documents Proved by
No. No.
9. Mark P4/2 Statement of Gurmeet Singh before the IO
dated 30.10.1991
10. PW5/A MCD death record of Sh. Swaroop Singh Dilbagh Singh
11. PW5/B MCD Death Record of Sh. Trilochan Singh
12. Mark P6/1 Statement of Amarjeet Singh Amarjeet Singh
13. PW7/A Site Plan of place of occurrence i.e. plot SI Balbir Singh
No. 13,14,15 Y block, JJ Colony, Nangloi
14. PW7/B Scaled Site plan of place of incident i.e.
plot No. 17,18,19,20 Y Block, JJ Colony,
Nangloi
15. PW8/A Copy of FIR No. 418/91 Insp. N S Minhas
16. PW8/B Carbon copy of FIR No. 418/91
17. Mark PW9/A Reply of Question No. 11 put by Nanawati Inspector Raj Singh
Commission
18. Mark PW9/B Reply of Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana
regarding WT messages
19. Mark PW9/C Copy of letter of Inspector Ram Pal Singh
Rana regarding deployment of upper/
lower subordinates
20. Mark PW9/D Reply of Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana
21. Mark PW9/E Copy of Movement Register of Ram Pal
Singh Rana
22. Mark PW9/F Copy of Daily Diary dated 31.10.1984
23. Mark PW9/G Copy of Daily Diary dated 1.11.1984
24. Mark PW9/H Copy of Daily Diary dated 2.11.1984
25. Mark PW9/I Copy of Daily Diary
26. Mark PW9/J Copy of Daily Diary dated 1.11.1984
27. Mark PW9/K Copy of Daily Diary
28. Mark PW9/L Copy of Daily Diary dated 2.11.1984
29. PW9/DA Copy of Daily Diary dated 27.10.1984

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 19 of 268
Sr. Mark/ Exhibit Details of documents Proved by
No. No.
30. PW9/DB Copy of Duty Register dated 31.10.1984
31. PW9/DC Copy of Duty Register dated 1.11.1984
32. PW9/DD Copy of Duty Register dated 2.11.1984
33. PW9/DE Copy of Duty Register dated 3.11.1984
34. PW9/DF Copy of Duty Register dated 4.11.1984
35. PW10/A Seizure memo of Death Certificates of Krishna
Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh and their
photographs
36. PW11/A Affidavit of Gurbachan Singh Ms. Gurdeep Kaur
37. PW12/A Seizure memo of Documents from the Insp. J K Tyagi
office of Deputy Secretary (Home)
38. Mark PW14/A Photocopy of order dated 26.8.1991 HC Kishore Lal
regarding destruction of record of Police
Station Nangloi
39. Mark PW14/B Photocopy of Certificate dated 5.2.1992 HC Kishore Lal
40. Mark PW15/A Confronted Statement of Shripal Sisodia Shripal Sisoida
41. Mark PW16/ Movement Chart of Ram Pal Singh ASI Harpal Singh
A1 to 16/A9
42. PW16/A6 DD No. 18A
43. PW17/A1 to Documents from file No. XXV/12/85 Jitender Singh
PW17/A17 Special Inquiry Cell regarding November
1984 riots
44. PW21/A Endorsement/ Rukka ACP Sh. K.P.
45. PW21/DA Site plan of place of occurrence Sharma

46. PW22/A Sanction order dated 18.1.1993 Dr. M.M. Kutty
47. PW22/D1 Letter Dated 31.07.1992
48. PW22/D2 Photocopy of Brief Facts
49. PW23/D1 FIR No. 67/87, Police Station Nangloi Inspector
50. PW23/D2 Statement of of Gurbachan Singh dated Mamchand
25.10.1990

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 20 of 268
Sr. Mark/ Exhibit Details of documents Proved by
No. No.
51. PW23/D3 Statement of Gurbachan Singh dated
28.07.91
52. PW23/D4 Statement of Gurbachan Singh dated
30.9.89
53. PW24/A Letter of Joint Secretary (Home) regarding Mrs. Satbir Silas
registration of fresh case

54. Mark PW24/B Letter of Secretary (Home) regarding registration of fresh case

55. PW25/A Seizure memo of Ration Card ACP Amarjeet singh

56. PW25/B & C Photographs of Amrik Singh Trilochan Singh

57. MarkPW25/A Death Certificate of Trilochan Singh

58. PW25/D Seizure memo of Photocopy of five documents relating to destruction of record of Police Station Nangloi

59. PW25/B to E Documents pertaining to destruction of record of Police Station Nangloi

60. PW25/F1 to 6 Copies of FIR no. 351/84, 365/84, 366/84, 368/84, 398/84 and 67/87

61. Mark PW26/X Death Certificate of Amrik Singh

62. PW26/A Personal search memo of Satpal Gupta

63. PW26/D1 Copy of Wireless Logbook of Police Station Nangloi Documents relied upon by Defence Witnesses

64. DW5/A Departmental Inquiry report as regards Gopal Ram Ram Pal Singh Rana

65. DW6/A Letter of Secretary (Home) to DCP ASI Manju Vigilance regarding inquiry against Ram Pal Singh Rana

66. DW6/B Copy of letter/ Endorsement of ACP/ PHQ

67. DW8/A Copy of Service Book of Ct. Kaptan Singh HC Tej Singh St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 21 of 268 Sr. Mark/ Exhibit Details of documents Proved by No. No.

68. DW9/A1 to Copy of Duty Register dated 31.10.1984 to A15 4.11.1984 of Police Station Nagloi

69. DW10/A Copy of Delhi Police Bulletin of June SI Satbir Singh 1988

70. DW11/A Copy of record relating to the allotment of Rajesh Kumar flat to Amarjeet Singh

71. DW11/B Copy of record relating to the allotment of flat to Gurmeet Singh

72. DW11/C Copy of record relating to the allotment of flat to Kuldeep Singh

73. DW11/D Copy of record relating to the allotment of flat to Gurbachan Singh

74. DW11/E Copy of record relating to the allotment of flat to Prakash Kaur

75. DW11/F Copy of record relating to the allotment of flat to Satnam Kaur CASES REFERRED:

By the prosecution:

➢ Manohar Lal @ Munna Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2000 (1) A.D. (SC) 52.

➢ State Vs. Manohar Lal & Others reported in 76 (1998) DLT 135. ➢ Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2011 Cri.L.J. 283.

➢ Santosh Devidas Behade and Ors. Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2009 III AD (Cr.) (SC) 325.

➢ Rammi @ Sajjan Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1999 Cri.L.J. 4561.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 22 of 268 ➢ Vijay Kumar Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Madras and Anr. reported in 2009 IV AD (Cr.) (SC) 171.

➢ Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2010 V AD (Cri.) SC 195.

➢ Rajinder alias Lala and Etc. Vs. State reported in 2010 Cri.L.J. 15. ➢ Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Upadhyaya Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, in Crl. Appeal No. 1316 of 2008 decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 8.5.2012.

    ➢ Om   Prakash   Vs.   State   of   Haryana                        reported   in 
      MANU/SC/0318/2014.

➢ State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai Etc. in Crl. Appeal No. 1485/2008, decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 7.1.2014.

By the Defence:

➢ Mohd. Abdul Hafeez Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1983 SC 367.

➢ State of Kerala Vs. M/s. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. reported in AIR 1983 SC 369.

➢ Rajeevan & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2003 (1) JCC 527. ➢ Hardwari Lal Vs. State reported in 2009 (4) JCC 3086. ➢ State Vs. Lakhan @ Raju @ Gajinder reported in 2014 (1) JCC 741. ➢ Prema Nand Vs. State reported in 2010 (114) DRJ 1. ➢ Anand Kumar @ Beeru & Ors. Vs. State reported in 2014 (1) JCC

495.

➢ Siri Ram Sharma Vs. State reported in 1995 JCC 120.

➢ Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani Vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1982 SC 839.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 23 of 268 ➢ Harkirat Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1997 SC 3231 ➢ Dr. Jhamman Lal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in 2011 (4) JCC 2932.

➢ State of Haryana Vs. Gurdial Singh & Anr. reported in AIR 1974 SC 1871.

➢ State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Hazara Singh & Ors. reported in 2011(4) JCC 2463.

➢ Pankaj Kumar Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi reported in 2013 (1) JCC

15. ➢ Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Kishangiri reported in 2012 (2) JCC 1185.

EVIDENCE:

(13) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Twenty Eight Witnesses as under:

Public/ Eye witnesses:

(14) PW1 Gurbachan Singh is the complainant in the present case.

He deposed that in the year 1985 he was residing with his family at JJ colony, Y15, Nangloi, Delhi and used to put a rehri. He has further deposed that on 31.10.1984 he was present in his house at Y15, JJ Colony, Nangloi, Delhi and his relatives including Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh had come to meet him, when about 1012 persons came to him while he was selling eggs on rehri at the road and was away from his house at a distance of two furlongs, Tirlocahn Singh and Amrik Singh were standing with him. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 24 of 268 According to the witness, those 1012 boys told him that their Prime Minister had been killed and asked him to close the shop but he refused to do so on which they started quarreling with him and his brother in laws intervened and ultimately he took the rehri to his house. (15) Witness has further deposed that at about 9:00 AM on 01.11.1984 the crowd collected and started pelting stones on their house and he asked his children to hide somewhere nearby. Thereafter, he went to roof on the first floor and saw the crowd pelting stones on which they (witness) also started pelting stones which were thrown by the crowd. According to the witness two others Sikh gentleman also came there to take shelter, who were not known to them but Santa and Babla their neighbors were with them. He has also deposed that the crowd gave a beating to Babla and Santa and the above two strangers with lathies. This witness has initially deposed that all this continued for quiet some time when in the meantime a train came from Rohtak side but thereafter clarified that the crowd came from buses and the number of persons who may be 700 to 800 came and all of them were having lathies and dandas in their hand and they indulged into rioting. According to the witness when the rioting started Kuldeep and Gurmeet his brothers were with him and they continued to face the crowd and his younger brother Amarjeet went to take care of Gurudwara at 9:00 AM. Witness has further deposed that the accused Karam Singh whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court, was one of the persons who was exhorting the crowd for rioting. He has testified that thereafter at the St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 25 of 268 instigation of Karam Singh the crowd gave lathi blows to Santa and Babla and Karam Singh snatched away one can containing kerosene or petrol and sprinkled the same over the bodies of Babla and Santa and Karam Singh put their bodies a blaze on which both of them died. Witness has further deposed that in the meantime, police jeep also arrived there and the accused Rampal Rana the then SHO, whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court, came out of the jeep and gave an indication to the crowd which resulted continuing pelting stones over their house by the crowd. He has also deposed that the crowd threw petrol over their house, doors of their house were burnt on which they also came armed with talwar/ swords in their hand and they asked the people to face them at the point of talwar but nobody came forward. According to the witness, in the meantime SI Dalel Singh also reached near their house and SHO Rampal Rana and SI Dalel Singh exhorted the crowd to leave Babla and Santa Singh and take care of those who were having swords. Witness has further deposed that he received injuries due to pelting of stones and he had not yet recovered from the injuries on his two fingers. The witness has identified the accused Dalel Singh in the Court. He has also deposed that his children met him on third November at the Police Station and Dr. Gupta was also exhorting the crowd. According to the witness after getting injured he started going to the Gurudwara for shelter but fell on the way and he is not aware who removed him from there and when he regained consciousness it was quiet dark and saving himself he went towards Camp No. 3 Nangloi. He has testified that St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 26 of 268 he took shelter in a house of one Sikh where other persons were also residing, 7080 in number. According to the witness on 03.11.1984 when the riots subsided, police came and removed the persons from there where he met his family members and when he was still at the Police Station, Inspector Rampal Rana and SI Dalel Singh came there and both of them called a Barber and got their hair cut. Witness has also deposed that at that time Bharat Singh, Chairman Raj Singh were also present and when he asked them as to why were they treated like that, they told them that they should live like Hindu otherwise will meet this fate and from that Police Station they were taken to Gurudwara Tilak Nagar and stayed there for a month.

(16) According to the witness on 07.11.1984 Inspector Rana and his Constables came there to meet them and to make inquiry about the persons who had caused the above said injuries to them on which he replied that they were the persons who did all this to them. He has also deposed that after one month they were taken to the Police Station where Dalel Singh and Inspector Ram Pal Rana met them and threatened them not to depose against them otherwise they will have to face the consequences and they also took addresses of all of their relations living in India and they were made to sit for hours in the Police Station. Witness has further deposed that he had heard that Sajjan Kumar was leading the crowd but he did not see Sajjan Kumar.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 27 of 268 (17) The witness was crossexamined by the by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein the witness has denied the suggestion that Sajjan Kumar was leading the crowd or that the accused Satpal Gupta was one of these person who was indulging in rioting.

(18) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by the police three four times. He is however unable to tell whether his statement was recorded by crime branch police in case FIR No. 67/87 of Police Station Nangloi, on 30.09.1989, 25.10.1990 and 28.07.1991 by SI Ramchander and Insp. Mamchand. According to the witness, he did not make statements mark A,B & C to any police officer referred above. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely with intent to conceal the actual fact. He has denied the suggestion that in his statements Mark A,B and C he did not disclose that Rampal Singh Rana, Karam Singh and Dalel Singh were instigating or exhorting the crowd or the rioters on 01.11.1984; that SHO along with the police officer was there in the Jeep or that Karam Singh was instigating or that at his instance the crowd inflicted injuries to Babla and Santa Singh; that Karam Singh accused was having a plastic can containing kerosene or petrol or that it was sprinkled upon Santa Singh and Babla and that both were set a blaze by Karam Singh. However, when confronted with statements mark A, B and C all these above said facts were not mentioned. Witness has admitted that he did not tell in his statement mark A, B and C that Rampal Singh Rana got down from the jeep and was giving an St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 28 of 268 indication/ signal to the crowd pointing out toward his house and the crowd set on fire his house as a result of which the doors were burnt. He has also admitted that he did not tell in his statement mark A, B and C that he along with his brothers came down from the roof to save themselves and meanwhile SI Dalel Singh and Rampal Singh Rana also arrived there and that Rampal Singh Rana and SI Dalel Singh exhorted the crowd to leave Babla and Santa and to take care of those who were having swords. Witness has also admitted that he did not tell in any of his statement mark A, B and C that on 07.11.1984 Rampal Singh Rana came at Gurudwara and made inquiry from his about the persons involved in rioting and that he told him, that they were the person who had wronged them. Witness has admitted that Rampal Singh Rana or the SHO had not given any threat to him that in case if he deposed against them, he will meet the same fate were not stated by him in his above statement mark A,B and C. He has denied the suggestion that he has intentionally and deliberately named these accused persons as the persons involved in this case and has given a false statement in the court.

(19) He does not remember whether he appeared before the commission headed by Hon'ble Justice Rangnath Mishra on 04.04.1986 nor does he remember whether he had made any allegation against any of the three accused persons before the Commission. When confronted with Mark D where there is no allegation against the accused. Witness has admitted that mark D which is a photocopy bear his signatures at point A, St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 29 of 268 encircled red. He does not remember whether his statement was recorded by Sh. K.P. Sharma, ACP Crime and Railways. On a specific Court Question the witness has deposed that he is illiterate and has not studied in the school but he can sign in English and knew little Punjabi. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not name Karan Singh, Dalel Singh, nor he has given any description of these persons as per his alleged statement mark E. Witness has admitted that he has not mentioned any overt act on the part of these persons. According to the witness the question and answer regarding both the accused is the same in his alleged statement dated 13.10.1991 and 18.03.1993 mark F and G. He also does not remember whether he had stated that Amrik Singh and his brother in law Trilochan Singh were also present at his rehri at main road Rohtak road where he was selling eggs or that 1012 boys came there and threatened him, in any of the above said statements, because he did not remember whether at all he had made these statements. Witness has testified that he went to Ludhiana 1½ to 2 months after the occurrence. He has also deposed that they were sent to Gurudwara Bata Sahab Tilak Nagar along with 200250 families of members of Sikh community for safety purpose by the police and they remained in the said Gurudwara for 1½ months till they went to Ludhiana. Witness has further deposed that he did not make any written complaint to any of the authorities nor he sent any such complaint to such authorities against the accused. According to the witness, he stayed in Ludhiana for about one month along with his family. He has also deposed that he did not St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 30 of 268 make any complaint against the accused before any of the police officer or civilian authorities against the accused requesting them that his complaint should be sent or forwarded to the authorities in Delhi. Witness has further deposed that he was not allotted any house but has explained that his relative was allotted the house. He does not remember whether he had mentioned in his affidavit that he was allotted house by the Government. He has also deposed that he had given an affidavit in Punjabi language before his Lordship Mr. Justice Ranganath Mishra but he is not aware where that affidavit was prepared and by whom and states he does not know Punjabi Language. The witness has identified his signatures on Ex.PX in English at point A and has stated that he does not remember in this affidavit what was written. Witness has admitted that he has not stated in his affidavit Ex.PX that they continued to face the crowd and his younger brother Amarjeet went to take care the Gurudwara at 9 AM. He has also deposed that he did not mention in his affidavit Ex.PX that Karam Singh (accused) was one of the person who was exhorting the crowd for rioting or that Karam Singh instigated the crowd to give lathi blows to Santa and Babla or that Karam Singh snatched away one can containing kerosene or petrol and sprinkled the same on the body of Babla and Santa and Karam Singh put their bodies a blaze. Witness has admitted that he did not tell in his statement Ex.PX that in the meantime police jeep also arrived there or that SHO Rampal Rana, came out of the jeep and gave an St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 31 of 268 indication to the crowd which resulted in continuing pelting stone over their house by the crowd. Witness has also admitted that he did not tell in his affidavit Ex.PX that in the meantime SI Dalel Singh also reached near the house or that SHO Rampal Rana and SI Dalel Singh exhorted the crowd to leave Babla and Santa and take care of those who were having swords. Witness has further admitted that he did not tell in his affidavit Ex.PX that after getting injured he started going to Gurudwara for shelter but fell on the way or that when he asked them as to why they were treating like that they told them that they should live like Hindus otherwise they will meet the same fate. Witness has further deposed that on 07.1.1984 Inspector Rana and his Constable came there to meet them and to make inquiry about the persons who had caused the above said injuries to them on which he replied that they were the same person who did all this to them or that after one month they were taken to the Police Station where SI Dalel Singh and Inspector R.P.Rana met them and threatened them not to depose against them otherwise they will have to face dire consequences.

(20) Witness has deposed that he does not remember if he had also given another affidavit in English in 1985 before the commission. After seeing the affidavit Ex.PY the witness identified his signatures at point A, B and C but states that he is not aware as to who had prepared or written or typed the affidavit Ex.PY and where it was so prepared and states that he St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 32 of 268 was not present when these affidavit Ex.PX and Ex.PY were got attested from an Oath Commissioner and who had got it done. Witness has admitted that whatever writings in Ex.PX were not there same is the position with Ex.PY against the accused persons. Witness has further deposed that he was staying at Delhi during that period when these affidavits were filed before the Commission. He has further deposed that Smt. Krishna is the mother in law of Amrik Singh who is his brother in law (Sala) and Smt. Prakash Kaur (late) was his mother. According to the witness, he had not filed the claim of his father Swaroop Singh and also did not file claim petition No. 272/140 regarding the death of his father. He is not aware whether his mother had also filed a claim petition No. 290/105 regarding the death of his father. He is also not aware if Kishna was examined by the police in case FIR No.398/84 regarding the riots and if she was also examined in the court during the trial of that case. According to the witness he is not aware if Krishna had not made any allegation either before the police or in the court against three accused persons. He does not remember if he was called for interrogation by the Special Cell/ Intelligence Bureau (IB) where he was questioned about his involvement in various terrorist activities. Witness has denied the suggestion that Dalel Singh and Rampal Singh Rana were members of that interrogation team or that it is for that reason he has made false allegations against these police officers. Witness has admitted that police personnels were patrolling in the area. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 33 of 268 According to him, the distance between his house and the Police Station was two furlong and the house of Ramdass Patwari is situated in front of his house. Witness has admitted that his father, his other relations Amrik Singh and Trilok Singh and other family members except his mother were hiding inside the house of above said patwari. Witness has denied the suggestion that his father Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh had died around 2 PM on 01.11.1984. He is not aware if he had stated this fact in his affidavit Ex.PY and if he had given the time as 11 PM on 01.11.1984 in his Punjabi/ Gurmukhi Affidavit. He also does not remember if he had stated in his statement given to the police on 24.09.1991 that his father and other relations had died at 4 AM on 02.11.1984. According to the witness personally he is not aware when his father and other relation Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh had died. Witness has denied the suggestion that they had filed false claims regarding the death of the above persons. He is not aware if his name was included in the FIR No. 67/87, Police Station Nangloi regarding the riots of the year 1984 and that during that investigation, his statements were recorded on 30.09.1989, 25.10.1990, 28.07.1991. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had not stated any incriminating fact against these three police officials or their involvement in rioting in any manner whatsoever in the aforesaid statement. Witness has further denied the suggestion that he has deliberately and intentionally given false statements against these three police officials with a purpose and St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 34 of 268 motive or that the accused persons Dalel Singh, Karam Singh, Rampal Singh were not present at the time of the incident as alleged by him. (21) PW2 Kuldeep Singh has deposed that on 31.10.1984 he was present at his house and those days he was residing at house No. Y13 JJ Colony, Nangloi. According to the witness on 01.11.1984 about 300 or 400 people came to their house in the form of a crowd and some of them were armed with wooden sticks and some of them were armed with iron rods. He has further deposed that the crowd started pelting stones at his house on which they took shelter on the roof of their house. According to the witness, he was residing along with his father, five brothers namely Gurbachan Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, wife of his elder brother Gurbachan Singh. Witness has further deposed that all of a sudden, the crowd increased, he saw that a police vehicle was passing through that area and accused Rampal who was the SHO of the area those days, was sitting in that vehicle. According to the witness the police vehicle went away through the crowd and SHO waved his hands at the crowd signaling them to go ahead. He has further deposed that he along with his brother Gurbachan Singh, Manmohan Singh, his sister and sister in law kept on pelting stones on them from the roof by throwing stones at the crowd whereas Gurmeet and Amarjeet, his brothers were not with them on the roof at that time. Witness has further deposed that after about an hour they all came down and the crowd set his house on fire on which they drew out their swords to protect themselves and ran towards petrol pump to save themselves and after a St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 35 of 268 little while, Dalel Singh and the SHO returned with one Karam Singh on foot and he saw Sikh gentlemen namely Santa and Babla were lying injured while they all went to the nearby Gurudwara for shelter. According to him, at about 2 PM a train came from Rohtak side and some passengers got down from that train who were also armed with wooden sticks and they all came to Gurudwara and charged on the members of the Sikh community. He has also deposed that few members of Sikh community died due to attack by those persons and later, he came to know that his brother Gurbachan Singh had also sustained injuries at the hands of that public and he took his brother to the house of his maid servant which was nearby at a distance of fourfive feet where they were given first aid. Witness has further deposed that by that time, it was 5:00 PM and the darkness had descended and some of his friends came and took them to their house where they stayed for two days after which they went to Sultanpuri. The witness has again clarified that it was he alone who had gone to Sultanpuri and stayed there at the house of Tara Chand, a friend of him, overnight and on the third day, they were asked to go to Police Station Nangloi and they went there. Witness has further deposed that SHO got their hair cut at the Police Station and the persons who had taken them to the Police Station, subsequently sent them to Gurudwara Tilak Nagar, namely Bhatta Sahib. According to the witness on 4th day, the same SHO came to Gurudwara in connection with the inquiry/ investigations and asked them to name the persons whom they suspected for the aforesaid injuries. Witness St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 36 of 268 has further deposed that first of all, he told him that it was he (SHO) who was the culprit on which they went away with his team. (22) Witness has further deposed that the crowd included one Prem Chand Sharma, Sri Niwas, one Dr. Gupta whose name later he came to know as Satpal Gupta. He has identified the accused Rampal Singh the then SHO; accused Dalel Singh who was present with the SHO and was exhorting the public "Maro Maro". Witness has further deposed that accused Karam Singh was also exhorting the public in the same manner Prem Chand and Ram Niwas to whom he referred as Niwas Singh has since expired. In the Court he is, however, unable to identify the accused Satpal Gupta.

(23) Leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein the witness has deposed that on third day he came to know that foursix Sikh gentleman had taken shelter in their house. He is not aware as to whether or not his father Sardar Swaroop Singh, Amreek Singh, Trilochan Singh and other relatives had taken shelter in the house of Patwari. He does not remember whether or not the police recorded his statement on 08.10.1991. According to the witness, he did not see Sajjan Kumar leading the crowd but later heard some version that Sajjan Kumar, the then MP was also among the public.

(24) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that he does not remember when his statement was recorded by St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 37 of 268 the police after 1984 but he is unable to tell if it was after 10 years, 12 years or 15 years. He does not remember whether his statement at all was recorded by police. According to the witness, he did not meet any other police officers except Rampal and he does not remember whether his statement was recorded on 08.10.1991 by Sh. K.P. Sharma, ACP, Crime and Railways in connection with the riots. He has further deposed that he never appeared before any Commission headed by Hon'ble Justice Rangnath Mishra or any other committee constituted by the government to inquire into the riot cases of 1984. Witness has further deposed that he did not move any complaint or application to any of the authorities till date regarding the alleged incident. He has also admitted that he did not tell the police that he saw that a police vehicle was passing through that area and accused Rampal who was SHO of the area those days was sitting in that vehicle and that the police vehicle went away through the crowd and SHO gave a signal by his hand to the crowd signaling them to go ahead. Witness has admitted that he did not tell the police or anyone that they drew out their swords to protect themselves and ran towards petrol pump to save themselves or that after a little while Dalel Singh and the SHO returned with one Karam Singh on foot. Witness has further deposed that he did not tell to the police that he saw Sikh gentlemen namely Santa and Babla lying injured. He has admitted that he did not tell the police that a train and a crowd got down and they all came to gurudwara and St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 38 of 268 charged on the members of Sikh community. He has also admitted that he did not tell the police that later on he came to know that his brother Gurcharan Singh had also sustained injuries at the hands of the public. He did not tell the police that he took his brother to the house of his maid servant which was nearby at a distance of fourfive feet where they were given first aid or that by that time it was 5 PM or that some of his friends took them to their houses where they stayed for two days in their houses. Witness has further admitted that he did not tell the police that after staying for two days they went to Sultanpuri and it was he alone who had gone to Sultanpuri and there stayed at the house of Tara Chand a friend of him or that on the fourth day SHO came to gurudwara in connection with the inquiry of the investigations and asked them to name the persons whom they suspected or the aforesaid injuries and first of all he told him that it was he himself who was the culprit and hearing this he went away with his team. Witness has admitted that he did not tell the police that Dalel Singh who was present with the SHO was exhorting the public "Maro Maro" or that Karam Singh was also exhorting the public in the same manner was not stated by him to the police or anyone else. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had never seen the three accused persons Rampal Singh Rana, Dalel Singh and Karam Singh on the alleged day of incident on 01.11.1984 or that with a motive and purpose falsely implicate the accused and to take claim these police officers have been falsely named by him in his examination in chief.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 39 of 268 (25) Witness has further deposed that he left the house at 12:00 noon on 01.11.1984 and Gurbachan also went with them. He has also deposed that Manmohan is his friend and was present in his house and on the third day they came to know that his parents, babhi and other family members had taken shelter in the house of Patwari namely Ram Dass. According to the witness Krishna is his relative and was not present in his house on that day i.e. on 01.11.1984. The witness has also deposed that she (i.e. Krishna) did not visit their house in the morning or stayed in their house or thereafter in the house of the Patwari along with their family members till 02.11.1984. He has further deposed that she met him in the Court once or twice when she appeared as a witness in other proceedings connected with the case of riots. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely that Krishna was not there at their house or that he was deposing falsely. (26) PW3 Smt. Devender Kaur has deposed that in 1984 she was residing in JJ Colony, house number does not remember and at that time she was of the age of 1819 years. According to the witness she along with her brother Gurjeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh were residing in that house along with their father Sh. Swaroop Singh. She has deposed that Sh. Amrik Singh and Sh. Trilochan Singh, brothers of her sister in law Paramjeet had also come there on 31st October, 1984. She has further testified that on 01.11.1984 at about 1010:30 AM, persons numbering about 700800 in a mob came there and they started throwing stones on them. According to the witness, in the mob one person Sh. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 40 of 268 Prem Chand Jain who was known to them and was residing in the same locality was also amongst those persons. She has also deposed that they climbed roof and after that mob put their house to fire and their brothers faced the situation with swords in their hands and they took shelter in the house of Patwari whose house was in front of their house. Witness has further deposed that Sh. Prem Chand Jain again came in evening time who was close to her father after using deceitful means he took her father outside her house and about 50100 persons came on 01.11.1984 in evening time when her father was taken out and her father was killed by that mob despite their request. Witness has further deposed that Amreek Singh and Trilochan Singh were also killed on that day and she and her sister in law were called in Police Station and her brother also came there. According to her, Inspector Rampal Rana was in Police Station who advised them to cut their hairs so as to save them on which they got their hairs cut. After seeing the accused persons in the Court the witness states that nobody was present in the court who participated in the riots on 31.10.1984 and 01.11.1984. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (27) PW4 Gurmeet Singh has deposed that on 01.11.1984 a mob had attacked their house and pelted stones on which they ran away from their house. According to the witness, he cannot identify anyone from the mob and none of the accused present in the court was in the mob. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 41 of 268 (28) The witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein the witness has deposed that he did not make any statement to the police. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had not made a statement to the police on 08.10.1991 wherein he had stated that on that day Sajjan Kumar, SHO Rampal Rana, Prem Chand Jain, elder son of Dr. Chanderbhan Gupta, a Khal Merchant known as Tunda and a milk vendor's son who was in Traffic police inciting the mob. Witness has further deposed that he did not make any statement to police on 30.10.1991 and he did not state to police on that day that he had gone to Nangloi and ascertained the names of the persons who were inciting the mob and also states that he did not mention the names of Sajjan Kumar MP, Inspector Rampal Singh Rana, Ram Niwas Tunda, Dr. Satpal Gupta and HC Karam Singh and Prem Chand Jain in his statement on 30.10.1991. The statements mark P4/1 and P4/2 were read over to the witness but he denied having made such statements. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsels, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.

(29) PW6 Amarjeet Singh has deposed that on 01.11.1984 at about 10:30 or 11 AM he was taking breakfast along with his family at his house and a mob came and pelted stones on their house. According to the witness they could not face them and they dispersed here and there and concealed St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 42 of 268 themselves in the house of some friend. Witness has further deposed that on 03.11.1984 they came out of hiding after the arrival of paramilitary forces and then they came to know that his father had expired. He is not aware what happened between 01.11.1984 and 03.11.1984 nor does he aware how his father had expired and none of the four accused present in the court was present amongst the rioters who had attacked their house on 01.11.1984.

(30) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has deposed that he did not make any statement to the police. Witness has denied the suggestion that police had recorded his statement on 07.10.1991. According to the witness he did not mention in any such statement the name of any person and he did not state that some of the persons who were leading and inciting the mob were Sajjan Kumar MP, SHO Rampal Singh Rana, Premchand Jain, a Khal Merchant, Elder son of Dr. C.P. Gupta and the Son of a Milk Vendor who was employed in Delhi Traffic Police. Witness has further deposed that he did not state to police that he had gone to Police Station Nangloi to lodge report or that SHO Rampal Singh Rana was present there and he refused to register the report. Witness has denied the suggestion that he made such statement to police. Statement Mark P6/1 was read over to the witness but he denied having made such statement. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons and deposing falsely. This witness St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 43 of 268 was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.

(31) PW10 Smt. Krishna has deposed that Satnam Kaur is her daughter and was married to Amrik Singh, her son in law who used to deal in scrap (Kabari) in Mayapuri. According to the witness the name of her son is Trilochan Singh who was about 24 years at that time and her son in law Amrik Singh came back from Bombay to Delhi on 31.10.1984 in the morning and in the evening her son went to meet her son in law at Nangloi from Subhadra colony. Witness has further deposed that on the same day Smt. Indira Gandhi was assassinated and she came to know that riots were going on in whole of Delhi. At that time she had gone to Nangloi to the house of her son in law Amrik Singh where all the family members were present. Witness has also deposed that the family members consists of the father Swaroop Singh, her son in law Amrik Singh and Gurbachan Singh i.e. brother in law of Amrik Singh. According to her, same day in the evening she started for her house by bus and reached general store, Punjabi Bagh and there was traffic jam and riots were going on, so she again went back to Nangloi to the house of her son in law. She has testified that on the same night her son Trilochan Singh, her son in law Amrik Singh and several other persons were killed but she does not know how they were killed or who killed them. Witness has further deposed that some police official who was not in uniform by misrepresentation had taken away some documents from her possession and had obtained her signatures. It has been St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 44 of 268 observed by the Court that on record there is a photocopy of the seizure memo and defence counsel had no objection if the same is exhibited. Witness has seen the photocopy of the seizure memo bearing her photo signatures at point A, which is Ex.PW10/A. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard .

(32) PW11 Ms. Gurdeep Kaur Khera has deposed that in the year 1985 she was the Oath commissioner in Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Witness has seen the affidavit of Gurbachan Singh son of Late Sh. Swaroop Singh which is Ex.PY and states that the same was attested by her on 04.09.1985 which bears her signatures at point A. She has also seen the affidavit of Smt. Krishna wife of Sh. Inder Singh which is Ex.PW11/A and states that the same was attested by her vide her signatures at point A and both Krishna and Gurbachan had signed their affidavits in her presence.

(33) In her cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that there is no endorsement or signatures of the person who has identified the aforesaid two deponents and that these affidavits are typed including the writings that the witness has sworn before her. She is unable to tell as to from where these affidavits were got typed and by whom and states that she had not inquired from the aforesaid deponents if they were knowing English and has voluntarily added that she had verified the St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 45 of 268 contents from the deponent and then attested the same. Witness has denied the suggestion that Krishna or Gurbachan Singh were not present before her nor the persons identified them appeared before her. Witness has further denied the suggestion that she had put her signatures on numerous such papers without verifying the identity of the persons as such papers/ affidavits were filed for claim on behalf of the Sikh families affected in November, 1984 riots or that she was deposing falsely. Witness has further denied the suggestion that those were the false affidavits nor made by the aforesaid deponents but were procured one through the Perokar of the Gurudwara committee.

Police/ Official Witnesses:

(34) PW5 Sh. Dilbagh Singh Dahiya has brought the summoned record in respect of death of Shri Swaroop Singh S/o Sujan Singh.

According to the witness as per record Swaroop Singh expired on 01.11.1984 and he was a Sikh. He has proved the photocopy of the record which is Ex.PW5/A. He has also proved the record in respect of Trilochan Singh who was reported to have died on 01.11.1984 photocopy of which record is Ex.PW5/B. (35) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that the entries are not in his hand.

(36) PW7 Retd. SI Balbir Singh has deposed that on 17.10.1991 he was posted in Crime Branch as Assistant Draftsman and on the requisition St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 46 of 268 of the investigating officer of this case, Sh. S.P. Sharma, ACP, he visited the place of occurrence i.e. plot No. 13,14,15 Y block, JJ Colony, Nangloi. According to the witness he took rough notes and measurements and on the basis of rough notes and measurements he prepared scaled site plan which is Ex.PW7/A. Witness has further deposed that he visited plot No. 17,18,19,20 Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi where he took rough notes and measurements and on the basis of Rough Notes and Measurements he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW7/B. According to the witness all the marginal notes are in his hand.

(37) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that he must have reached the spot around 12 noon. According to the witness, he had not taken the measurements of the plot but of the road facing the plots and he had prepared the site plan on the pointing out of the ACP K.P. Sharma. He has also deposed that no public person was present at the time of pointing out or preparing the rough notes and measurements of the spot. Witness has admitted that Investigating Officer had not produced any eye witness at the time when he prepared the rough notes and measurements. Witness has further deposed that the rough notes were destroyed after preparing the site plan. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot or that he had prepared these site plans on the asking of the investigating officer.

(38) PW8 Inspector N.S. Minhas has deposed that on 28.08.1991 he was posted as sub inspector at Police Station Nangloi as Duty Officer and at St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 47 of 268 about 11:50PM he had received a rukka from ACP J.P. Sharma, Riot Cell, Crime Branch through Ct. Sukhbir Singh. According to the witness on the basis of which rukka he recorded FIR No. 418/91, U/s 147/148/149/302 IPC photocopy of which is Ex.PW8/A. Witness has further deposed that copy of the FIR was sent through special messenger Ct. Pradeep Kumar to the senior officer and concerned MM.

(39) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he has recorded an entry in the daily diary regarding the registration of the case at Police Station Nangloi. He is unable to tell if he had recorded the substance of the FIR/ Rukka or other particulars of other persons involved in the incident without seeing the record. Witness has admitted that no such entry is placed on the judicial record. He has further deposed that he had made the departure and arrival entry in respect of special messenger Ct. Pradeep Kumar in the DD register. He does not remember at what time the Special Messenger came back to the Police Station after delivering the special message and has explained that it was on 29.08.1991 but he does not remember the time and also does not remember as to where the Special Report was delivered by the special messenger on that night and he can answer this question after seeing the DD register. Witness has further deposed that his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. was not recorded in this case. Witness has denied the suggestion that no special report was sent in the present case.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 48 of 268 (40) It has been observed by the Court that the carbon copy of the FIR on record is not legible and in torn condition and the perusal of the said FIR does not show any signatures/endorsement of receiving the Special Report by the Ld. MM.

(41) According to the witness, he started recording the FIR at 11:50 PM and the FIR is running into four pages. He does not not remember how much time it took in recording the same and states that it continued till past midnight. Witness has admitted that as per index of the case diaries of this case the first case diary had been returned on 28.08.1991. He has admitted that there is another carbon copy of the FIR on the judicial file with the endorsement the then concerned MM of receiving the copy of FIR on 03.09.1991, the said carbon copy of the FIR is Ex.PW8/B with endorsement at point A encircled with red pen.

(42) PW9 Inspector Raj Singh has deposed that on 30.11.1992 he was posted with FRRO as sub inspector and he was summoned by ACP Amarjeet Singh to Riot Cell, Mehrauli. According to the witness on 01.11.1984 he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Nangloi and Inspector Rampal Singh was the SHO. The witness has deposed that he was shown some documents including copies of the wireless message, the daily diaries by ACP Amarjeet Singh on which he had identified the signatures of Inspector Rampal Singh. Witness has further deposed that a week prior to 01.11.1984 he was posted as Division Officer, Camp No.1, Nangloi and the Camp No.1 was at a distance of about one kilometer from Police Station St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 49 of 268 Nangloi. He has testified that on 30.11.1992 he had identified the signatures of Insp. Rampal Singh Rana who was posted as SHO in October/ November 1984 at Police Station Nangloi. According to the witness he had seen the documents which were shown to him by the ACP Amarjeet Singh, Investigating Officer of the case on 30.11.1992 which Mark PW9/A to PW9/L having photocopy of the signatures of Insp. Rampal Singh Rana at point X respectively. Witness has further deposed that all these photocopies of documents bear the photo impression of the SHO. According to the witness, he was posted at Police Station Nangloi under Inspector Rampal Rana as such he identified his signatures as he had seen him signing/writing. (43) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has admitted that as per procedure the roznamchas A and B are being written/ run from 12 midnight to next midnight every day and Dalel Singh was posted as ASI at Police Station Nangloi during October/ November,1984. According to the witness he had seen accused Karam Singh present in the court and has admitted that he was not posted as police official at Police Station Nangloi during October/November, 1984 and he has never seen him at the Police Station. Witness has further deposed that he has seen carbon copy of roznamcha B dated 27.10.1984 of Police Station Nangloi, Delhi prepared in the same process and at serial No. 27 of the roznamcha there exit an entry regarding ASI Dalel Singh about his departure on Casual Leave for six days plus two holidays combined, which was recorded at 2:15 PM mentioning therein the period of his casual leave sanctioned by DCP, St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 50 of 268 West and as per this entry he was required to resume his duties on 05.11.1984 before noon. Witness has further deposed that he knew accused Dalel Singh who is a resident of Qutabgarh, Delhi and he was living with his children in the village during the relevant time and a carbon copy of the daily diary is Ex.PW9/DA. According to the witness HC Kulbhushan was on duty and he had opened the roznamcha as per first entry in Ex.PW9/DA at midnight on 27.10.1984 and Chhater Singh Constable No. 10/W was the madamoharar (assistant clerk) on that night. He has also deposed that he identified the entry at serial No. 27 regarding Dalel Singh which is encircled in red at point A and the same is written and signed by constable Chhattar Singh who had worked under him and he had seen him writing and signing. He had also seen photocopy of the Duty Roaster dated 31.10.1984 and 01/2.11.1984 of Police Station Nangloi and has stated that as per the Duty Roasters (Chhitha), ASI Dalel Singh shown/ mentioned on Casual Leave on those days and that the photocopies of the duty roasters are attested as true copies by Sh. A.K. Singh, Section Officer, Justice Nanavati inquiry commission which are Ex.PW9/DB, Ex.PW9/DC, Ex.PW9/DD, Ex.PW9/DE and Ex.PW9/DF respectively which documents relates from 31.10.1984 to 04.11.1984. The witness has further deposed that on the day of the incident i.e. 01.11.1984 he was also on duty at Police Station Nangloi and had been continuously patrolling in the area due to the riots after the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi and all the staff of Police Station and additional force provided by the officers later on remained in the area of St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 51 of 268 Police Station Nangloi to prevent the rioting. According to the witness, he was the Incharge of Camp No. 1, JJ Colony, Nangloi for the last one week prior to the day of riots and on that day i.e. 01.11.1984 he along with the staff was in the area of Police Station Nangloi including his own division. Witness has further deposed that a large number of calls were received and officers/ officials were on their toes to prevent the incident. He has also deposed that Inspector Rana had attended the large number of calls on that day including the incident of burning of Gurunanak Body Builder at Main Rohtak Road and SHO Rana with staff had attended the said call besides so many other calls. Witness has further deposed that he has not seen Inspector at camp No. 1, JJ colony, between 10 to 11 AM or so on that day. Witness has again seen the Duty Roaster Ex.PW9/DB to Ex.PW9/DF and states that there is no reference or mention in these duty roasters about accused HC Karam Singh in these duty roasters as he was not posted at Police Station Nangloi during that period.

(44) PW12 Inspector J.K. Tyagi has deposed that on 17.11.1992 he was posted as sub inspector at riots cell Malivya Nagar, New Delhi and on that day, he along with ACP Sh. Amarjeet Singh of Riots Cell had visited 5, Shamnath Marg, New Delhi from where ACP Amarjeet Singh had seized some documents as mentioned vide seizure memo dated 17.11.1992 and same is Ex.PW12/A. According to the witness the photocopies of the documents which were seized by the investigating officer in his presence on 17.1.1992 as per seizure memo Ex.PW12/A are Mark A1 to A17. Witness St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 52 of 268 has further deposed that on 18.11.1992 he had also gone to SIP Branch West District as per directions of the Investigating Officer ACP Amarjeet Singh who had sent him there for knowing about postings of some police personnels during October/ November, 1984 at Police Station Nangloi. According to the witness in this regard on 18.11.1992 he had also recorded the statement of W/HC Chandra No. 18/W and ASI Om Parkash U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and he had recorded the case diary of 18.11.1992 under the directions of ACP Amarjeet Singh. Witness has further deposed that he had contacted W/HC Chandra on 18.11.1992 and came to know from her that Insp. Rampal Singh Rana was posted as SHO Police Station Nangloi during October/ November, 1984, SI Raj Singh, ASI Dalel Singh were also posted at Police Station Nangloi during October/ November 1984 and on recording the statement of ASI Om Parkash No. 3W SIP Branch West district, it revealed that Ct. Umed Singh, Ct. Rishi Pal, Ct. Hari Krishan, Ct. Dalbir Singh, Ct. Rajender Singh, Ct. Harpal Singh and HC Nawab Singh were posted at Police Station Nangloi during October/November 1984. (45) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that during investigations he never visited Police Station Nangloi and had not seen the posting record of the accused persons but he had only recorded the statements of the concerned police officials, who had made statements on the basis of the record. According to the witness he had not verified the fact that ASI Dalel Singh was on leave w.e.f. 27.10.1984 to 05.11.1984 and has voluntarily added that he had been sent to verify only St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 53 of 268 about the posting of the concerned police officials. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had seen the service record of ASI Dalel Singh and came to know that he was on leave during the aforesaid period but he intentionally concealed this fact. He has also denied the suggestion that he had seen any leave application of ASI Dalel Singh in the service record. Witness has further deposed that he is not known to the accused persons personally and he had not verified the posting record of HC Karam Singh. According to the witness at the time of his deposition due to lapse of time he does not remember if he was asked to verify the record of posting of the (then) HC Karam Singh. Witness has further deposed that he had not seen the duty roaster on 18.11.1992 for the period relating to October/ November 1984. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has shown the duty roaster where ASI Dalel Singh was shown to be on leave for the above mentioned period or he has intentionally concealed this fact. (46) PW13 W/HC Chandra has deposed that in the year 1990 to 1993 she was posted in HAE Branch DCP Office West District. After refreshing her memory the witness states that in the month of November 1992 SI Jitender Kumar had come to HAE Branch West District and on his asking after seeing the record she had informed him about the postings of Insp. Rampal Singh Rana, ASI Dalel Singh and SI Raj Singh during the October/November, 1984.

(47) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that she had passed on this information on the basis of the posting St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 54 of 268 register maintained in HAE Branch and she had not seen the service record of these police officials and has voluntarily added that the service record is maintained in HACR Branch. Witness has further deposed that the information regarding the leave of the police official concerned is also received in HAE office but that was dealt by some other officer. She is unable to tell if ASI Dalel Singh was on leave w.e.f. 27.10.1984 to 05.11.1984 and no information was sought from her with regard to the posting of the then Ct. Karam Singh.

(48) PW14 HC Kishori Lal has deposed that on 11.11.1992 he was posted in Police Station Nangloi as record Munshi when ACP Rajiv Ranjan had asked him to furnish some documents relating to riots in the year 1984 on which he informed him that vide order 1123251/Gen.(West) dated 26.08.1991 the DD registers A and B pertaining to 1984 to 1989 and the other record pertaining to 1984 riots had been destroyed on 05.02.1992 in the presence of the SHO Insp. R.S. Dahiya and ACP Amrender Kumar. According to the witness he had handed over the photocopy of the order to the then DCP photocopy of which order is Mark PW14/A, Mark PW14/B containing the details of the documents which were destroyed. (49) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he is not aware if there was any information or order or requisition from Delhi Administration or Justice Sh. Ranganath Mishra Commission inquiring into the riot cases for the aforesaid record and he was not posted in the Police Station Nangloi during year 1984. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 55 of 268 (50) PW15 Sh. Shripal Sisodia has deposed that in September, 1985 he was Oath Commissioner with Delhi High Court. The witness has seen the affidavit in Punjabi Language, the English translation is also on record and as per the same the affidavit, it is of one Gurbachan Singh son of Sh. Swaroop Singh after which the witness states that the same is not attested by him on 09.09.1985 and is not bearing his signatures at point A and has voluntarily added that the stamp of his name affixed on the affidavit at point B, however he never attested the affidavit.

(51) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has deposed that he does not remember if he had made any statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. in respect of any affidavit of Gurbachan Singh attested by him relating to the present case. However, when confronted with statement Mark PW15/A the above fact was found so recorded.

(52) This witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (53) PW16 ASI Harpal Singh has deposed that in the year 1984 he was posted with Police Station Nangloi as Constable Driver along with SHO Inspector Rampal Singh Rana on Jeep No. 2157 and pickup van No. DED 4318. According to the witness on 01.11.1984 he was on duty along with SHO Insp. Rampal Singh Rana and whenever a call was received by SHO he accompanied him to different places. Witness has further deposed that on that day there were riots on account of assassination of the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, messages were received by the SHO on St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 56 of 268 wireless about riots in different places and he was maintaining the log book of vehicle No. 2157. Witness has further deposed that during those days he remained on duty along with the SHO for fourfive days continuously and on 31.10.1984 he was on duty along with SHO as driver from 7:30 AM and from 31.01.1984 from 7:30 AM he remained on duty along with SHO as driver till 04.11.1984. He has testified that whenever he accompanied the SHO in the aforesaid vehicle and period, he made relevant entries in the log book and obtained the signatures of the SHO. The witness has seen the relevant entries in the log book register from 31.10.1984 till 04.11.1984 running into nine pages containing 84 entries and witness states that the entries pertaining to vehicle No. 2157 in the log book are in his handwriting during the period 31.10.1984 to 04.11.1984. He has proved the relevant entries in the log book which were previously marked as Mark PW9/A to PW9/L, are Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A9. He has identified the signatures of Inspector Rampal Singh Rana at point X on page Ex.PW16/A9. (54) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he knew HC Karam Singh and he was also known to his father Sh. Kaptan Singh who was also employed in Delhi Police who had retired in 1987. Witness has seen the log book entry of vehicle No. DED 2157 and states that there is no reference of any call having being received about the alleged incident at JJ Colony, Camp No. 1, Nangloi before 12:20 PM or any other place in the area. Witness has further deposed that the first entry of the incident at Gurunanak Body Builders was received at 12:20 PM and St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 57 of 268 thereafter other calls were received of Shiv Nagar as per the entry mentioned in the log book. According to the witness he had accompanied the SHO as a driver in the aforesaid jeep to the places where he was so directed by the SHO as per the calls received and he along with the SHO had returned to the Police Station at 9:20 PM from the area of Police Station Nangloi on 01.11.1984. He has testified that a report No. 18A was recorded by the SHO about all the proceedings/ acts performed on the day since morning till their return and copy of the said entry is Ex.PW16/A6. Witness has further deposed that since he remained with the SHO on duty on that day he can say that no incident had taken place in their presence at JJ Camp No. 1, Nangloi nor they had visited that place.

(55) PW17 Sh. Jitender Singh has deposed that in the year 1992 he was working as Assistant (Home) Delhi Administration and regarding this case the police met him and inquired about the documents that were available with him in his official capacity in the home department and these documents were regarding 1984 riots cases. Witness has seen the original file No. XXV/12/85 Special Inquiry Cell regarding November 1984 riots within the jurisdiction of Police Station Nangloi (this file was brought from Nanawati Cell, Ministry of Home affairs by Assistant Sh. Gopal Ram) and the original file has been seen by him. According to the witness he had handed over the photocopies of seventeen documents to the police officials who had come to him which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A which bear his signatures at point B, the documents are St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 58 of 268 Marked A1 to A17 are Ex.PW17/A1 to A8, Ex.PW16/A1 to A9 (earlier mark A9) and Ex.PW17/A to Ex.PW17/A17.

(56) This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (57) PW18 Sh. Gopal Ram has brought the original file No. XXV/12/185 Special Inquiry Cell regarding 1984 riots within the jurisdiction of Police Station Nangloi from Nanawati Cell. (58) This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (59) PW19 Ram Narain Dohra has deposed that since the year 1992 he was posted as Station Master at Nangloi Railway Station and earlier he was posted as Bishenpura Jind, Haryana. According to the witness police had approached him, however he does not remember the date, month or year but states that it was after the year 1992. Witness has further deposed that he was inquired about the timings of different trains which he disclosed to them as per the time table available in the office and they had inquired about the train No. 4DJ from Jind to Delhi. According to the witness at that time the said train used to reach Nangloi Railway Station at 11:15 AM and the other train regarding which inquiry was made was 9024 from Firozpur to Mumbai Central which used to pass from Nangloi Railway Station between 12:15 and 13:15 hours. He has testified that the police also made inquiry about train No. 354 down from Rohak to Khurja St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 59 of 268 which used to reach Nangloi Railway Station at 5:15 PM. Witness has further deposed that the inquiries were made from him regarding passenger train reaching Nangloi railway station from 11 AM to 5 PM and besides goods train also used to pass through Nangloi railway station during this period. According to the witness at the time of his deposition in the court no record was available regarding the timings of these trains and the record was destroyed within a period of two or three years.

(60) This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (61) PW20 ASI Om Prakash has deposed that in the year 1992 he was posted at SIP Branch Office of DCP West Rajouri Garden. Witness has brought the summoned record i.e. posting register relevant to the year 1984 and on 18.11.1992 Investigating Officer of the present case had approached him regarding the details of the postings of the lower staff i.e. Ct. Umed Singh No. 215, Ct. Rishipal No. 915, Ct. Hari Kishan No. 585, Ct. Dalbir Singh No. 896, Ct. Rajender No. 956, Ct. Harpal No. 870 and Ct. Nawab Singh No. 39 West. The witness was dropped at the request of Addl. PP since the witness was not found to be relevant qua the accused persons. (62) PW21 Sh. K.P. Sharma has deposed that in the year 1991 he was posted as ACP in the Anti Riot Cell and one affidavit of Gurbachan Singh was received in his office from Delhi Administration and after going through the contents of the affidavit he made endorsement on a separate sheet and sent the same along with the affidavit to Police Station Nangloi St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 60 of 268 through Ct. Sukhbir Singh for registration of the case. He has proved his endorsement on affidavit Ex.PY which endorsement is Ex.PW21/A. According to the witness he took over the initial investigations of the case on registration of FIR Ex.PW8/A after which he recorded the statement of witnesses namely Gurbachan Singh, Amrik Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Amarjeet Singh and of the draftsman who prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW7/B of the spot.

(63) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he had sent rukka for registration of the case on 28.08.1991 and investigation was transferred from him on 30.10.1991. Witness has admitted that in the rukka the time is mentioned as 10:00/11:00 PM dated 01.11.1984. According to the witness due to lapse of time he does not recollect how many documents he had received along with affidavit Ex.PY of Gurbachan Singh. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had received the copy of daily diary of Police Station Nangloi for the relevant period and the duty roaster of the police officials posted with Police Station Nangloi during the relevant period besides the wireless log book. Witness has further deposed that he did not make any inquiry so long the investigations remained with him as to which police official was posted with Police Station Nangloi during the relevant period or which police official was on duty on 01.11.1984 and so long he remained the investigating officer he did not summon Insp. RPS Rana posted as SHO Police Station Nangloi during the relevant period. Witness has admitted that he had not met Karam St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 61 of 268 Singh and Dalel Singh the accused present in the court during the period investigation remained with him nor he summoned them for interrogation. He has also deposed that during the period of investigations by him the then SI Mam Chand was posted along with him. He does not remember if at that time he was aware of the case FIR No. 67/87 registered with Police Station Nangloi as a riot case was investigated by SI Mam Chand and other police officials of the Riot Cell. According to the witness at that time since he was posted as ACP Anti Riot Cell he was monitoring all the riot cases received upto that date. He has testified that he did not make effort to collect the record of daily diary or the record of the duty roaster of police officers posted with Police Station Nangloi during the relevant period to find out the duties of the police officials on the particular dates nor he saw the record. Witness has further deposed that he knew accused RPS Rana before he joined the investigations in the present case since he was his associate. According to him, the site plan was prepared by him at the spot at the pointing out of Gurbachan Singh which is Ex.PW21/DA. He has also deposed that the said site plan was prepared and written under his instructions by one of his sub inspector. He has admitted that in the site plan it is not mentioned that it is prepared at the instance of Gurbachan Singh and has voluntarily added that it is mentioned in the statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. of Gurbachan Singh. Witness has denied the suggestion that the said site plan was not prepared at the instance of Gurbachan Singh or that it is not mentioned in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. It has been observed by the St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 62 of 268 Court that in the supplementary statement of Gurbachan Singh recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 13.10.1991 this fact is mentioned. (64) Witness has admitted that he did not inform the draftsman Balbir Singh that he had prepared the site plan Ex.PW21/DA at the instance of Gurbachan Singh. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has recorded false supplementary statement of Gurbachan Singh referred above to that effect. He has also deposed that investigations from him was transferred to the then ACP Sh. Amarjeet Singh. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was pursuing the present matter when the commission of Justice Ranganath Mishra for inquiring into the matter was constituted. According to the witness he never filed any document before the commission of Justice Ranganath Mishra and he has no knowledge if any of his associates or the police officials had filed any such document before the commission. Witness has denied the suggestion that he is making a false statement on oath to that effect or that he recorded the statement of all the witnesses namely Gurbachan Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Gurmeet Singh falsely.

(65) PW22 Dr. M.M. Kutty has deposed that on 18.01.1993 he was posted as Joint Secretary Home, Govt. of NCT, Delhi and the sanction order dated 18.01.1993 for prosecution of the accused persons namely Insp. Rampal Singh the then SHO Police Station Nangloi, SI Daler Singh and HC Karam Singh was accorded by LG on 24.11.1992 which he had conveyed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, PHQ, New Delhi on 18.01.1993 which St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 63 of 268 sanction is Ex.PW22/A. According to the witness, the sanction was accorded for prosecution of the accused persons U/s 109, 114, 217 and 221 IPC and the same is bearing his signatures at point A. (66) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that during those days, if he remember correctly the LG Delhi was Sh. P.K. Dave and he was not sure. Witness has denied the suggestion that Sh. P.K. Dave had committed suicide much earlier to the date of sanction. Witness has further deposed that the police had submitted documents which had been put up before the then LG for considering according of sanction for the prosecution of accused persons and the documents which was submitted by the police for perusal are still on record. According to the witness these are the letter dated 31.07.1992 addressed to Joint Secretary Home, by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarter II, Delhi, photocopy of which is Ex.PW2/D1. Witness has further deposed that the letter is running into two pages and is containing the facts as well and he has dealt with the present case other than conveying the sanction. He has testified that there is no such notification of the government authorizing him to convey the sanction but the Joint Secretary to the government routinely conveys the orders of the LG, which was the practice followed. He is unable to tell if the order Ex.PW22/A was typed on his dictation. (67) Witness has further deposed that it is mentioned in the application moved by DCP Ex.PW22/D1 that Insp. Rampal Singh Rana was St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 64 of 268 posted as SHO in Police Station Nangloi during the relevant period. The witness has further pointed out that the last but two paragraphs of the aforesaid letter it is mentioned that SI Daler Singh, was also posted with Police Station Nangloi during Riots and HC Karam Singh was posted in Traffic unit of Delhi police. Witness has admitted that in the sanction Ex.PW22/A it is mentioned from portion A to A that all the three accused Insp. Rampal Singh Rana, SI Daler Singh and HC Karam Singh were posted with Police Station Nangloi during the relevant period. He has also deposed that the brief facts were prepared on receipt of letter Ex.PW22/D1 from the DCP and thereafter the file was put up before the LG for sanction, which photocopy of the brief facts is Ex.PW22/D2. Witness has denied the suggestion that he signed the sanction order without applying his mind. (68) PW23 Insp. Mam Chand has deposed that in the year 1991 he was posted with Riot Cell, Delhi and he had assisted ACP KP Sharma, ACP Amarjeet Singh and ACP Rajeev Ranjan in the investigations of the present case. According to the witness on 21.04.1993 he had recorded the statement of Assistant Station Master RN Dohre and Dilbagh Singh from MCD office Najafgarh and he had formally arrested accused HC Karam Singh, present in the court, in July 1993 after he had obtained Anticipatory Bail. Witness has further deposed that he was investigating officer of FIR No. 67/87 Police Station Nangloi relating to riots in the year 1984 and later on the case pending vide aforesaid FIR was clubbed with the present case. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 65 of 268 (69) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that in the FIR No. 67/87 Police Station Nangloi there is reference of Gurbachan Singh S/o Swaroop Singh, R/o Y block, JJ colony, Nangloi. According to the witness the copy of the said FIR is Ex.PW23/D1. Witness has admitted that he had recorded statement of Gurbachan Singh U/s 161 Cr.P.C on 25.10.1990 and on 28.07.1991 and the statement dated 25.10.1990 is Ex.PW23/D2 and statement dated 28.07.1991 is Ex.PW23/D3. He has also admitted that in both these statements there is no reference of involvement of any of the accused present in the court in the riots in any manner. According to the witness he had recorded both the above statements correctly under his signatures. He has further deposed that before he joined the investigations of case FIR No. 67/87 it was being investigated by ASI Charan Das of Crime Branch. Witness has further deposed that he had also seen the statement of Gurbachan Singh dated 30.09.1989 recorded by ASI Charan Das when the investigation was handed over to him. Witness has admitted that even in the said statement Ex.PW23/D4 it is no where mentioned that all the accused present in the court were involved in the riots in any manner.

(70) PW24 Mrs. Satbir Silas has deposed that on 23.08.1991 she was joint Secretary Home, Delhi Administration and three affidavits in original, two of Sh. Gurbachan Singh and one Smt. Krishna and the letter of recommendation of the committee to examine the cases relating to riots during October,November, 1984 were enclosed by her after which she had St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 66 of 268 sent letter Ex.PW24/A to the Commissioner of Police for necessary action. She has proved the affidavits of Gurcharan Singh which is Ex.PX and Ex.PY; affidavit of Smt. Krishna which is Ex.PW11/A and the letter of committee is mark 24/B. (71) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that she cannot identify the signatures of Sh. S.L. Chopra at point A on letter Mark 24/A. According to the witness she does not recollect if she had any meeting with Sh. S.L. Chopra at any time and has voluntarily added that it was a matter of record. Witness has further deposed that she had gone through the documents which were enclosed by her along with her letter Ex.PW24/A and in her letter Ex.PW24/A there is no allegation against any of the police officials and has voluntarily added that she had forwarded the records as required by the procedure. Witness has denied the suggestion that letter Ex.PW24/A was sent without any basis or examinations of documents for recommendation necessary action. (72) PW25 ACP Amarjeet Singh has deposed that in the month of December, 1991 he was posted as ACP in riot cell and the investigations of the present case was entrusted to him during which he recorded the statement of Balbir Singh draftsman, Smt. Krishna. According to the witness thereafter the investigation was transferred to ACP Rajeev Ranjan in the month of February, 1992. Witness has further deposed that in the month of November 1992, he again received the file for investigation during which St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 67 of 268 he recorded statement of Ct. Kishan Lal, Ram Das, SI Tyagi, Insp. B.K. Chauhan, SI Raj Singh, HC Umed Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Channa Singh, ASI Harpal Singh and Ct. Jasbir. He has testified that he arrested the accused Inspector Rampal Rana, SI Dalel Singh and HC Karan Singh. He however could not identify HC Karan Singh and SI Dalel Singh due to lapse of time. According to the witness he recorded statement of witnesses and during investigations he had also collected documents total 17 in number vide a seizure memo. Witness has further deposed that in September, 1993 the investigations of the case was transferred to ACP Rajeev Ranjan.

(73) According to him, on 21.01.1992 during investigations Smt. Krishna (PW10) has produced before him, photos of Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh and the death certificates of Trilochan Singh and Amrik Singh and photocopy of her Ration Card which were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW25/A and the photos of the aforesaid two persons are Ex.PW25/B and Ex.PW25/C respectively. Witness has further deposed that the photocopy of death certificate of Amrik Singh is Mark PW26/X and the photocopy of death certificate of Trilochan Singh is Mark PW25/A. He has testified that he had also seized the photocopy of the five documents from Police Station Nangloi which were produced by Ct. Kishore Lal which seizure memo is Ex.PW25/D and the said documents are Ex.PW25/B, Ex.PW25/C, Ex.PW25/D, Ex.PW25/E and Ex.PW25/F 1 to Ex.PW25/F6 St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 68 of 268 and Ex.PW25/D1 respectively. According to the witness the documents all together 17 in number were collected by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A and the said documents are Ex.PW17/A1, Ex.PW17/A8, Ex.PW16/A1, Ex.PW16/A9 earlier Mark A9 and Ex.PW17/A10 to Ex.PW17/A17 respectively.

(74) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that during the tenure of his services he worked as SHO in the various Police Stations and that during investigations none of the witnesses examined by him in this case had disclosed or stated that any of the accused persons present in the court had poured kerosene oil on any person and set him on her on fire on 01.11.1984 or thereafter during the riots after the assassination of late PM Indira Gandhi. Witness has further admitted that as per the record i.e. DD of Police Station Nangloi and daily duty roaster of Police Station Nangloi of 01.11.1984 onwards HC Karam Singh was not posted at Police Station Nangloi nor he was assigned any duty there during the riots. According to the witness SI Dalel Singh was on casual leave w.e.f. 27.10.1984 to 05.11.1984 as per the entry in the DD Ex.PW9/DA and the Chitha Ex.PW9/DB. Witness has admitted that he had recorded the statements of ASI Harpal Singh, HC Umed Singh, SI Raj Singh in this case and all the documents including the Chitha/duty roaster of Police Station Nangloi Ex.PW9/DB to confirm the writings and duties of the officials of Police Station Nangloi St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 69 of 268 and it was confirmed that SI Dalel Singh was not on duty on 01.11.1984. He has also admitted that he recorded the statements of Ramdass Patwari, Afroz Ali and Krishna and none of these witnesses have made any allegations against the present accused persons about their involvement or role in any manner whatsoever during the riots on 01.11.1984 and subsequent thereto. Witness has further deposed that during investigations it was found from the statements of the witnesses recorded by him that Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh and Swaroop Singh had taken shelter in the house of Ramdass Patwari during the night intervening between 01/02.11.1984 and that at about 4:00 AM on 02.11.1984 they alleged to have been murdered. Witness has admitted that record about the mobility of the SHO/ wireless message logbook of the vehicle were also seized by him and the entries made therein were verified which were found to be correct. According to the witness, he did not find any kind of involvement of SHO Rampal Singh Rana in the riots which had taken place on 01.11.1984 while he was working as SHO Police Station Nangloi. Witness has further deposed that he had also verified the proper deployment of the force in the area by the SHO Police Station Nangloi during the riots but he does not recollect if he had confirmed from the traffic office regarding the duties of HC Karam Singh on 01.11.1984. Witness has further deposed that he has seen the order of SI Dalel Singh vide which he was released on anticipatory bail and by that time he was not St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 70 of 268 found involved in the incident of 01.11.1984. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has not corrected recorded the statements of Gurbachan Singh, Amarjeet Singh and other witnesses correctly or that the accused persons were falsely implicated in this case.

(75) PW26 DCP Rajeev Ranjan has deposed that the present case was registered in August 1991 on the recommendation of the committee which was scrutinizing the documents of the victims and the family of victims and the Delhi Administration had ordered the registration of the case. According to the witness he started investigating present case in February, 1992 and he recorded the statements of Smt. Krishna whose affidavit was on the file submitted by the Delhi Administration but she had not alleged anything against any person in her statement by name. Witness has further deposed that he had also recorded the statement of Smt. Satnam Kaur who also did not allege anything against any person by name in her statement since at the time of riots she was not in Delhi. According to the witness he collected the copy of death certificate of Sardar Swaroop Singh Ex.PW5/A; that of Amrik Singh which is Mark PW26/X and of Trilochan Singh which is Ex.PW5/B and these death certificates were verified by him from the Zonal Health Office of MCD. Witness has further deposed that he recorded the statement of Mr. Dilbagh Dahiya the computer incharge/ record keeper of the Zonal Health Office who had maintained a death register in the official course of his business and after he found sufficient evidence against the accused persons raids were conducted at their houses St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 71 of 268 and other places. According to the witness Prem Chand, Ram Niwas @ Tunda had obtained anticipatory bail and he had formally arrested them and Dr. Satpal Gupta was arrested from his house and the personal search of accused Satpal Gupta was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/A and thereafter the case was transferred to ACP Amarjeet Singh in October 1992. Witness has further deposed that again in November, 1993 the investigation was handed over to him since ACP Amarjeet Singh was transferred and prosecution opinion was taken regarding sufficiency of evidence since there were several discrepancies in the statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the affidavits submitted by the witnesses on record. According to the witness he recorded the supplementary statement of Sardar Gurbachan Singh, however his other brothers refused to join the investigations. He has testified that three political personalities whose names were appearing during investigations namely Sajjan Kumar, Chaudhary Bharat Singh and Raj Singh were intensively interrogated and this fact was mentioned in the CD and whatever facts were disclosed by them were got verified but no sufficient evidence was found against them of their involvement. He has further deposed that during investigations he came to know that the witnesses Smt. Krishna and Gurbachan Singh were also witnesses in case FIR No. 67/87 Police Station Nangloi and the facts of that case was similar to the present case and hence both the cases were clubbed under the advice of the Prosecution Branch. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 72 of 268 According to the witness the charge sheet in case FIR No. 67/87 was ready to be filed in the court and at that stage both the cases were clubbed. Witness has further deposed that during investigations it was further revealed that in case FIR No. 398/84 Police Station Nangloi a riot case Smt. Krishna was cited as a witness and in that case also she has not made any allegation against any person by name and after completion of investigations, he filed the charge sheet in the court. He has identified the accused Satpal Gupta correctly as the person he had arrested. (76) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he had not recorded the statement of any person who had informed about the factum of death of the above three persons in the concerned office of MCD. After going through the committee recommendations the witness has deposed that the name of Rampal Singh Rana the then SHO Police Station Nangloi is specifically mentioned and there is also reference of the involvement of the police officials. He has further deposed that he had examined the record of Police Station Nangoli and HC Karam Singh was posted with traffic during those days though he was residing within the jurisdiction of Police Station Nangloi. He has testified that the investigations relating to accused HC Karam Singh was conducted by ACP Amarjeet Singh. According to the witness he had not checked the roznamcha or the duty roaster (chitta) of Police Station Nangloi for the relevant period i.e. during riots which was done by ACP Amarjeet Singh. Witness has further deposed that when he took over the St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 73 of 268 investigations of this case for the second time the above relevant record to that effect was also handed over to him. After going through the Duty Roaster the witness deposed that ASI Dalel Singh was on casual leave w.e.f. 27.10.1984 to 05.11.1984. Witness has further deposed that he must have seen DD entry 18 A dated 01.11.1984 Police Station Nangloi on the record if it was collected during investigation by ACP Amarjeet Singh and placed on record. The witness has also deposed that he had seen the document Ex.A11 which is the departure entry regarding SI Raj Singh along with four constables at 8:12 AM on 01.11.1984 recorded vide DD No. 14B Police Station Nangloi, which he seized vide memo Ex.PW12/A. Witness has admitted that from the statement of Smt. Krishna he came to know that Sardar Swaroop Singh, Trilochan Singh and Amrik Singh had died on 02.11.1984 in the morning at about 4 AM. According to the witness these three persons were hiding in the house of Ramdas Patwari across the house of Gurbachan Singh. He has also deposed that he had interrogated Ramdas Patwari who had corroborated the fact that these three persons now deceased and other women of the family were in his house. Witness has admitted that Ramdas Patwari also did not make any allegation against any person by name and during investigation he came to know that Ramdas Patwari was at his residence on the intervening night of 12.11.1984. He has also admitted that there were two charge sheets prepared in the present case i.e. main charge sheet and the supplementary and he filed the main charge sheet in the court and the supplementary charge sheet was filed by St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 74 of 268 somebody else in 2002 on the orders of the court on the application of the Special PP. According to the witness he did not record the statement of any police official who are accused in the present case. He has testified that he had visited the spot and large number of persons were contacted and interrogated however since nothing relevant was disclosed by them as such their statement was not recorded U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Witness has further deposed that he did not collect any record dated 01.11.1984 relating to the duty of accused HC Karam Singh from Traffic Police Office and most of the investigations relating the police officials accused in the present case was conducted by ACP Amarjeet Singh. He has testified that he had not checked the log book of the official vehicle of the then Inspector RPS Rana the then SHO Police Station Nangloi regarding the movements on 01.11.1984 and states that it was done by ACP Amarjeet Singh. According to the witness he had also not checked the record of wireless log book and of the control room however, he had seen the aforesaid record. Witness has admitted that as per record prior to the documents Mark A8 (wireless logbook) which is Ex.PW26/D1, no other information was received regarding the incident of rioting at any place within the jurisdiction of Police Station Nangloi before 12:15 PM on 01.11.1984. Witness has denied the suggestion that there was no sufficient evidence against any of the accused persons present in the court or they were falsely charge sheeted. Witness has further denied the suggestion that no statement was given by Gurbachan Singh to him or he had fabricated his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 75 of 268 (77) PW27 Ct. Pradeep Kumar has deposed that in the month of AugustSeptember 1991, he was posted as motorcycle rider at Police Station Nangloi. According to the witness on 28.08.1991 he was given copies of the FIR of case FIR No. 418/91, Police Station Nangloi by the duty officer after which he delivered the copies of the FIR(special report) to the DCP west, concerned MM and concerned ACP as special messenger. (78) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he was given copies of the FIR on the night intervening between 28 & 29.08.1991 for onward delivery to the aforesaid officers by the Duty Officer. He does not remember the registration number of the motorcycle on which he had gone to deliver the special reports to the above said officers. Witness has denied the suggestion that no such special reports were given to him or delivered by him at any place on that night. According to the witness his statement was even not recorded in this case at any time. (79) PW28 Sh. S.L. Chopra has deposed that on 06.06.1991 he was Secretary of the Committee to examine cases relating to Riots in Delhi during October November, 1984. According to the witness he has seen the letter dated 06.06.1991 which is signed by him at point A from the original record which is produced by Smt. Ravinder Kaur, Dealing Clerk, Home Department, Delhi Administration copy of which is Ex.PW24/B which was addressed to Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, Raj Niwas, Delhi for registration of fresh case in respect to the affidavits given by Sh. Gurbachan Singh S/o Sh. Swaroop Singh and Smt. Krishna, W/o Sh. Inder Singh, which St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 76 of 268 affidavits are Ex.PY, Ex.PX and Ex.PW11/A. (80) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he was the Administrative Secretary of the Committee dealing with riot cases pertaining to OctoberNovember, 1984 and whatever recommendations were made by the committee he used to forward the same to the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi. According to the witness the letter Ex.PW24/B was written by him on the recommendations of the committee. He has however admitted that the recommendations are not on judicial record nor on the record produced by Smt. Ravinder Kaur, Dealing clerk of Govt. of Delhi Administration. He has also admitted that he did not verify personally the affidavits of Gurbachan Singh and Smt. Krishna and that he did not personally verify their identity. According to the witness after so many years, he does not remember if both these persons ever personally appeared before the committee and has voluntarily explained that the proceedings before the committee were not conducted in his presence. Witness has admitted that in the letter Ex.PW24/B there is no reference of their appearance before the committee. Witness has further deposed that he had forwarded this letter only on the basis of the recommendations of the committee and he was not supposed to see the record of the committee. According to him, he has no personal knowledge if Swaroop Singh father of Gurbachan Singh, Gurbachan Singh's wife, his brother Amrik Singh and Amrik Singh's brother in law Trilochan Singh had not died on 01.11.1984. Witness has denied the suggestion that the contents of letter Ex.PW24/B to St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 77 of 268 that effect are false. Witness has further deposed that there was no need for him to go through the contents of the affidavits of Gurbachan Singh or Smt. Krishna since these were referred to him for forwarding to the LG. According to the witness the entire letter Ex.PW24/B was based on the recommendations of the committee. He has also deposed that he did not write anythings on the said letter on the basis of his any personal observation. He does not remember if he ever sent any notice or summons to any of the witnesses or to any of the persons against whom the allegations were made before the riot committee under his signatures. Witness has denied the suggestion that the letter Ex.PW24/B was sent without due verification of the record or the recommendations of the committee. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:

(81) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. The accused Satpal Gupta has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. According to the accused no public witness has deposed against him and the other police officials who have falsely implicated and arrested him in this case are interested witnesses and have deposed falsely.

(82) The accused Dalel Singh has stated that in the year 1984 he remained posted as ASI at Police Station Nangloi and on 27.10.1984 he proceeded on casual leave upto 5.11.1984. According to the accused after St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 78 of 268 the casual leave with the connected holidays were duly sanctioned by the competent authority and he made his departure entry for availing casual leave on 27.10.1984 at serial No. 27 of the Daily Dairy (b) of Police Station Nangloi in his own handwriting with the intimation to the then SHO Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana which is Ex.PW9/DA. He has further stated that during his leave period he did not visit Police Station Nangloi or any of the area of the Police Station and remained busy in his village/ home for personal work. The accused has also stated that the allegations against him were found to be false by the prosecution itself as per the report submitted by the Investigating Officer at the time of his bail application wherein it was clearly mentioned that he was not involved in the incident of rioting dated 1.11.1984 in any manner whatsoever. He has further stated that he has been falsely prosecuted by fabricating false statements if any by the police officials and particularly Sh. Rajeev Ranjan who was biased against him. According to the accused, Gurbachan Singh was a suspect in some unsocial, communal activities and after about a month or so he was interrogated for his involvements in communal activities by the intelligence officer of IB and Communal Section, SB, Delhi Police and in that interrogation he and Ram Pal Singh Rana were also associated due to which reason Gurbachan Singh and his brother Kuldeep has deposed falsely against them. He has also stated that the interrogation was done at Police Station Nangloi in a special room on 19.1.1985 and the record of interrogation was maintained vide file No. 25(8)/1/19.01.01.85 IR Serial No. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 79 of 268 58 (G). According to him, Gurbachan Singh and his brother had developed grouse enmity against him and Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana since after that day and subsequently made false and fabricated allegations against them with the motive to falsely implicate them and has even falsely deposed in the Court. He has stated that he is innocent and a victim of false implication.

(83) The accused Ram Pal Singh Rana has stated that in the month of October/ November 1984 he was posted as SHO Police Station Nangloi and after the Brutal Assassination of late Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi on 31.10.84 there was alert in whole of Union Territory of Delhi and he along with the staff in Govt Vehicle remained stationed on duty at Tikri Boarder from 31.10.84 till 8.00 AM on the next day and took preventive measures with the Aid and Assistance of the staff. According to the accused, the police staff posted at Nangloi details of which are placed on record of this case are mentioned in Ex.PW12/A. He has further stated that SI Raj Singh, HC Satish, Ct. Chattar Singh, Ct. Suraj Bhan, Ct. Ganga Bhushan, Ct. Rajbir Singh were put on patrolling surveillance and picket duty at JJ Colony Nangloi Camp No.1 on 01/11/84 in the morning vide DD No.14 as mentioned in document A11 and they remained continuously on duty in the area to maintain law and order peace and tranquility and for the prevention of untoward incident. He has further stated that the remaining staff available at the Police Station was also deployed on other various strategic and vulnerable points/ areas where some members of Sikh St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 80 of 268 community were residing and they continue to perform their duties till the situation became normal. He has also stated that he along with his staff were also in the preventive duty in the area in govt vehicle and constantly remained in the area. The accused has further stated that his movements are recorded in the movement chart A9 mentioned in Ex.PW12/A and the wireless log book A8 and other documents mentioned in Ex.PW12/A. According to him, there was no information on wireless set available with him on 01.11.1984, about the alleged incident at JJ Colony Camp No.1 before noon nor any such message was given to the Police Station or to the Control Room of the alleged incident on that day and even thereafter there was no special information available with him about the alleged incident at JJ Camp relating to houses of Gurbachan and his family member till late night on 01/11/84. He has further stated that he had protected the lives and property of many families of members of Sikh community during his duty on 01.11.84 and subsequent thereto and the same finds mentioned in document A2 mentioned in Ex.PW12/A. According to the accused, in his presence no such incident of looting of house, burning or death as alleged by Gurbachan Singh and his brother took place at any time either on 01.11.84 or thereafter. He has further stated that sufficient measures were taken by him in deploying the available force and there was no laxity on his part in maintaining the law and order security and safety of the life and property of families of members of Sikh community and other. The accused has also stated that he had requested the senior officers for providing additional force St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 81 of 268 vide messages mentioned in A8 in PW12/A, but the same could not be made available in time, however later on it was so arranged. According to him, he had performed his duties during the riots with best of his ability, efficiency capability and there was no slackness on his part in deploying the force and protecting the lives and property of the persons. He has further stated that he has also appeared before Nanavati Commission in this case during inquiry and he has been exonerated during the inquiry from the charges and the Departmental Enquiry initiated was also closed and no action was taken against him. He has stated that he is innocent and victim of circumstances created by family of Gurbachan Singh with motive to revenge and to seek compensation in conspiracy and collusion of the leader of the Sikh community at Delhi. According to him, false and fabricated case was registered against him after a period of eightnine years of the incident. (84) The accused Karan Singh has stated that he remained posted in traffic police since 1982 till 1989 and has never been posted at Police Station Nangloi at any point of time during the long tenure of service. According to him, after the brutal assassination of Late Smt. Indira Gandhi the staff of the traffic police were kept alert and in reserve for emergency/ contingency duties. He has stated that on 31.10.1984 he along with other staff immediately were called in Traffic Police Lines, Chanakya Puri where he remained on Duty reserve from 31.10.1984, 1.11.1984 and a few days thereafter till the situation become normal in Delhi. The accused has further stated that he had no occasion to leave his duty from Chanakya Puri, St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 82 of 268 Traffic Police Line on 1.11.1984 at any time. According to the accused, his late father was also employed in Delhi Police and had retired in 1987. He has placed on record the photocopy of the identity card of his father which is Mark PX and photocopy of the pension book of his father is Mark PY. He has further stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has never been a member of any unlawful assembly nor happened to be at the place of alleged incident in this case.

(85) The accused have examined as many as Eleven Witnesses in their defence.

(86) DW1 Sh. Bale Ram has deposed that in the month of October/ November 1984 he was posted as Wireless Operator (HC) at Police Station Nangloi and the wireless station code number used to be W54 of Police Station Nangloi. According to the witness he had retired as Inspector from Delhi Police on 30.06.2003. Witness has further deposed that on 01.11.1984, he was on duty as wireless operator at Police Station Nangloi from 8 AM to 8 PM and there used to be 12 hours duty for the operator at that time and the other operator working with him at night from 8PM to 8AM next morning used to be HC Hari Prakash. According to him, on 01.11.1984 he took charge as wireless operator from HC Hari Prakash and recorded entries in the wireless log book maintained at wireless station at Police Station Nangloi from 8:12 AM till 8:05 PM and the last call was recorded by him at 20:10 hours (8:10PM). He has testified that the details of the calls received on wireless by him in between his duty hours on St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 83 of 268 01.11.1984 were correctly recorded by him and further communicated to the concerned officers including the SHO and other senior officers. He has proved the details of the calls given in the document Ex.PW26/D1, also marked as serial No.1/8 and the other calls mentioned in this document were recorded by HC Hari Prakash. According to the witness Sh. RPS Rana used to be the SHO during that period of Police Station Nangloi and as per the details given in Ex.PW26/D1 there is no reference of any call having being received by him on wireless on Camp No. 1, JJ Colony, Nangloi regarding any untoward incident from anyone or any source and the SHO remained outstation on duty in the area on that day.

(87) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has denied the suggestion that he has not correctly prepared/ entered the information received on wireless on 01.11.1984 or that SHO and staff had also attended the call relating to this case.

(88) DW2 Attar Singh has deposed that he knew accused Dalel Singh who is a resident of village Kutubgarh and his close neighbor. According to the witness, accused Dalel Singh had taken leave from the Police Department from 27.10.1984 upto 05.11.1984 while he was posted as ASI at Police Station Nangloi. According to the witness there was a common function in their family and Dalel Singh was present in the function held on 31.10.1984 at their house in the village and he remained with them till he resumed his duties on 05.11.1984.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 84 of 268 (89) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has deposed that he has not brought any invitation card indicating the function held on 31.10.1984 at their house. He has deposed that he had come to the court at the instance of accused Dalel Singh. Witness has denied the suggestion that being a neighbor of accused Dalel Singh, he was deposing falsely to protect the accused or that accused was on duty on 01.11.1984 at Police Station Nangloi. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Dalel Singh was member of unlawful assembly and he instigated the rioters to kill the Sikh Sat Singh, Darshan Singh and committed mischief and burnt dwelling houses and did not protect the lives and property of Sikh people. Witness has further denied the suggestion that accused Dalel Singh with his coaccused being member of unlawful assembly committed dacoity by looting the household property of Gurbachan Singh or that accused Dalel Singh along with coaccused being member of unlawful assembly committed mischief and burnt the dwelling house of Gurbachan Singh. Witness has further denied the suggestion that accused Dalel Singh being public servant knowingly disobeyed the directions of law or that being a public servant Dalel Singh was legally bound to apprehend the offenders and intentionally allowed them to escape or intentionally aided them in escaping.

(90) DW3 ASI Jogender Singh has deposed that in 1984, he was posted as Constable in Traffic Delhi Police and was working at Police Headquarter, Accident Research Cell and he knew accused HC Karam St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 85 of 268 Singh, who was also posted in the Traffic Police at headquarter in 1984. According to the witness, on 31.10.1984 when he reached in PHQ on his duty, they received information about the assassination of late Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister. According to the witness the traffic police as a whole was alerted and he along with accused HC Karam Singh, Ct. Daljeet Singh and other staff of the traffic posted at Headquarter were directed by the senior officers to report at reserve traffic lines, Teen Murti, Chankyapuri, Delhi. Witness has further deposed that he along with the accused and other staff went to the Reserve Police Line and reported for duty there for emergency/ contingency duties and they remained in reserve on 01.11.1984 in the traffic lines and few days thereafter till the situation in Delhi was normalized and brought under control after the riots. According to the witness accused Karam Singh also remained with them throughout on 31.10.1984 and thereafter till the normalization of the situation. (91) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, witness has deposed that at that time, he was on 24 hours duty on account of situation. He has testified that he is a summoned witness and has not brought any record of the posting/ duty of the relevant time as the same is not in his custody nor he was posted at police headquarter. According to the witness he has no copy of the order by which he was directed to report at Traffic Police line, Teen Murti, Chanakyapuri, Delhi. Witness has denied the suggestion that being the colleague of accused Karam Singh he was deposing falsely to protect the accused. Witness has denied the suggestion St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 86 of 268 that Karam Singh was a member of unlawful assembly and he instigated the rioters to kill Sat Singh and Darshan Singh and committed mischief and burnt dwelling houses and did not protect the lives and property of Sikh people. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Karam Singh with his coaccused being member of unlawful assembly committed dacoity by looting the household property of Gurcharan Singh or that Karam Singh along with his coaccused being member of unlawful assembly committed mischief and burnt dwelling house of Gurcharan Singh. Witness has also denied the suggestion that being public servant knowingly disobeyed the directions of law or that accused Karam Singh being a public servant was legally bound to apprehend the offenders and intentionally allowed them to escape or intentionally aided them in escaping.

(92) DW4 Ex. HC (Traffic) Daljeet Singh has deposed that in the year 1984, he was posted in Traffic Delhi Police as a Constable and his number was 1191/T and his posting was at Police Headquarter, SSE Branch, Traffic, Statistical Branch and he knew accused Karam Singh, present in the court who also posted at police headquarter (accident cell) during that period. Witness has further deposed that on 31.10.1984 he along with HC Karam Singh, Jogender Singh (DW3) along with the staff of the traffic police was present on duty at police headquarters and after getting information about the assassination of late Smt. Indira Gandhi, the traffic staff including HC Karam Singh were directed to report in Reserve at Reserve Police Lines (traffic), Teen Murti, Chankyapuri, New Delhi. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 87 of 268 According to the witness he along with accused HC Karam Singh, Joginder Singh and other staff reported for duty at Reserve Line, Teen Murti and remained there on 31.01.1984, 01.11.1984 and thereafter till the situation became normal after the riots. He has testified that none of them were allowed to leave their duty in the Reserve Lines nor they had gone anywhere else and remained on duty there at Chanakyapuyri and accused Karam Singh also remained with them during that period in the line. (93) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has deposed that he has not brought any record of his posting of that period as he has sought voluntary retirement and at that time, he was on 24 hours duty on account of the situation. Witness has admitted that he has not been served for the day of his deposition with bailable warrants as issued by the court. According to the witness he has brought his driving licence to prove his identity and he has no record with him that at that time he was serving as a constable in Delhi Police (Traffic). He has also deposed that he has no copy of the order by which he was directed to report at Traffic Police Lines, Teen Murti, Chanakyapuri, Delhi. Witness has denied the suggestion that being a colleague of accused Karam Singh he was deposing falsely to protect the accused. Witness has further denied the suggestion that Karam Singh was a member of unlawful assembly and he instigated the rioters to kill Sat Singh and Darshan Singh and committed mischief and burnt dwelling houses and did not protect the lives and property of members of the Sikh Community or that accused Karam Singh with his coaccused being St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 88 of 268 member of unlawful assembly committed dacoity by looting the household property of Gurcharan Singh. Witness has further denied the suggestion that accused Karam Singh along with his coaccused being member of unlawful assembly committed mischief and burnt dwelling house of Gurcharan Singh or that accused Karam Singh being public servant knowingly disobeyed the directions of law or that accused Karam Singh being a public servant was legally bound to apprehend the offenders and intentionally allowed them to escape or intentionally aided them in escaping.

(94) DW5 Sh. Gopal Ram has brought the summoned record (Justice Nanavati Commission of inquiry, 1984 AntiSikh Riots, Report, Volume I) from his office. According to the witness the incidents which happened in West District, Delhi regarding the riots have been discussed in the report at page 168 and the name of Sh. Ram Pal Singh Rana, Station House Officer, Nangloi and other police officers are mentioned in this report and the recommendations of the commission are also contained at page 168 and page 169 of the report brought by him. Witness has further deposed that as per the report, the police officers mentioned at page 168 have given their explanations and the report of the department and no further action was recommended against SHO Ram Pal Singh Rana as he was reported to have been exonerated in the departmental inquiry besides other police officials. He has proved the photocopy of the relevant pages which are Ex.DW5/A (pages 168 and 169).

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 89 of 268 (95) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has admitted that he has no personal knowledge of this case. According to him he has brought the summoned record only and is not known to accused Ram Pal Singh Rana personally.

(96) DW6 ASI Manju has brought the summoned letters/orders contained in Vigilance file i.e. PHQ endorsement letter No. 255/SO/DCP/ Vig. dated 14/08/1996 along with letter No. F.10/cMisc./91HPII/6387 dated 31.07.1996 from Consultant (Home Department) Govt. of NCT of Delhi and photocopy of which letters/ endorsement are Ex.DW6/A and Ex.DW6/B which related to the departmental inquiry against the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana.

(97) In her cross examination by the Ld. Addl. APP for the state witness has deposed that she has no personal knowledge about this case and she do not know accused Ram Pal Singh Rana personally. (98) DW7 HC Sohan Singh has brought the summoned record i.e. service book of accused Karam Singh from the office. Witness has deposed that according to the entires made in the service book, HC Karam Singh son of Sh. Kaptan Singh remained posted in Traffic Unit, Delhi police from 01.02.1982 to 31.12.1989. According to the witness the entries in the service book of the officials are made in the regular course of the maintenance of the record for posting and transfers of the officials and entries are duly attested by Gazetted Officers.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 90 of 268 (99) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has deposed that he has been posted with the record section for the last about two months only and whatever entries were made in the record of accused Karam Singh, were not made in his presence and are not in his handwriting and he has no personal knowledge of the service record of accused Karam Singh.

(100) DW8 Tej Singh has brought the service record of retired Ct. Kaptan Singh. According to the witness as per service record, he (Ct. Kaptan Singh) had joined Delhi police on 09.04.1954 as Constable and number of Ct. Kaptan Singh was 10549/DAP. Witness has further deposed that he has sought voluntary retirement and was retired as such on 31.08.1987 vide order No. 172285/Estt.9th Bn DAP dated 19.05.1987 as per the entires in the service book, which are duly signed by concerned ACP of that time. According to the witness the service record of the officials are maintained in regular course of duties and photocopies of the relevant entries of service record are collectively Ex.DW8/A (three pages). (101) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has deposed that he has been posted with the Record Section for the last about one month only and whatever entries were made in the record of retired Ct. Kaptan Singh, were not made in his presence and are not in his handwriting and he has no personal knowledge of the service record of retired Ct. Kaptan Singh.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 91 of 268 (102) DW9 ASI Muztaba Ali has brought the summoned record of file No. XXV/12/85 relating to incident of riots 1984, which has been received from Nanavati Commission. According to the witness the Duty Roster (chitha) dated 31.10.1984 to 05.11.1984 of Police Station Nangloi indicating the strength, duties and positions of the staff detailed for duty during those days is contained in the file brought by him and copies of the same are Ex.DW9/A1 to Ex.DW9/A5.

(103) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the record and he has only brought the summoned record.

(104) DW10 SI Satbir Singh has deposed that he was posted in Publication Section, Police Department since 1986 and has brought the summoned record. According to the witness Delhi Police is publishing monthly News Bulletin, in the name of Delhi Police Samachar and he has brought the issue of June 1987 of this News Bulletin. Witness has further deposed that he used to act as Editing Officer and dealt the information provided by the concerned Unit and one information about the then Insp. Ram Pal Singh Rana was published at page No. 4 of the Bulletin encircled at point X, copy of which Bulletin is Ex.DW10/A. (105) In his cross examination by Ld. Add. PP for the State, witness has admitted that the News Public Information published in bulletin of Delhi Police Samachar is not related with this case in any manner. According to the witness the information as published was received from the concerned St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 92 of 268 ACP office at that time and the facts before publishing the news were verified by the publishing department. He is not known to Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana personally at that time.

(106) DW11 Sh. Rajesh Kumar has brought the summoned record i.e. allotment register of flat allotment. According to the witness this record relates to the allotment of the flats of the riot victims/their family members of 1984. Witness has further deposed that according to the register at page 16, one flat No. 16B was alloted to Sh. Amarjeet Singh son of Sardar Swaroop Singh at Tilak Vihar, Delhi, copy of the same is Ex.DW11/A. He has also deposed that according to the register, at page 25, one flat No. 25C was alloted to Sh. Gurmeet Singh son of Sardar Swaroop Singh at Tilak Vihar, Delhi, copy of the same is Ex.DW11/B. He has proved that according to the register, at page 39, one flat No. 39A was alloted to Sh. Kuldeep Singh, son of Sardar Swaroop Singh at Tilak Vihar, Delhi, copy of the same is Ex.DW11/C. He has testified that as per register, at page 23, one flat No. 23C was alloted to Sh. Gurbachan Singh son of Sardar Swaroop Singh at Tilak Vihar, Delhi, copy of the same is Ex.DW11/D. Witness has further deposed that according to the register B at serial No. 307 one flat No. C55A was alloted to Smt. Parkash Kaur, wife of Sardar Swaroop Singh at Tilak Vihar, copy of the same is Ex.DW11/E. He has also deposed that according to register B, at serial No. 255 one flat NO. C54A was alloted to Smt. Satnam Kaur wife of Sardar Amreek Singh at St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 93 of 268 Tilak Vihar, Delhi, copy of the same is Ex.DW11/F. According to the witness the entries in the register were made in the regular course of official duties as per the information received in the office. (107) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has admitted that he has no personal knowledge in this case. According to the witness the entries in the registers which has been produced by him has not been made by him. Witness has admitted that whatever he has deposed is based on the record only and he has no personal knowledge of the same. FINDINGS:

(108) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels. I have also gone through the memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record. I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various witnesses individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.

 Sr.         Name of the                                  Details of deposition
 No.           witness

Public witnesses:

1. Gurbachan Singh He is the complainant in the present case. He has deposed (PW1) on the following aspects:

1. That in the year 1985 he was residing with his family at JJ colony, Y15, Nangloi, Delhi and used to put a rehri.

2. That on 31.10.1984 he was present in his house at Y15, JJ Colony, Nangloi, Delhi and his relatives including Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh had St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 94 of 268 come to meet him, when about 1012 persons came to him while he was selling eggs on rehri at the road and was away from his house at a distance of two furlongs, Tirlocahn Singh and Amrik Singh were standing with him.

3. That those 1012 boys told him that their Prime Minister had been killed and asked him to close the shop but he refused to do so on which they started quarreling with him and his brother in laws intervened and ultimately he took the rehri to his house.

4. That at about 9:00 AM on 01.11.1984 the crowd collected and started pelting stones on their house and he asked his children to hide somewhere nearby.

5. That thereafter, he went to roof on the first floor and saw the crowd pelting stones on which they (witness) also started pelting stones which were thrown by the crowd.

6. That two others Sikh gentleman also came there to take shelter, who were not known to them but Santa and Babla their neighbors were with them.

7. That the crowd gave a beating to Babla and Santa and the above two strangers with lathies.

8. That all this continued for quiet some time when in the meantime a crowd of about 700800 came from buses from Rohtak side and all of them were having lathies and dandas in their hand and they indulged into rioting.

9. That when the rioting started Kuldeep and Gurmeet his brothers were with him and they continued to face the crowd and his younger brother Amarjeet went to take care of Gurudwara at 9:00 AM.

10. That the accused Karam Singh was one of the persons who was exhorting the crowd for rioting.

11. That thereafter at the instigation of Karam Singh the crowd gave lathi blows to Santa and Babla and Karam Singh snatched away one can containing kerosene or petrol and sprinkled the same over the bodies of Babla and Santa and Karam Singh put St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 95 of 268 their bodies a blaze on which both of them died.

12. That in the meantime, police jeep also arrived there and the accused Rampal Rana the then SHO came out of the jeep and gave an indication to the crowd which resulted continuing pelting stones over their house by the crowd.

13. That the crowd threw petrol over their house, doors of their house were burnt on which they also came armed with talwar/ swords in their hand and they asked the people to face them at the point of talwar but nobody came forward.

14. That in the meantime SI Dalel Singh also reached near their house and SHO Rampal Rana and SI Dalel Singh exhorted the crowd to leave Babla and Santa Singh and take care of those who were having swords.

15. That he received injuries due to pelting of stones and he had not yet recovered from the injuries on his two fingers.

16. That his children met him on third November at the Police Station and Dr. Gupta was also exhorting the crowd.

17. That after getting injured he started moving towards the Gurudwara for shelter but fell on the way and he is not aware who removed him from there and when he regained consciousness it was quiet dark and for saving himself he went towards Camp No. 3 Nangloi.

18. That he took shelter in a house of one Sikh where other persons 7080 in number were also residing.

19. That on 03.11.1984 when the riots subsided, police came and removed the persons from there where he met his family members and when he was still at the Police Station, Inspector Rampal Rana and SI Dalel Singh came there and both of them called a Barber and got their hair cut.

20. That at that time Bharat Singh, Chairman and Raj Singh were also present and when he asked them as to why were they treated like that, they told them that they should live like Hindu otherwise will meet this St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 96 of 268 fate and from that Police Station they were taken to Gurudwara Tilak Nagar and stayed there for a month.

21. That on 07.11.1984 Inspector Rana and his Constables came there to meet them and to make inquiry about the persons who had caused the above said injuries to them on which he replied that they were the persons who did all this to them.

22. That after one month they were taken to the Police Station where Dalel Singh and Inspector Ram Pal Rana met them and threatened them not to depose against them otherwise they will have to face the consequences and they also took addresses of all of their relations living in India and they were made to sit for hours in the Police Station.

23. That he had heard that Sajjan Kumar was leading the crowd but he did not see Sajjan Kumar.

In his crossexamination he has stated as under:

1. That he does not remember whether he appeared before the commission headed by Hon'ble Justice Rangnath Mishra on 04.04.1986 nor does he remember whether he had made any allegation against any of the three accused persons before the Commission.

2. That he has not mentioned any overt act on the part of these persons in his statement Mark E.

3. That he had given an affidavit in Punjabi language before his Lordship Mr. Justice Ranganath Mishra but he is not aware where that affidavit was prepared.

4. That he did not mention in his affidavit Ex.PX that Karam Singh (accused) was one of the person who was exhorting the crowd for rioting or that Karam Singh instigated the crowd to give lathi blows to Santa and Babla or that Karam Singh snatched away one can containing kerosene or petrol and sprinkled the same on the body of Babla and Santa and Karam Singh put their bodies a blaze.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 97 of 268

5. That he also did not tell in his statement Ex.PX that in the meantime police jeep also arrived there or that SHO Rampal Rana, came out of the jeep and gave an indication to the crowd which resulted in continuing pelting stone over their house by the crowd.

6. That he did not tell in his affidavit Ex.PX that in the meantime SI Dalel Singh also reached near the house or that SHO Rampal Rana and SI Dalel Singh exhorted the crowd to leave Babla and Santa and take care of those who were having swords.

7. That he did not tell in his affidavit Ex.PX that after getting injured he started going to Gurudwara for shelter but fell on the way or that when he asked them as to why they were treating like that they told them that they should live like Hindus otherwise they will meet the same fate.

8. That he had not filed the claim of his father Swaroop Singh and also did not file claim petition No. 272/140 regarding the death of his father.

9. That he is not aware whether his mother had also filed a claim petition No. 290/105 regarding the death of his father.

10. That personally he is not aware when his father and other relation Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh had died.

2. Kuldeep Singh He is the brother of the complainant Gurbachan Singh and (PW2) has deposed on the following aspects:

1. That on 31.10.1984 he was present at his house i.e. house No. Y13 JJ Colony, Nangloi along with his father, five brothers namely Gurbachan Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, wife of his elder brother Gurbachan Singh

2. That on 01.11.1984 about 300 or 400 people came to their house in the form of a crowd and some of them were armed with wooden sticks and some of them were armed with iron rods.

3. That the crowd started pelting stones at his house on which they took shelter on the roof of their house.

4. That all of a sudden, the crowd increased and he saw St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 98 of 268 that a police vehicle was passing through that area and accused Rampal who was SHO of the area those days, was sitting in that vehicle.

5. That the police vehicle went away through the crowd and SHO waved his hands at the crowd signaling them to go ahead.

6. That he along with his brother Gurbachan Singh, Manmohan Singh, his sister and sister in law kept on pelting stones on them from the roof by throwing stones at the crowd whereas Gurmeet and Amarjeet, his brothers were not with them on the roof at that time.

7. That after about an hour they all came down and the crowd set his house on fire on which they drew out their swords to protect themselves and ran towards petrol pump to save themselves and after a little while, Dalel Singh and the SHO returned with one Karam Singh on foot and he saw Sikh gentlemen namely Santa and Babla were lying injured while they all went to the nearby Gurudwara for shelter.

8. That at about 2 PM a train came from Rohtak side and some passengers got down from that train who were also armed with wooden sticks and they all came to Gurudwara and charged on the members of Sikh community.

9. That few members of Sikh community died due to attack by those persons and later, he came to know that his brother Gurbachan Singh had also sustained injuries at the hands of that public.

10. That he took his brother to the house of his maid servant which was nearby at a distance of 45 feet and they were given first aid.

11. That by that time it was 5:00 PM and the darkness had descended and some of his friends came and took them to their house where they stayed for two days after which they went to Sultanpuri.

12. That it was he alone who had gone to Sultanpuri and stayed there at the house of Tara Chand, a friend of him, overnight and on the third day, they were asked St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 99 of 268 to go to Police Station Nangloi where the SHO got their hair cut at the Police Station.

13. That the persons who had taken them to the Police Station, subsequently sent them to Gurudwara Tilak Nagar, namely Bhatta Sahib.

14. That on 4th day, the same SHO came to Gurudwara in connection with the inquiry/ investigations and asked them to name the persons whom they suspected for the aforesaid injuries and he told him that it was he (SHO) who was the culprit on which they went away with his team.

15. That the crowd included one Prem Chand Sharma, Sri Niwas, one Dr. Gupta whose name later he came to know as Satpal Gupta.

16. That the accused Dalel Singh who was present with the SHO Inspector Ram Pal Singh and was exhorting the public "Maro Maro".

17. That the accused Karam Singh was also exhorting the public in the same manner Prem Chand and Ram Niwas.

This witness is unable to identify the accused Satpal Gupta.

3. Smt. Devender She is the sister of the complainant (Gurbachan Singh) and Kaur (PW3) daughter of the deceased Swaroop Singh and is an eye witness to the incident. She has only named Prem Chand Jain (deceased accused) as the assailant but has not identified anyone else. She has deposed on the following aspects:

1. That in 1984 when she was aged 1819 years she was residing in JJ Colony along with her brother Gurjeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh and their father Sh. Swaroop Singh.

2. That Sh. Amrik Singh and Sh. Trilochan Singh, brothers of her sister in law Paramjeet had also come there on 31st October, 1984.

3. That on 01.11.1984 at about 1010:30 AM numbering about 700800 in mob came there and they started throwing stones on them.

4. That in the mob one person Sh. Prem Chand Jain who was known to them and was residing in the St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 100 of 268 same locality was also amongst those persons.

5. That they climbed roof and after that mob put their house to fire and their brothers faced and met the situation with swords in their hands and they took shelter in the house of Patwari whose house was in front of their house.

6. That Sh. Prem Chand Jain again came in evening time who was close to her father after using deceitful means took her father outside her house and about 50100 persons came on 01.11.1984 in evening time when her father was taken out and her father was killed by that mob despite their request.

7. That on the same day in the evening Amreek Singh and Trilochan Singh were also killed.

8. That she and her sister in law were called in Police Station and her brother also went there.

9. That Inspector Rampal Rana was in Police Station who advised them to cut their hairs so as to save them on which they got their hairs cut.

She has not identified any of the accused as the person who participated in the riots on 31.10.1984 and 01.11.1984.

4. Gurmeet Singh This witness is the brother of the complainant Gurbachan (PW4) Singh and witnesses Kuldeep Singh and Devender Kaur who has not supported his earlier version and has not identified the accused. He has deposed that on 01.11.1984 a mob had attacked their house and pelted stones on which they ran away from their house. He is however unable to identify anyone from the mob and has stated that none of the accused present in the court were in the mob.

He has denied the suggestion that he had not made a statement to the police on 08.10.1991 wherein he had stated that on that day Sajjan Kumar, SHO Rampal Rana, Prem Chand Jain, elder son of Dr. Chanderbhan Gupta, a Khal Merchant known as Tunda and a milk vendor's son who was in Traffic police inciting the mob.

5 Amarjeet Singh This witness is also the brother of complainant Gurbachan (PW6) Singh and witnesses Kuldeep Singh, Gurmeet Singh and St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 101 of 268 Devender Kaur and has not identified any of the accused. He has deposed on the following aspects:

1. That on 01.11.1984 at about 10:30 or 11 AM he was taking breakfast along with his family at his house and a mob came and pelted stones on their house.

2. That they could not face them and they dispersed here and there and concealed themselves in the house of some friend.

3. That on 03.11.1984 they came out of hiding after the arrival of paramilitary forces and then they came to know that his father had expired.

4. That he is not aware what happened between 01.11.1984 and 03.11.1984 nor does he aware how his father had expired and none of the four accused present in the court was present amongst the rioters who had attacked their house on 01.11.1984.

This witness has denied having made a statement to the police that some of the persons who were leading and inciting the mob were Sajjan Kumar MP, SHO Rampal Singh Rana, Premchand Jain, a Khal merchant, elder son of Dr. C.P. Gupta and the son of a milk vendor who was employed in Delhi Traffic Police.

6 Smt. Krishna This witness is the mother of deceased Triochan Singh and (PW10) mother in law of deceased Amrik Singh (brotherinlaw of the complainant Gurbachan Singh). She has deposed on the following aspects:

1. That Satnam Kaur is her daughter and was married to Amrik Singh, her son in law who used to deal in scrap (kabari) in Mayapuri.

2. That the name of her son is Trilochan Singh who was about 24 years at that time and her son in law Amrik Singh came back from Bombay to Delhi on 31.10.1984 in the morning and in the evening her son went to meet her son in law at Nangloi from Subhadra colony.

3. That on the same day Smt. Indira Gandhi was assassinated and she came to know that riots were going on in the whole of Delhi.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 102 of 268

4. That on that day i.e. 31.10.1984 she had gone to Nangloi to the house of her son in law Amrik Singh where all the family members were also present there.

5. That the family members consists of the father Swaroop Singh, her son in law Amrik Singh and Gurbachan Singh i.e. brother in law of Amrik Singh.

6. That same day in the evening she started for her house by bus and reached general store, Punjabi Bagh and there was traffic jam and riots were going on, so she again went back to Nangloi to the house of her son in law.

7. That on the same night her son Trilochan Singh, her son in law Amrik Singh and several other persons were killed but she does not know how they were killed or who killed them.

8. That some police official who was not in uniform by misrepresentation had taken away some documents from her possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. Police/ official witnesses:

7. Dilbagh Singh This witness has brought the summoned record from MCD Dahiya (PW5) in respect of death of Shri Swaroop Singh S/o Sujan Singh which is Ex.PW5/A according to which death certificate was issued on 18.1.1995 and Swaroop Singh who was a Sikh died on 01.11.1984. He has also proved the record in respect of Trilochan Singh who as per the death certificate issued on 22.12.1984, was reported to have died on 01.11.1984 photocopy of which record is Ex.PW5/B.

8. Retd. SI Balbir He is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has proved Singh (PW7) having prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence i.e. plot No. 13,14,15 Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi which site plan which is Ex.PW7/A and the site plan of plot No. 17,18,19,20 Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi which is Ex.PW7/B.

9. Inspector N.S. He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has Minhas (PW8) proved having recorded the FIR No. 418/91, U/s 147/148/149/302 IPC photocopy of which is Ex.PW8/A. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 103 of 268

10. Ms. Gurdeep She was the Oath Commissioner in Patiala House Courts in Kaur Khera the year 1985 and has proved that the affidavit of (PW11) Gurbachan Singh son of Late Sh. Swaroop Singh which is Ex.PY was attested by her on 04.09.1985 and the affidavit of Smt. Krishna wife of Sh. Inder Singh which is Ex.PW11/A was also attested by her.

11. Inspector Raj This witness has proved the following aspects:

Singh (PW9) 1. That on 01.11.1984 he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Nangloi and Inspector Rampal Singh was the SHO.

2. That he was shown some documents including copies of the wireless message, the daily diaries by ACP Amarjeet Singh on which he had identified the signatures of Inspector Rampal Singh.

3. That a week prior to 01.11.1984 he was posted as Division Officer, Camp No.1, Nangloi which was at a distance of about one kilometer from Police Station Nangloi.

4. That on 30.11.1992 he had identified the signatures of Insp. Rampal Singh Rana who was posted as SHO in October/ November 1984 at Police Station Nangloi.

5. That he had seen the documents which were shown to him by the ACP Amarjeet Singh, Investigating Officer of the case on 30.11.1992 which Mark PW9/A to PW9/L having photocopy of the signatures of Insp. Rampal Singh Rana at point X respectively.

6. That all these photocopies of documents bear the photo impression of the SHO.

12. Inspector J.K. This witness has deposed on the following aspects:

Tyagi (PW12) 1. That on 17.11.1992 he was posted as sub inspector at riots cell Malivya Nagar, New Delhi and on that day, he along with ACP Sh. Amarjeet Singh of Riots Cell had visited 5, Shamnath Marg, New Delhi from where ACP Amarjeet Singh had seized some documents as mentioned vide seizure memo dated 17.11.1992 which is Ex.PW12/A and the documents are Mark A1 to A17.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 104 of 268

2. That on 18.11.1992 he had also gone to SIP Branch West District as per directions of the Investigating Officer ACP Amarjeet Singh who had sent him there for knowing about postings of some police personnels during October/ November, 1984 at Police Station Nangloi.

3. That on 18.11.1992 he had also recorded the statement of W/HC Chandra No. 18/W and ASI Om Parkash U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and he had recorded the case diary of 18.11.1992 under the directions of ACP Amarjeet Singh.

4. That he had contacted W/HC Chandra on 18.11.1992 and came to know from her that Insp. Rampal Singh Rana was posted as SHO Police Station Nangloi during October/ November, 1984, SI Raj Singh, ASI Dalel Singh were also posted at Police Station Nangloi during October/ November 1984.

5. That on recording the statement of ASI Om Parkash No. 3W SIP Branch West district, it revealed that Ct.

Umed Singh, Ct. Rishi Pal, Ct. Hari Krishan, Ct.

Dalbir Singh, Ct. Rajender Singh, Ct. Harpal Singh and HC Nawab Singh were posted at Police Station Nangloi during October/November 1984.

13. W/HC Chandra This witness has proved that in the month of November 1992 (PW13) SI Jitender Kumar had come to HAE Branch West District and on his asking after seeing the record she had informed him about the postings of Insp. Rampal Singh Rana, ASI Dalel Singh and SI Raj Singh during the October/November, 1984.

14. HC Kishori Lal This witness has proved the following aspects:

(PW14) 1. That on 11.11.1992 he was posted in Police Station Nangloi as record Munshi when ACP Rajiv Ranjan had asked him to furnish some documents relating to riots in the year 1984.

2. That he informed him that vide order 1123251/Gen. (west) dated 26.08.1991 the DD registers A and B pertaining to 1984 to 1989 and the other record pertaining to 1984 riots had been destroyed on St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 105 of 268 05.02.1992 in the presence of the SHO Insp. R.S. Dahiya and ACP Amrender Kumar.

3. That he had handed over the photocopy of the order to the then DCP photocopy of which order is Mark PW14/A, Mark PW14/B containing the details of the documents which were destroyed.

15. Sh. Shripal He was the Oath Commissioner with Delhi High Court in Sisodia (PW15) September, 1985. This witness has deposed that the affidavit in Punjabi Language (Gurmukhi Script), the English translation is also on record and as per the same the affidavit, it is of one Gurbachan Singh son of Sh. Swaroop Singh but the same was not attested by him on 09.09.1985 nor it bear his signatures at point A and has explained that the stamp of his name affixed on the affidavit at point B, however he never attested the affidavit.

16. ASI Harpal Singh This witness has deposed on the following aspects:

(PW16) 1. That in the year 1984 he was posted with Police Station Nangloi as Constable Driver along with SHO Inspector Rampal Singh Rana on Jeep No. 2157 and pickup van No. DED 4318.

2. That on 01.11.1984 he was on duty along with SHO Insp. Rampal Singh Rana and whenever a call was received by SHO he accompanied him to different places.

3. That on that day there were riots on account of assassination of the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, messages were received by the SHO on wireless about riots in different places and he was maintaining the log book of vehicle No. 2157.

4. That during those days he remained on duty along with the SHO for fourfive days continuously and on 31.10.1984 he was on duty along with SHO as driver from 7:30 AM and from 31.01.1984 from 7:30 AM he remained on duty along with SHO as driver till 04.11.1984.

5. That whenever he accompanied the SHO in the aforesaid vehicle and period, he made relevant entries in the log book and obtained the signatures of St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 106 of 268 the SHO.

6. The witness has proved the relevant entries in the log book register from 31.10.1984 till 04.11.1984 running into nine pages containing 84 entries and witness states that the entries pertaining to vehicle No. 2157 in the log book are in his handwriting during the period 31.10.1984 to 04.11.1984 which are Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A9 and has identified the signatures of Inspector Rampal Singh Rana at point X on page Ex.PW16/A9.

17. Jitender Singh This witness has deposed on the following aspects:

(PW17) 1. That in the year 1992 he was working as Assistant (Home) Delhi Administration.

2. That police met him and inquired about the documents that were available with him in his official capacity in the home department and these documents were regarding 1984 riots cases.

3. That he had handed over the photocopies of seventeen documents to the police officials who had come to him which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A which documents are Marked A1 to A17 are Ex.PW17/A1 to A8, Ex.PW16/A1 to A9 and Ex.PW17/A to Ex.PW17/A17.

18. Sh. Gopal Ram This witness has brought the original file No. XXV/12/185 (PW18) Special Inquiry Cell regarding 1984 riots within the Jurisdiction of Police Station Nangloi from Nanawati Cell.

19. Ram Narain He was the Station Master at Nangloi Railway Station and Dohra (PW19) has deposed on the following aspects:

1. That police had approached him after the year 1992 and inquired about the timings of different trains which he disclosed to them as per the time table available in the office.

2. That police had inquired from him about the train No. 4 DJ from Jind to Delhi on which he informed the police that at that time the said train used to reach Nangloi Railway Station at 11:15 AM and the other train regarding which inquiry was made was St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 107 of 268 9024 from Firozpur to Mumbai Central which used to pass from Nangloi Railway Station between 12:15 and 13:15 hours.

3. That police also made inquiry about train No. 354 down from Rohak to Khurja which used to reach Nangloi railway station at 5:15 PM.

4. That inquiries were made from him regarding passenger train reaching Nangloi railway station from 11 AM to 5 PM and besides goods train also used to pass through Nangloi railway station during this period.

5. That at the time of his deposition in the court no record was available regarding the timings of these trains and the record was destroyed within a period of two or three years.

20. ASI Om Prakash This witness was posted at SIP Branch Office of DCP West (PW20) Rajouri Garden in the year 1992. The witness was dropped at the request of Addl. PP since the witness is not relevant qua the accused persons.

21. ACP Sh. K.P. This witness has proved the following aspects:

Sharma (PW21) 1. That in the year 1991 he was posted as ACP in the Anti Riot Cell and one affidavit of Gurbachan Singh Ex.PY was received in his office from Delhi Administration.

2. That after going through the contents of the affidavit he made endorsement Ex.PW21/A on a separate sheet and sent the same along with the affidavit to Police Station Nangloi through Ct. Sukhbir Singh for registration of the case.

3. That he took over the initial investigations of the case on registration of FIR Ex.PW8/A after which he recorded the statement of witnesses namely Gurbachan Singh, Amrik Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Amarjeet Singh and of the draftsman who prepared the scaled site plan of the spot vide Ex.PW7/B .

22. Dr. M.M. Kutty He was posted as Joint Secretary Home, Govt. of NCT, (PW22) Delhi on 18.01.1993 and has proved the sanction order dated 18.01.1993 for prosecution of the accused persons St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 108 of 268 namely Insp. Rampal Singh the then SHO Police Station Nangloi, SI Dalel Singh and HC Karam Singh was accorded by LG on 24.11.1992 which he had conveyed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, PHQ, New Delhi on 18.01.1993 which sanction is Ex.PW22/A for prosecution of the accused persons U/s 109, 114, 217 and 221 IPC.

23. Inspector Mam This witness had assisted ACP KP Sharma, ACP Amarjeet Chand (PW23) Singh and ACP Rajeev Ranjan in the investigations of the present case. He has proved that on 21.04.1993 he had recorded the statement of Assistant Station Master RN Dohre and Dilbagh Singh from MCD office Najafgarh and he had formally arrested accused HC Karam Singh in July 1993 after he had obtained anticipatory bail. He was investigating officer of FIR No. 67/87 Police Station Nangloi relating to riots in the year 1984 and later on the case pending vide aforesaid FIR was clubbed with the present case.

24. Mrs. Satbir Silas She was posted as joint Secretary Home, Delhi (PW24) Administration 23.08.1991. She has proved that three affidavits in original, two of Sh. Gurbachan Singh and one Smt. Krishna and the letter of recommendation of the committee to examine the cases relating to riots during October,November, 1984 were enclosed by her after which she had sent letter Ex.PW24/A to the Commissioner of Police for necessary action. She has proved the affidavits of Gurcharan Singh which is Ex.PX and Ex.PY; affidavit of Smt. Krishna which is Ex.PW11/A and the letter of committee is mark 24/B.

25. ACP Amarjeet This witness has proved the following aspects:

Singh (PW25) 1. That in the month of December, 1991 while he was posted as ACP in Riot Cell, the investigations of the present case was entrusted to him during which he recorded the statement of Balbir Singh draftsman and Smt. Krishna.

2. That thereafter the investigation was transferred to ACP Rajeev Ranjan in the month of February, 1992.

3. That in the month of November 1992 he again received the file for investigation during which he St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 109 of 268 recorded statement of Ct. Kishan Lal, Ram Das, SI Tyagi, Insp. B.K. Chauhan, SI Raj Singh, HC Umed Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Channa Singh, ASI Harpal Singh and Ct. Jasbir.

4. That he arrested the accused Inspector Rampal Rana, SI Dalel Singh and HC Karan Singh

5. That he correctly recorded statement of aforesaid witnesses and during investigations he had also collected documents total 17 in number vide a seizure memo.

6. That in September, 1993 the investigations of the case was transferred to ACP Rajeev Ranjan.

7. That on 21.01.1992 during investigations Smt. Krishna (PW10) has produced before him, photographs of Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh and the death certificates of Trilochan Singh and Amrik Singh and photocopy of her ration card which were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW25/A and the photos of the aforesaid two persons are Ex.PW25/B and Ex.PW25/C respectively.

8. That the photocopy of death certificate of Amrik Singh is Mark PW26/X and the photocopy of death certificate of Trilochan Singh is Mark PW25/A.

9. That he had also seized the photocopy of the five documents from Police Station Nangloi which were produced by Ct. Kishore Lal which seizure memo is Ex.PW25/D and the said documents are Ex.PW25/B, Ex.PW25/C, Ex.PW25/D, Ex.PW25/E and Ex.PW25/F1 to Ex.PW25/F6 and Ex.PW25/D1 respectively.

10. That the documents all together 17 in number were collected by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A and the said documents are Ex.PW17/A1, Ex.PW17/A8, Ex.PW16/A1, Ex.PW16/A9 earlier mark A9 and Ex.PW17/A10 to Ex.PW17/A17 respectively.

26. DCP Sh. Rajeev This witness is one of the initial Investigating Officer of the Ranjan (PW26) case who has deposed on the following aspects:

1. That the present case was registered in August 1991 St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 110 of 268 on the recommendation of the committee which was scrutinizing the documents of the victims and the family of victims and Delhi Administration had ordered the registration of the case.

2. That he started investigating present case in February, 1992 and recorded the statements of Smt. Krishna whose affidavit was on the file submitted by the Delhi Administration but she had not alleged anything against any person in her statement by name.

3. That he had also recorded the statement of Smt. Satnam Kaur who also did not allege anything against any person by name in her statement since at the time of riots she was not in Delhi.

4. That he collected the copy of death certificate of Sardar Swaroop Singh Ex.PW5/A; that of Amrik Singh which is Mark PW26/X and of Trilochan Singh which is Ex.PW5/B which were verified by him from the Zonal Health Office of MCD.

5. That he recorded the statement of Mr. Dilbagh Dahiya the computer incharge/ record keeper of the Zonal Health Office who had maintained a death register in the official course of his business and after he found sufficient evidence against the accused persons raids were conducted at their houses and other places.

6. That accused Prem Chand, Ram Niwas @ Tunda had obtained anticipatory bail and he had formally arrested them.

7. That the accused Dr. Satpal Gupta was arrested from his house and the personal search of accused Satpal Gupta was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/A.

8. That thereafter the case was transferred to ACP Amarjeet Singh in October 1992.

9. That again in November, 1993 the investigation was handed over to him since ACP Amarjeet Singh was transferred and prosecution opinion was taken St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 111 of 268 regarding sufficiency of evidence since there were several discrepancies in the statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the affidavits submitted by the witnesses on record.

10. That he recorded the supplementary statement of Sardar Gurbachan Singh, however his other brothers refused to join the investigations.

11. That three political personalities whose names were appearing during investigations namely Sajjan Kumar, Chaudhary Bharat Singh and Raj Singh who were intensively interrogated and this fact was mentioned in the CD and whatever facts were disclosed by them were got verified but no sufficient evidence was found against them of their involvement.

12. That during investigations he came to know that the witnesses Smt. Krishna and Gurbachan Singh were also witnesses in case FIR No. 67/87 Police Station Nangloi and the facts of that case was similar to the present case and hence both the cases were clubbed under the advice of the Prosecution Branch.

13. That the charge sheet in case FIR No. 67/87 was ready to be filed in the court and at that stage both the cases were clubbed.

14. That during investigations it further revealed that in case FIR No. 398/84 Police Station Nangloi a riot case Smt. Krishna was cited as a witness and in that case also she has not made any allegation against any person by name and after completion of investigations, he filed the charge sheet in the court.

27. Ct. Pradeep He is a formal witness being the Special Messenger who has Kumar (PW27) proved that on 28.08.1991 he was given copies of the FIR of case FIR No. 418/91, Police Station Nangloi by the Duty Officer after which he delivered the copies of the FIR (special report) to the DCP (West), concerned MM and concerned ACP.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 112 of 268

28. Sh. S.L. Chopra He was posted as Secretary of the Committee to examine (PW28) cases relating to riots in Delhi during October November, 1984 on 06.06.1991. He has proved the letter dated 06.06.1991 copy of which is Ex.PW24/B which was addressed to Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, Raj Niwas, Delhi for registration of fresh case in respect to the affidavits given by Sh. Gurbachan Singh S/o Sh. Swaroop Singh and Smt. Krishna, W/o Sh. Inder Singh, which affidavits are Ex.PY, Ex.PX and Ex.PW11/A. Defence Witnesses:

1. Sh. Bale Ram This witness has deposed on the following aspects:

(DW1) 1. That in the month of October/ November 1984 he was posted as Wireless Operator (HC) at Police Station Nangloi and the wireless station code number used to be W54 of Police Station Nangloi.

2. That he had retired as an Inspector from Delhi Police on 30.06.2003.

3. That on 01.11.1984, he was on duty as wireless operator at Police Station Nangloi from 8 AM to 8 PM and there used to be 12 hours duty for the operator at that time and the other operator working with him at night from 8PM to 8AM next morning used to be HC Hari Prakash.

4. That on 01.11.1984 he took charge as wireless operator from HC Hari Prakash and recorded entries in the wireless log book maintained at wireless station at Police Station Nangloi from 8:12 AM till 8:05 PM and the last call was recorded by him at 20:10 hours (8:10PM).

5. That the details of the calls received on wireless by him in between his duty hours on 01.11.1984 were correctly recorded by him vide Ex.PW26/D1 and further communicated to the concerned officers including the SHO and other senior officers.

6. That the details of the calls given in the document Ex.PW26/D1, also marked as serial No.1/8 and the other calls mentioned in this document were recorded by HC Hari Prakash.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 113 of 268

7. That Sh. RPS Rana was the SHO during that period of Police Station Nangloi.

8. That as per the details given in Ex.PW26/D1 there is no reference of any call having being received by him on wireless on Camp No. 1, JJ Colony, Nangloi regarding any untoward incident from anyone or any source and the SHO remained outstation on duty in the area on that day.

2. Attar Singh He is a neighbour of accused Dalel Singh and has deposed (DW2) on the following aspects:

1. That he knew accused Dalel Singh who is a resident of village Kutubgarh and his close neighbor.

2. That accused Dalel Singh had taken leave from the Police Department from 27.10.1984 upto 05.11.1984 while he was posted as ASI at Police Station Nangloi.

3. That there was a common function in their family and Dalel Singh was present in the function held on 31.10.1984 at their house in the village.

4. That Dalel Singh remained with them till he resumed his duties on 05.11.1984.

3. ASI Jogender This witness has deposed on the following aspects:

Singh (DW3) 1. That in the year 1984, he was posted as Constable in Traffic Delhi Police and was working at Police Headquarter, Accident Research Cell.

2. That he knew accused HC Karam Singh, who was also posted in the Traffic Police at headquarter in 1984.

3. That on 31.10.1984 when he reached in PHQ on his duty, they received information about the assassination of late Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister.

4. That the traffic police as a whole was alerted and he along with accused HC Karam Singh, Ct. Daljeet Singh and other staff of the traffic posted at Headquarter were directed by the senior officers to report at reserve traffic lines, Teen Murti, Chankyapuri, Delhi.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 114 of 268

5. That he along with the accused HC Karam Singh and other staff went to the Reserve Police Line and reported for duty there for emergency/ contingency duties.

6. That they remained in reserve on 01.11.1984 in the traffic lines and few days thereafter till the situation in Delhi was normalized and brought under control after the riots.

7. That accused Karam Singh also remained with them throughout on 31.10.1984 and thereafter till the normalization of the situation.

4. HC (Ex.) Daljeet This witness has deposed on the following aspects:

Singh (DW4) 1. That in the year 1984, he was posted in Traffic Delhi Police as a Constable and his number was 1191/T and his posting was at Police Headquarter, SSE Branch, Traffic, Statistical Branch.

2. That he knew accused Karam Singh who was also posted at police headquarter (accident cell) during that period.

3. That on 31.10.1984 he along with HC Karam Singh, Jogender Singh (DW3) along with the staff of the traffic police was present on duty at police headquarters.

4. That after getting information about the assassination of late Smt. Indira Gandhi, the traffic staff including HC Karam Singh were directed to report in Reserve at Reserve Police Lines (traffic), Teen Murti, Chankyapuri, New Delhi.

5. That he along with accused HC Karam Singh, Joginder Singh and other staff reported for duty at Reserve Line, Teen Murti.

6. That they all remained there on 31.01.1984, 01.11.1984 and thereafter till the situation became normal after the riots.

7. That none of them were allowed to leave their duty in the reserve line nor they had gone anywhere else and remained on duty there at Chankyapuyri and accused Karam Singh also remained with them during that period in the line.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 115 of 268

5. Sh. Gopal Ram This witness has brought the summoned record (Justice (DW5) Nanavati Commission of inquiry, 1984 AntiSikh Riots, report, volume I) from his office. He has proved the following aspects:

1. That the incidents which happened in West District, Delhi regarding the riots have been discussed in the report at page 168.

2. That the name of Sh. Ram Pal Singh Rana, Station House Officer, Nangloi and other police officers are mentioned in this report and the recommendations of the commission are also contained at page 168 and page 169 of the report brought by him.

3. That as per the report, the police officers mentioned at page 168 have given their explanations and the report of the department and no further action was recommended against SHO Ram Pal Singh Rana as he was reported to have been exonerated in the departmental inquiry besides other police officials.

He has proved the photocopy of the relevant pages which are Ex.DW5/A (pages 168 and 169).

6. ASI Manju This witness has proved the letters/ orders contained in (DW6) Vigilance file i.e. PHQ endorsement letter No. 255/SO/DCP/ Vig. dated 14/08/1996 along with letter No. F.10/cMisc./91 HPII/6387 dated 31.07.1996 from Consultant (Home Department) Govt. of NCT of Delhi, photocopy of which letters/ endorsement are Ex.DW6/A and Ex.DW6/B which related to the departmental inquiry against the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana.

7. HC Sohan Singh This witness brought the service book of accused Karam (DW7) Singh according to which HC Karam Singh son of Sh.

Kaptan Singh remained posted in Traffic Unit, Delhi police from 01.02.1982 to 31.12.1989. He has proved that the entries in the service book of the officials are made in the regular course of the maintenance of the record for posting and transfers of the officials and entries are duly attested by Gazetted officers.

8. Tej Singh (DW8) This witness has proved the service record of Ct. Kaptan Singh which is Ex.DW8/A according to which Ct. Kaptan St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 116 of 268 Singh, No. 10549/DAP had joined Delhi police on 09.04.1954 as Constable had sought voluntary retirement after which he was retired as such on 31.08.1987 vide order No. 172285/Estt.9th Bn DAP dated 19.05.1987 as per the entires in the service book, which are duly signed by concerned ACP of that time.

9. ASI Muztaba Ali This witness has proved the record of file No. XXV/12/85 (DW9) relating to incident of riots 1984, which has been received from Nanavati Commission, copies of relevant pages are Ex.DW9/A1 to Ex.DW9/A5 i.e. the Duty Roster (chitha) dated 31.10.1984 to 05.11.1984 of Police Station Nangloi indicating the strength, duties and positions of the staff during those days.

10. SI Satbir Singh This witness has proved that Delhi Police is publishing (DW10) monthly News Bulletin, in the name of Delhi Police Samachar and he has brought the issue of June 1987 of this News Bulletin. According to this witness he used to act as Editing Officer and dealt the information provided by the concerned Unit and one information about the then Insp. Ram Pal Singh Rana was published at page No. 4 of the Bulletin encircled at point X, copy of which Bulletin is Ex.DW10/A.

11. Sh. Rajesh Kumar This witness has proved the recorded relating to the (DW11) allotment of the flats of the riot victims/their family members of 1984. He has proved the following aspects:

1. That according to the register at page 16, one flat No. 16B was allotted to Sh. Amarjeet Singh son of Sardar Swaroop Singh at Tilak Vihar, Delhi, copy of the same is Ex.PW11/A.

2. That according to the register, at page 25, one flat No. 25C was allotted to Sh. Gurmeet Singh son of Sardar Swaroop Singh at Tilak Vihar, Delhi, copy of the same is Ex.PW11/B.

3. That according to the register, at page 39, one flat No. 39A was allotted to Sh. Kuldeep Singh, son of Sardar Swaroop Singh at Tilak Vihar, Delhi, copy of the same is Ex.PW11/C. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 117 of 268

4. That as per register, at page 23, one flat No. 23C was allotted to Sh. Gurbachan Singh son of Sardar Swaroop Singh at Tilak Vihar, Delhi, copy of the same is Ex.PW11/D.

5. That according to the register B at serial No. 307 one flat No. C55A was allotted to Smt. Parkash Kaur, wife of Sardar Swaroop Singh at Tilak Vihar, copy of the same is Ex.PW11/E.

6. That according to register B, at serial No. 255 one Flat No. C54A was allotted to Smt. Satnam Kaur wife of Sardar Amreek Singh at Tilak Vihar, Delhi, copy of the same is Ex.PW11/F.

7. That the entries in the register were made in the regular course of official duties as per the information received in the office.

(109) Now coming to the microscopic evaluation of evidence against the accused persons.

Splitting of the charge sheets in present FIR and filing two sets of chargesheets:

(110) I may note that initially the charge sheet in the present case was filed on 18.2.1995 after which on 17.2.1998 pursuant to an application filed by Sh. AB. Tandon, the then Special P.P. Riot Cell for split/ separation of the charge sheet on account of different incident of 1.11.84 at about 11 A.M. and 2.11.84 in the early morning at the house of Ram Dass Patwari being misjoinder of persons, Sh. M.A. Khan, the then Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi ordered for Splitting/ Separate filing of challans. Pursuant to the same on 14.2.2002 one separate charge sheet was instituted in Court only against St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 118 of 268 Prem Chand Jain for the riots/ alleged killing of Swaroop Singh, father of Gurbachan Singh and his two relatives Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh on the early morning of 2.11.1984 at the house of Sh. Ram Dass Patwari;

whereas another separate charge sheet was instituted on the same day i.e. 14.2.2002 by officers of Riot Cell against six accused namely i.e. Prem Chand Jain, Ram Niwas @ Tunda, Satpal Gupta, Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, ASI Dalel Singh and Head Constable Karam Singh for inciting the mob/ unlawfully assembly on 1.11.84 around 10/11 A.M. at Y15, JJ Camp no.1, Nangloi alleging therein regarding the alleged killing of Sant Singh @ Santokh Singh @ Sat Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla S/o Channa Singh R/o JJ Colony Camp no.1, burning/looting by the mob of house of Gurbachan Singh and his family members.

Affidavits and Statement of the witnesses/ victims before the Commission of Inquiry - Can be relied:

(111) Ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of the accused have placed their reliance on the affidavits and statement made by the alleged victim of the incident before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission of Inquiry wherein Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Smt. Krishna (PW10) have filed their affidavits without making any specific allegations against the accused persons. It has been vehemently argued that when confronted with his statement earlier made before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission of Inquiry the witness Gurbachan Singh has admitted the St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 119 of 268 affidavits and statements but denied that he had made an improvement and deliberately identified the accused in the court at the instance of the prosecution and tutoring of other persons from their community.

(112) At the very outset, I may mention that the provisions of Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act are very clear. It provides that:

"....... No statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the Commission shall subject him to, or be used against him in, any civil or criminal proceeding except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such statement:

Provided that the statement

(a) is made in reply to a question which he is required by the Commission to answer; or

(b) is relevant to the subject matter of inquiry......"

(113) In the present case the specific legal bar would not apply since the present FIR had been registered on the basis of the affidavits filed by Gurbachan Singh and Smt. Krishna before Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission of Inquiry pursuant to which their statements were also recorded before the Commission and thereafter under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on registration of the case. No doubt, their credibility and truthfulness is required to be looked into and in order to assess their amount of reliability and correctness of their earlier testimonies can always be looked into. Since the affidavits filed by Gurbachan Singh and Smt. Krishna before Justice St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 120 of 268 Rangnath Mishra Commission are the basis of the present FIR, therefore the Rule of Exception would apply as the contents of these affidavits form a part of the FIR and hence the earlier affidavits of Gurbachan Singh and Smt. Krishna filed before Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission are not required to be discarded and their testimonies in the Court can always be scrutinized and independently tested on the touch stone of truthfulness by use of these affidavits.

Ocular Evidence:

(114) Ocular evidence/eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. The eye witness account requires a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility, it should not be adversely prejudged on the basis of other evidence. The ocular evidence has to be tested for its inherent consistency and inherent probability of the story, consistency of the account given by one witness with that given by the other witness held to be creditworthy, consistency with the undisputed facts, the 'credit' of the witnesses who performed in the witnessbox, their power of observation and it is only then that the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 121 of 268 (115) The law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the Ocular Evidence is very clear and the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though, minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur in the normal course yet in a case where the various eye witnesses corroborate each other on material aspect connected with the offence, there is no reason to reject their testimonies. I may observe that it is a general handicap attached to all eye witnesses that if they fail to speak with precision their evidence would be assailed as vague and evasive, on the contrary if the speak to all events very well and correctly their evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both approaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The testimony of a witness should be viewed with broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards. In a particular case an eyewitness may be able to narrate the incident with all details without mistake if the occurrence had made an imprint on the canvas of his mind in the sequence in which it occurred. He may be a person whose capacity for absorption and retention of events is stronger than another person. It should be remembered that what he witness was not something that happens usually but a very exceptional one so far as he is concerned. If he reproduces it in the same sequence as it registered in his mind, the testimony cannot be dubbed as artificial on that score alone (Ref.: Bhag Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1997 VII AD SC 507).

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 122 of 268 (116) It is settled law that conviction can be based upon the sole testimony of a witness whose testimony is found reliable and truthful.

Where the witness has made two inconsistent statements with regard to a material fact and circumstances then the testimony of such a witness cannot be held to be reliable and worthy of credence (Ref. Ram Swaroop & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1990 Cri.L.J 511). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilawar Hussain & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in AIR 1991 SC 56 has in a case of communal riot/mob violence on caste divide has laid down principles regarding appreciation of evidence and has observed that:

".......Acquittal or conviction depends on proof or otherwise of the criminological chain which invariably comprises of why, where, when, how and who. Each knot of the chain has to be proved, beyond shadow of doubt to bring home the guilt. Any crack or loosening in it weakens the prosecution. Each link, must be so consistent that the only conclusion which must follow is that the accused is guilty. Although guilty should not escape. But on reliable evidence truthful witnesses and honest and fair investigation. No free man should be amerced by framing or to assuage feelings as it is fatal to human dignity and destructive of social, ethical and legal norm. Heinousness of crime or cruelty in its execution howsoever abhorring and hateful cannot reflect in deciding the guilt...."

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 123 of 268 (117) The Court further observed that:

"...... Misgiving, also, prevailed about appreciation of evidence. Without adverting to submissions suffice it to mention that credibility of witnesses has to be measured with same yardstick, whether, it is an ordinary crime or a crime emanating due to communal frenzy. Law does not make any distinction either in leading of evidence or in its assessment. Rule is one and only one namely, if depositions are honest and true. Whether the witnesses, who claim to have seen the incident in this case, withstand this test is the issue ? But before that some legal and general questions touching upon veracity of prosecution version may be disposed of....."

(118) In the case of Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in 1971 SCC Crl. 638 the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue regarding the evidence relating to identification of the accused by the witness has observed as under:

"............. It may be remembered that the substantive evidence of a witness is his evidence in court but when the accused person is not previously known to the witness concerned then identification of the accused by the witness soon after the former's arrest is of vital importance because it furnish to the investigating agency an assurance that the investigation is proceeding on right lines in addition to furnishing a corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness later in court at the trial. From this point of view it is a matter of great importance both for the investigation agency and for the accused and a fortiori for the proper administration of justice that such identification is held without avoidable St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 124 of 268 and unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused and that all the necessary precautions and safeguards are effectively taken so that the investigation proceeds on correct lines for punishing the real culprit. It would, in addition, be fair to the witness concerned who was a stranger to the accused because in that event the chances of his memory fading are reduced and he is required to identify the alleged culprit at the earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence. It is thus and thus alone that justice and fairplay can be assured both to the accused and to the prosecution. The identification during police investigation, it may be recalled, is not substantive evidence in law and it can only be used for corroborating or contradicting evidence of the witness concerned as given in court. The identification proceedings, therefore, must be so conducted that evidence with regard to them when given at the trial, enables the court safely to form appropriate judicial opinion about its evidentiary value for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the statement in court of the identifying witness.........."

(119) In a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. (Ref.: Bankey Lal Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233). Further, on the issue as to whether the witness should be or should not be believed it is settled law that this question can only be determined by the Trial Court. (Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC

546).

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 125 of 268 (120) It is, therefore, evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. In a case of rioting where a large number of accused were involved and identified by a solitary witness, a word of caution was added by the Hon'ble Apex Court holding that it was not safe to rely upon uncorroborated and unsubstantiated testimony of such a witness [Ref.: State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rayaneedi Sitharamaiah and Others reported in 2010 (4) SCC (Cri)]. It is, therefore, apparent that all evidence has to be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witnessbox; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978).

(121) Coming next to the aspect relating to the natural conduct of witnesses, I may observe that the conduct of any person which includes an eye witness, to a proceeding in reference to any fact in issue or a relevant fact is relevant. The conduct of a witness at the time of the offence which appears unnatural in the absence of any valid explanation creates serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of the testimony of such a witness. In this St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 126 of 268 regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Din Dayal Vs. Raj Kumar @ Raju reported in 1999 Cri.L.J. 467 rejected the testimony of the eye alleged witnesses who were closely related to the deceased holding that their conduct in not accompanying the deceased to hospital and of not informing the police about the incident was unnatural and create serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of their evidence.

(122) Time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court has while taking into account the reasonable probabilities and having regards to the normal course of human affairs cautioned the Courts below to ensure that the witness on whose testimony reliance is placed should be truthful and trustworthy and for doing so the Court is required to take into account reasonable probabilities, having regard to the normal course of human affairs. In a case where a part of the crucial event has been screened from the Court's scrutiny the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Doodh Nath Pandey Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1981 SC 911 observed that the possibility of an altercation between the assailant and the victim cannot reasonably be excluded and therefore it was unsafe to impose an extremely harsh penalty upon the accused. It should be remembered that human behaviour varies from person to person and different people react and behave differently in different situations. How a person can behave in a particular situation cannot be predicted. (Ref.: State of UP Vs. Devender Singh reported in AIR 2009 SC 3690).

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 127 of 268 (123) Now coming to the issue relating to the appreciation of ocular evidence it is a settled law that while appreciating the evidence the approach of the court must be integrated and not truncated or isolated and the impact of the evidence in totality on the prosecution case or innocence of the accused has to be kept in mind in coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. In reaching a conclusion as to the guilt of the accused, the court has to appreciate, analyze and assess the evidence placed before it by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value and the animus of witnesses. Further, a statement made by any prosecution witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is of utmost importance as the same can be used by the defence to contradict such witness with the earlier statement in order to test the credibility and truthfulness of such a witness. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakila Khader Vs. Nausher Gama reported in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1324 observed held that the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used for crossexamination and only the witnesses of the prosecution can be contradicted by reference to their statements made to the police and not Court witnesses or defence witnesses. (124) In the case of Bijoy Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2002 RCR (Cri) 544 where there was a delay in recording the statement of vital injured witnesses and no reasonable explanation was forthcoming for the same, observed that:

"..... Under such circumstances the court is required to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 128 of 268 itself as to whether any innocent has been implicated in the crime or not...."

(125) From a careful analysis of the law the broad principles which emerge can be briefly enumerated as under:

➢ That while considered the ocular evidence of eye witnesses, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish three aspects.

1. The presence of the witness at the spot of the incident;

2. The possibility of the witness to observe clearly the happenings at the spot

3. The possibility and the probability of the witness to identify the assailants.

➢ While determining the credibility and authenticity of the testimony of a witness on the touch stone of truthfulness and the previous statement made to the police by the witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can always be looked into for purposes of confrontation (not for corroboration).

➢ That in case of any eye witness materially improving his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the testimony of such a witness cannot be believed to the extent of the improvement and is liable to be rejected.

➢ The fact that a witness is resiled from his earlier statement made in the course of investigations put the Court on guard St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 129 of 268 and cautions the Court against the acceptance of such evidence without satisfactory corroboration. However, the testimony of such a witness is not completely washed off and can be read to the extent of corroboration.

➢ In case of a mob frenzy/ large scale communal violence where there is unusual delay in recording the statements of the eye witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC. a valid explanation should be forthcoming and care should be taken to ensure that innocent persons are not falsely implicated.

(126) Further, after testing the truthfulness and the reliability of a witness, the eye witnesses can be put in three categories:

➢ Those who are reliable and whose testimony does not require any independent corroboration on the basis of which conviction can be based.

➢ Those who are not reliable and there is no possibility of there being present at the spot or of not having witnessed the incident or of there being no possibility or probability of their identifying the assailants, whose testimony is required to be rejected outrightly for which the Court is not required to look any independent corroboration.

➢ Those witnesses who are partly reliable either with regard to the aspect of the incident or with regard to the identification of St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 130 of 268 some of the accused. Their presence at the spot is established but the possibility and the probability of their having clearly and distinctly witnessed the incident and identifying the accused is doubtful, the Court can always look for corroboration from other sources.

(127) Applying these settled principles of law as they have emerged to the facts of the present case, I may observe that initially the charge sheet against Prem Chand Jain relating to the riots/ alleged killing of Swaroop Singh, father of Gurbachan Singh and his two relatives Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh on the early morning of 2.11.84 at the house of Sh. Ram Dass Patwari, was filed in which the prosecution has cited as many as Thirty Witnesses and in the charge sheet against Prem Chand Jain, Ram Niwas @ Tunda, Satpal Gupta, Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, ASI Dalel Singh and Head Constable Karam Singh relating to the alleged killing of Sant Singh @ Santokh Singh @ Sat Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla S/o Channa Singh R/o JJ Colony Camp no.1 and burning/ looting by the mob of house of Gurbachan Singh and his family members was filed wherein Thirty Two witnesses were cited of whom all witnesses were identical/ common. However, only Twenty Six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, whereas four witnesses i.e. Ram Das Patwari, Inspector V.K. Chauhan and ASI Lakhi Ram have expired and two witnesses i.e. Ct. Jasbir Singh and HC Umed Singh have been dropped by the prosecution. In so far St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 131 of 268 as the witnesses Smt. Satnam Kaur and Sh. Channa Singh are concerned, they have not been examined by the prosecution. It is reported by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor that perusal of the Police File shows that Smt. Satnam Kaur had been dropped as a witness by prosecution since she was not a witness to the 1984 riots. It is also evident from the file that after the summons were issued to Satnam Kaur there was a report that her mother Smt. Krishna had met the Process Server and made a statement that her daughter Satnam Kaur i.e. the wife of Amrik Singh had expired on 5.11.2005. I may also observe that public witnesses Channa Singh (father of Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla), Ram Das Patwari and Afroz Ali were also cited as witnesses by the prosecution. However, during the trial Ram Das Patwari and Afroz Ali expired and in so far as Channa Singh is concerned as per the report on the Process, his whereabouts were not available on the given address and thereafter he was never produced by the prosecution for examination.

(128) Out of the Twenty Six witnesses so examined by the prosecution, six witnesses are the family members of the deceased whereas others are the official/ police witnesses. Out of the six public witnesses, only Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) have supported the case of the prosecution to some extent. While Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3) the sister of complainant Gurbachan Singh and daughter of the deceased Swaroop Singh has partly supported the case of the prosecution to the extent St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 132 of 268 of incident but has turned hostile on the aspect of identity of the accused whereas Gurmeet Singh (PW4) and Amarjeet Singh (PW6) the bothers of the complainant Gurbachan Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Devender Kaur and Smt. Krishna (PW10) is the mother of the deceased Trilochan Singh and mother in law of deceased Amrik Singh (brother in law of complainant Gurbachan Singh) has also not supported the case of prosecution. (129) In the present case out of six public witnesses examined by the prosecution who were stated to be eye witnesses, only two witnesses have partly supported the version relating to killings and have rather come up with a new version of the incident whereas others have turned hostile either on the identity of the accused or with regard to the entire incident. Here I may note that all these public witnesses are related to the deceased Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh.

(130) Now, applying the various guiding principles as discussed herein above, I first proceed to discuss, analyze and evaluate the testimonies of these prosecution witnesses who have deposed on material aspects individually i.e. Gurbachan Singh (PW1), Kuldeep Singh (PW2), Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3), Gurmeet Singh (PW4), Amarjeet Singh (PW6), Smt. Krishna (PW10), Inspector Raj Pal Singh (PW9), ASI Harpal Singh (PW16), ACP (Retd.) K.P. Sharma (PW21), Sh. M.M. Kutty (PW22), Inspector Mam Chand (PW23), ACP (Retd.) Sh. Amarjeet Singh (PW25) and DCP Sh. Rajiv Ranjan (PW26).

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 133 of 268 Public Witnesses:

(131) Coming first to the evaluation of the testimonies of the Public Witnesses so examined by the prosecution namely Gurbachan Singh (PW1), Kuldeep Singh (PW2), Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3), Gurmeet Singh (PW4), Amarjeet Singh (PW6) and Smt. Krishna (PW10). All these public witnesses who are related to the deceased Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh are members of the Sikh Community, a faith which relentlessly observes and follows the preachings of the various Guru's from Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji who practiced Ahimsa to Guru Govind Singh Ji who only permitted the selective use of arms only for purposes of self defence or in defending a weaker person from an aggressor. These witnesses belong to a community guided by the principles of Shunning Violence and Practicing Compassion, Forgiveness and Love in order to attain God (....daya, kshama, kar preet; jin prem kiyo tin hi prabh payo...) which teaches us that as a Sant Sipahi or a Spiritual Warrior the most important battle that a Sikh wages is an internal one; a constant struggle against the internal enemies of Kaam, Krodh, Lobh, Moh and Ahankar (Lust, Anger, Greed, Obsession, Attachment and Pride) and to work on and to overcome one's own weaknesses. It is in the light of this background that I now proceed to evaluate the testimonies of these witnesses namely Gurbachan Singh (PW1), Kuldeep Singh (PW2), Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3), Gurmeet Singh (PW4), Amarjeet Singh (PW6) and Smt. Krishna (PW10) individually.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 134 of 268 Testimony of Gurbachan Singh (PW1) (132) Gurbachan Singh (PW1) is the son of the deceased Swaroop Singh and brother in law of Amrik Singh who claims that he was in his house at the time of the incident along with his brother in law Trilochan Singh. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

"...... In the year 1985 I was residing with my family at JJ Colony, Y15, Nangloi, Delhi and on 31.10.1984 my brother in law namely Amreek Singh.

On 31.10.1984 I was present in my house Y15, JJ Colony Nangloi, Delhi, his relatives have come to meet him which included Amrit Singh and Trilochan Singh. I work on a rehri. On 31.10.1984, ten twelve persons came to me while I was selling eggs on rehri at the road. I was away from my house at a distance of two furlong. Trilochan Singh and Amrik Singh were standing with me. Those 10/12 boys told me that their Prime Minister had been killed and asked me to close the shop. I refused to do so, thereafter, they started quarreling with me. My abovesaid brother in laws intervened and ultimately I took the rehri to my house.

At about 9.00AM on 1.11.1984 the crowd collected and started pelting stones on our house. I asked my children to hide away somewhere nearby. Thereafter, I went to roof on the first floor. I saw the crowd from the roof they were pelting stones and we also started pelting stones which were thrown by the crowd. Two other Sikh gentlemen also came there to take shelter but they were not known to us. Santa and Babla our neighbours were with us. The crowd gave a beating to Babla and Santa and two above said stranger gentlemen with lathies. All this continued for quiet some time. In the meantime a train came from Rohtak side again said it was by buses by St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 135 of 268 which the crowd had come and the numbers of persons may be 700 to 800. All of them were having lathies and dandas in their hand and indulged in rioting. When the rioting started Kuldeep and Gurmeet my brothers were with me. We continued to face the crowd and my younger brother Amarjeet went to take care of Gurdwara at 9.00AM. Karam Singh was one of the person who was exhorting the crowd for rioting. Karam Singh accused is present in the Court and I identify him. Thereafter, at the instigation of Karam Singh the crowd gave lathi blows to Santa and Bable. Karam Singh snatched away one can containing kerosene or petrol and sprinkled the same over the bodies of Babla and Santa and Karam Singh put their bodies ablaze. Both of them died. In the meantime, police jeep also arrived there. SHO Rampal Rana, the accused present in the court came out of the jeet he gave an indication to the crowd which resulted continuing pelting stones over our house by the crowd. The crowd threw petrol over our house and our doors of the house were burnt. We also came armed with talwar/swards in our hand. We asked the people to face us at the point of talwar but nobody came forward. In the meantime SI Dalel Singh also reached near our house. SHO Rampal Rana and SI Dalel Singh exhorted the crowd to leave Babla and Santa Singh and take care of those who were having swards. I received injuries due to pelting of stones. Dalel Singh is the accused present in the court. The witness has pointed out the same. I have not yet recovered from the injury on my two fingers. My children met me on third November at the police station. Dr. Gupta was also exhorting the crowd, but he is not present in the court today. After getting injured I started going to Gurudwara for shelter but fell on the way but I do not know who removed me from there. When I regain St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 136 of 268 consciousness it was quit dark and saving myself I went towards camp No.3, Nangloi. I took shelter in a house of one Sikh where other persons were also residing. 70/80 in number. On 3.11.1984 when the riots subsided, police came and removed the persons from there where I met my family members. When I was still at the police station, Inspector Rampal Rana and SI Dalel Singh came there. Both of them called a barbar and got our hair cut (objected to) as theer is no charge to this effect) At the time Bharat Singh, Chaman Singh were also present. When I asked them as to why were we treated like that, they told us that we should live like Hindus otherwise will meet this fate. From that PS we were taken to Gurdwara Tilak Nagar and stayed there for a month.

On 7.11.1984 Inspector Rana and his constables came there to meet us and to make enquiry about the persons who had caused the above said injuries to us. On this I replied that you are the person you did all these to us. After one month we were taken to the police to the PS where Dalel Singh and Inspector R P Rana met us and threatened us not to depose against them otherwise we will have to face the consequences. They also took addresses of all of our relations living in India. We were made to sit for eight hours in the police station. I had heard that Sajjan Kumar was leading the crowd but I did not see Sajjan Kumar......"

(133) Gurbachan Singh has been exhaustively crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel wherein he has explained that he had gone to Ludhiana about one and a half month to two months after the occurrence and they were sent to Gurudwara Bhatta Sahab Tilak Nagar along with 200250 families of members of Sikh community for safety purpose by the police St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 137 of 268 where they remained till they went to Ludhiana. According to the witness, he did not make any written complaint to any of the authorities nor he sent any such complaint to such authorities against the accused. He has deposed that he was not allotted any house but has explained his relative have been allotted the house. He has admitted that he did not mention in his affidavit Ex.PX that Karam Singh (accused) was one of the person who was exhorting the crowd for rioting or that Karam Singh instigated the crowd to give lathi blows to Santa and Babla or that Karam Singh snatched away one can containing kerosene or petrol and sprinkled the same on the body of Babla and Santa and Karam Singh put their bodies a blaze. He has also admitted that he did not tell in his affidavit Ex.PX that in the meantime police jeep also arrived there or that SHO Rampal Rana, came out of the jeep and gave an indication to the crowd which resulted in continuing pelting stone over their house by the crowd or that in the meantime SI Dalel Singh also reached near the house or that SHO Rampal Rana and SI Dalel Singh exhorted the crowd to leave Babla and Santa and take care of those who were having swords. He is not aware as to who had prepared or written or typed his another affidavit Ex.PY. According to the witness, he had not filed the claim of his father Swaroop Singh and also did not file claim petition No. 272/140 regarding the death of his father. He is not aware whether his mother had also filed a claim petition No. 290/105 regarding the death of his father. According to the witness personally he is not aware St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 138 of 268 when his father and other relative Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh had died. He has denied the suggestion that they had filed false claims regarding the death of the above persons.

(134) The Ld. Defence Counsel has highlighted the numerous improvements and material contradictions in the testimony of Gurbachan Singh and has vehemently argued that he is a nonreliable and untrustworthy witness whose testimony should be discarded in toto. I have considered the rival contentions and given my careful consideration to the same. (135) It is the case of the prosecution that Gurbachan Singh (PW1) allegedly filed two affidavits one in English Language and second in Punjabi/ Gurmukhi which are dated 04.9.1985 and 09.09.1985 respectively before Hon'ble Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission of Enquiry into riots 1984. The aforesaid two affidavits have been exhibited as Ex.PY and Ex.PX in his cross examination. Hence while evaluating the testimony of Gurbachan Singh, he has not only been confronted with his earlier statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but also with the contents of theses affidavits which form a part of the FIR. Now coming to a detailed point by point critical analysis of the testimony of Gurbachan Singh as under:

(136) In his testimony before the Court, Gurbachan Singh has alleged that kerosene oil was sprinkled over the bodies of Babla and Santa and the rioters put their bodies ablaze. There is a material improvement made by Gurbachan Singh in the Court. Previously he nowhere in his earlier statements either to the Commission or in his affidavits or in his earlier St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 139 of 268 statements made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he had mentioned these facts. He was duly confronted on all material particulars with his previous statements recorded by police during investigations of case FIR No. 67/87 Police Station Nangloi which statements are Ex.PW23/D2 to Ex.PW23/D4 (earlier Mark A, B, C), his affidavits and statements made before Justice Rangnath Mishra which are MarkD. He was also duly confronted with previous statements Mark E, F, G recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 24.9.91, 13.10.91, 18.3.93 in case FIR No. 418/91 Police Station Nangloi where there is no reference of pouring oil and setting on fire by accused HC Karam Singh. He even admits that he did not state in his affidavits and statements recorded during investigation either in case FIR No. 67/87 Police Station Nangloi and the present case. He has also admitted that he personally does not know when their father and other relatives Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh had died. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

"..... I do not remember if I had stated in my statement dated 24.9.1991 that my father and other relations had died at 4:00 AM on 2.11.1984. Personally I do not know when my father and other relation Amrik Singh and Trilochan had died...."

(137) It is writ large that these allegations of pouring oil and setting on fire by Karam Singh have been made for the first time in the Court and that too after Twenty Years and therefore, no reliance can be placed on St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 140 of 268 such uncorroborated version and the statement being contradictory, inconsistent which suffer from material contradictions, improvements and after thought embellishments.

(138) Further and most importantly Gurbachan Singh (PW1) though in his affidavits in English and Gurmukhi (Punjabi - translated version of which is present on record) made allegations against some public persons and particularly Prem Chand Jain, Ram Niwas and other politicians involved/inciting rioters. However, later when his testimony was recorded in the court he did not name any such person including Prem Chand Jain and Ram Niwas who were charge sheeted along with the accused persons. Later on 15.5.2010 he moved an application through the Special Public Prosecutor seeking a recall claiming that when he was examined on 20.8.2004, 2.9.2004 and 24.9.2004 he was not in a proper state of mind due to threat, coercion and was under tremendous pressure and being a heart patient it was difficult for him to resist the same. He claimed that even before Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission he had named Sh. Sajjan Kumar as leading the mob in the area of Nangloi whom he also named in his statements recorded by the police but during his deposition made in the Court he did not name him as he was under threat and fear since Sh. Sajjan Kumar was a sitting Member of Parliament at that time and was enjoying powerful position to much so that even the police officers and the State could not withstand the pressure of Sh. Sajjan Kumar. He claimed that he was an Auto Rickshaw Driver and was threatened that in case if he deposed against Sh. Sajjan Kumar then his St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 141 of 268 Auto Rickshaw would be hit and run over by a heavy truck. The Ld. Predecessor Court while dismissing this application had held that the alleged specific threat that his three wheeler scooter shall be hit and run over a heavy truck did not appear to be true since it was for the first time that he indicated that he was an Auto Rickshaw Driver whereas on the contrary his claim was that he was selling eggs on a rehri. The Predecessor Court also observed that despite a ten page deposition made on Oath he nowhere indicated that any threat was given to him and hence the primafacie story that he did not name Sajjan Kumar as one of the accused on account of threats does not seen to be true. Also, this application was filed after five and a half years. The Predecessor Court while relying upon the case of Kehar Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in AIR 1988 SC 1883; Babu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of MP reported in III (1997) CCR 182 (MP); Ramesh Bhandari Vs. Charan Dass Puri & Ors. reported in 50 (1993) DLT 81; Onkar Nath Mishra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2008 (1) JCC 65 (SC); Budhan Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Through NCT of Delhi) reported in 2008 (2) JCC 1017; Rajender Singh Sachdeva Vs. State (NCT of Delhi); Smt. Deepa Bajwa Vs. State & Ors. reported in 2004 (3) JCC 1754 (Delhi); Bhagwanti Vs. State reported in 2001 (3) CC Cases (HC) 139 (Delhi); Balakrushan Swain Vs. The State of Orissa reported in 1971 Cri. L.J. 670 SC; Husna & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 421; Murti Rama Naik Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2003 St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 142 of 268 Cri.L.J. 4326 SC; Viswanath & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2005 Cri.L.J. 1913 (MP) and Ganesh Bhavan Patel & Anr. Vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1979 SC 135 held that the improvements so made by this witness Gurbachan Singh are to be treated with doubt and further held that he could not be recalled for denying the evidence already given and recalling the witness for confronting with statement given by him in other Court proceedings and for contradicting the affidavits given before Rangnath Mishra Commission or with statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were impermissible. This order dated 4.6.2011 has since attained finality, the same not having been challenged by the applicant/ complainant or by the prosecution. (139) Gurbachan Singh had also alleged that in the riots he too had received injuries but there is no evidence of the same. There is nothing on record to show that Gurbachan Singh had got himself treated either in any hospital or by private practitioner at any time and his version that while he was running away from his house he sustained injuries is not supported by any medical report or from any independent source in the form of testimony of some other witness including his own family members. (140) Now coming to the affidavits filed by the witness Gurbachan Singh before the Justice Rangnath Mishra commission which forms the basis of the FIR in the present case, his affidavit of Gurmukhi (Punjabi) dated 9.9.85 which is Ex.PX in para 3 Gurbachan Singh (PW1) stated "...After some time mob came upstairs. They caught hold of our neighbours St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 143 of 268 Santokh Singh and his brother Babla and threw them down. Our women hide themselves in a house opposite our house with great difficulty. We managed to reach Gurudwara at 1 p.m....." In this affidavit he has nowhere stated that Santokh Singh and Babla were set on ablaze after pouring kerosene oil on them or that these two persons were beaten by any one and what he has now deposed in the Court is a total improvement. (141) Again in para 8 of affidavit Ex.PX, Gurbachan Singh (PW1) gave the names of persons who were reported to have been killed on 1.11.84 at about 11:00 PM as Swaroop Singh (father), Trilochan Singh (brother in law) and Amrik Singh (brother in law of Trilochan Singh). He has nowhere stated that Santokh Singh and Babla were reported to have been killed on 1.11.84 by the mob. Even in the English affidavit dated 4.9.85 Ex.PY it is nowhere mentioned that Santokh Singh or his brother Babla were with them on the roof and that the mob came upstairs and threw Santokh Singh and his brother Babla from the roof.

(142) Further, in his English Affidavit (Ex.PY) proved by Ms. Gurdeep Khera (PW11) Gurbachan Singh (PW1) in para 7 had stated that a train came from Rohtak side at 2:002.30 PM and stopped near Gurudwara of their colony, who were armed with lathies etc. killed four persons. However, in the Court he initially deposed that the rioters came on the train but later on retracted from his deposition and for the first time stated that in fact the rioters had come in a Bus. The relevant portion of the testimony is as under:

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 144 of 268 "...... In the meantime a train came Rohtak side again said it were the buses by which the crowd had come and the numbers of persons may be 700 to 800. All of them were having lathies and dandas in their hand and indulged in rioting....."

(143) Also, in his affidavit of Gurmukhi (Punjabi), he had mentioned that they (all brothers) with great difficulty managed to escape and reached Gurdwara at 1:00 PM which means that Gurbachan Singh or his brothers were not present at 2.30 p.m. when the alleged killing took place as mentioned in the English affidavit whereas in his deposition in examination in chief (para

2) he has deposed that at about 9 AM on 1.11.84 the crowd started pelting stones on their house the crowd gave beating to Bable and Santa and two above said strangers gentlemen with lathies. It is noted that there is a material contradiction in the time of the alleged incident. However, in the affidavit Ex.PY (proved by Gurdeep Khera - PW11) first filed by Gurbachan Singh there is no reference that after 1.00 p.m. he or any of his brothers had returned back to their house on 1.11.84 or subsequent thereto at any point of time. This falsifies the statement/allegations that his father or relations were killed in his presence or that any one else i.e. Santa or Babla were killed in their presence as is being now alleged by him.

(144) Again coming to the affidavit of Gurbachan Singh in Gurmukhi (Punjabi) which is Ex.PX, he had affirmed in the same that ".... On 1.11.84 at 11 p.m. his father Swaroop Singh, brotherinlaw Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh who had taken shelter in the house of their neighbour St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 145 of 268 Patwari, were taken out from the housebeaten and burnt alive by kerosene oil and they set them ablaze....". This version so given by Gurbachan Singh stands falsified when in the crossexamination he states that he personally cannot tell when his father or anyone else died. The version given by Gurbachan Singh is also coming into serious conflict and is at variance with the version given by Kuldeep Singh (PW2) who in his deposition dated 1.10.2004 in the concluding para of cross examination has deposed ".....I left the house at 12 noon on 1.11.84. Gurbachan Singh also went with us.

Man Mohan Singh is my friend. He was present in my house....". The time given by Kuldeep Singh as 12 noon raises important questions regarding the presence of Gurbachan in his house at 1:00 PM. The version given by Gurbachan Singh is again coming into serious conflict and is at variance with the version given by Kuldeep Singh (PW2) who in his deposition has nowhere stated that Santokh Singh or Babla were at their house with them at the Roof and that the mob threw them down as is being alleged by Gurbachan Singh in his affidavit. It is also not the case of Kuldeep Singh (PW2) that Santokh Singh or Babla were burnt alive by pouring kerosene oil by any one, what to speak of Head Constable Karam Singh throwing kerosene oil and burning which materially contradicts the version given by Gurbachan Singh (PW1) that Karam Singh accused threw kerosene oil and set ablaze/burnt Santokh Singh and Babla.

(145) When crossexamined on the execution of these affidavits, Gurbachan Singh (PW1) in his cross examination dated 24.9.04 (pages 1 St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 146 of 268 and 2) has testified that he does not know as to where the affidavits were prepared and by whom or as to what was written in the affidavits and who got the same attested. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

"....I was not present when these affidavits Ex. PX and PY were got attested from an Oath Commissioner and cannot tell who had got it done...".

(146) In this regard Shripal Sisodia (PW15) the then Oath Commissioner has deposed in examination that he has not attested the Gurmukhi (Punjabi) Affidavit of Gurbachan Singh S/o Swaroop Singh on 9.9.85 and that the same is not bearing his signatures (PX). In this background, no sanctity can be attached to the affidavit Ex.PX (affidavit in Gurmukhi script whose execution is not admitted by Gurbachan Singh himself) as regards the genuineness of the contents is required to be looked into in the light of the statements made by Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Oath Commissioner Shripal Sisodia (PW15). However, in so far as the affidavit Ex.PY (English Affidavit) is concerned the position is different. The same has been proved by the Oath Commissioner Ms. Gurdeep Khera (PW11) and she has specifically testified the same to have been executed before her. How then can Gurbachan Singh deny the same? (147) Hence, in the light of the above when Gurbachan Singh (PW1) in his deposition in examination in chief (para 2) has deposed that"....Thereafter on the instigation of Karam Singh the crowd gave lathi blows to Santa and Babla. Karam Singh snatched away one can containing St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 147 of 268 kerosene or petrol and sprinkled the same over the body of Babla and Santa and Karam Singh put their bodies ablaze. Both of them died..." I find that this version does not find any confirmation or support from any other material brought on record by the prosecution and it is for the first time that he has come up with this version in the Court. In this regard Gurbachan Singh has also been confronted with all his previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 67/87 (Riot Cell) P.S. Nangloi and the present case FIR No. 418/91 P.S. Nangloi wherein this aspect does not find recorded.

(148) Further, according to the prosecution version and also as per the version given by Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh, their entire family was together which included their deceased father Swaroop Singh, the deceased Amrik Singh who was the brother in law of Gurbachan Singh, the deceased Trilochan Singh who was brother in law of Amrik Singh, Smt. Krishna the mother in law of Trilochan Singh, their own brothers Gurmeet Singh and Amarjeet Singh and their sister Devender Kaur. The testimonies of both Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) who are real brothers and are sons of the deceased Swaroop Singh does not find any corroboration or support from the testimonies of their own family members i.e. their sister Devender Kaur (PW3), their brothers Gurmeet Singh (PW4), Amarjeet Singh (PW6) and Smt. Krishna (PW10) who is the mother in law of deceased Amrik Singh (the brother in law of deceased Gurbachan Singh) and mother of deceased Trilochan Singh. The other family members of St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 148 of 268 Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh have neither corroborated nor supported the version given by Gurbachan Singh that Santokh Singh and Babla were killed or burnt by any one on 1.11.84 or that their death was brought to their notice by any other member of the family or by anyone else. (149) I may observe that the witness Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3) is the real sister of Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh and an eye witness to the incident. She has given a version which is contrary to the one given by Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh. It is evident that she has specifically named the accused Prem Chand Jain (deceased) in so far as the killing of her father and other relatives are concerned but so far as the accused Satpal Gupta, SHO Inspector R.P.S. Rana, SI Dalel Singh and HC Karan Singh are concerned she has given a clean chit to them and has deposed that they were not the persons who were present at the spot at the time of the incident or had instigated the mob to kill her father Swaroop Singh and also Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh. I may note that she also does not state that her neighbours Santokh Singh and Babla were killed or burnt by any one on 1.11.84 at any time in their presence or to her knowledge. I am sure in case if such a killing had taken place in her presence she would have fearlessly deposed about it in the same manner in which she has given the details of the unfortunate killings of Swaroop Singh (her father), Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh in which she identified Prem Chand Jain. (150) Further, in so far as Smt. Krishna (PW10) is concerned, she is the mother of deceased Trilochan Singh and mother in law of Amrik Singh St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 149 of 268 with whom her daughter Satnam Kaur was married. In her testimony she has explained that on 31.10.1984 she had come to visit her son in law Amrik Singh who had returned from Mumbai but could not return to her house on account of the riots because there was a traffic jam and stayed back at the house of Gurbachan Singh where his family was also present. In her testimony she has narrated the incident of the night between 12 November, 1984 but nowhere deposes about witnessing the killing of Babla and Santa @ Santokh Singh or that they had died or were burnt alive on 1.11.84 in her presence or in her presence or to her knowledge. The version given by Smt. Krishna is coming into a serious conflict with the version of the incident as given by Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh.

(151) There is also no other evidence on record in the form of testimonies of the near relatives of Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla establishing that these two persons had died during the riots on 1.11.84. I may observe that the accused Inspector R.P.S. Rana, SI Dalel Singh and HC Karam Singh have been charged along with Prem Chand Jain and Sat Pal Gupta, for inciting/instigating the rioters for killing of Santa @ Santokh Singh @ Sat Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla and have not been charged for individually killing or burning the aforesaid two persons. The allegation now being made are against Karam Singh that he threw petrol and set Santokh Singh @ Sat Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla ablaze by pouring Kerosene Oil which allegations have been introduced for the first time and the possibility of this being intentional and deliberate as Gurbachan St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 150 of 268 Singh wanted to introduce this version to create evidence against Karam Singh cannot be ruled out.

(152) The Investigating Officers of the present case namely Sh. K.P. Sharma ACP Retired (PW21), ACP Amarjeet Singh (PW25), DCP Rajiv Ranjan (PW26) have all unanimously deposed that at no point of time the killing of Santokh Singh @ Santa or Darshan Singh @ Babla on account of their being burnt alive on 1.11.1984 came to their notice or was informed to them. I may note that Retd. ACP Sh. K.P. Sharma (PW21) was the person who got this case registered and in his testimony has admitted that it never came to his knowledge during investigation that Santokh Singh (Santa) or Babla had died or were burnt alive during the period the investigations remained with him. Further, ACP Amarjit Singh (PW25) who had also partly investigated this case, has similarly in his deposition has nowhere deposed that Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla were killed or burnt alive by any one on 1.11.84 at any time and has admitted that no such death came to his knowledge during the investigation. Also, DCP Sh. Rajiv Ranjan (PW26) who is the last investigating officer and has filed the final charge sheet in the court, has nowhere stated that Santokh Singh @ Santa or Darshan Singh @ Babla were burnt alive by any one or that they were killed on 1.11.84 or that their death was brought to his notice by any one and this is despite the split/ separate charge sheets been filed against the accused i.e. one in respect of the incident where the death of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh were allegedly killed and second St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 151 of 268 in respect of the incident of killing of Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla.

(153) Who are these persons Santokh Singh @ Sat Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla both sons of Channa Singh? Where were they residing? They have been specifically named as deceased killed during 1984 Riots by Gurbachan Singh who claims himself to be their neighbour but no one from their family has come before the Court to prove their killings/ deaths. Here, I may note that the charge sheet in the present case was filed on 18.2.1995 after which on 17.2.1998 pursuant to the application filed by Sh. AB. Tandon, the then Special P.P. Riot Cell for split/ separation of the charge sheet on account of different incident of 1.11.84 at about 11 A.M. and 2.11.84 in the early morning at the house of Ram Dass Patwari being misjoinder of persons, Sh. M.A. Khan, the then Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi ordered for Splitting/ Separate filing of challans. Pursuant to the same on 14.2.2002 one separate charge sheet was instituted in the Court against Prem Chand Jain only for the riots/ alleged killing of Swaroop Singh, father of Gurbachan Singh and his two relations Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh on the early morning of 2.11.1984 at the house of Sh. Ram Dass Patwari; whereas another separate charge sheet was instituted on the same day i.e. 14.2.2002 by officers of Riot Cell against six accused persons namely (1) Prem Chand Jain, (2) Ram Niwas @ Tunda, (3) Satpal Gupta, (4) Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, (5) ASI Dalel Singh and (6) Head Constable Karam Singh for inciting the mob/ unlawfully assembly on 1.11.84 around 10/11 St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 152 of 268 A.M. at Y15, JJ Camp no.1, Nangloi alleging therein regarding the alleged killing of Sant Singh @ Santokh Singh @ Sat Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla S/o Channa Singh R/o JJ Colony Camp no.1, burning/looting by the mob of house of Gurbachan Singh and his family members. (154) I may note that the Sanction Order Ex.PW22/A also does not contain any reference about the alleged death of Sat Singh @ Santa Singh @ Santokh Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla Sons of Channa Singh and this version has been introduced for the first time establishing that there was no evidence or information with the Investigating Agency by the time the sanction was obtained in this case. Even after the splitting of the charge sheet no fresh sanction had been obtained.

(155) Further, no such record has been proved during the investigation that the aforesaid persons i.e. Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh, Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla had died on 1.11.84 or that any one has reported their death to the concerned authority as per the requirement of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. Dilbagh Singh (PW5) has been examined by the prosecution who has produced the record indicating the entries in the Register regarding death of Swaroop Singh and Trilochan Singh only and of no other persons. He has also stated that entries have not been made by him. No Death Certificate of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh or Trilochan Singh have been placed on record (what are placed on record are only extracts of information entered in the official record under Section 12 of Registration of Births and Deaths St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 153 of 268 Act, 1969) and the Death Certificates of Santa Singh @ Santokh Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla who are reported to have been expired on 1.11.1984, have not been proved as per law.

(156) In this background when I further proceed to test the reliability of the witness Gurbachan Singh (PW1) as regards his deposition before the court, I find that he had falsely deposed that he was never allotted any quarter by the Govt. as a compensation (reference is being made to cross examination at page 7) whereas the official records relating to grant of compensation and allotment of quarters to the 1984 riot victims which has been duly proved by Rajesh Kumar (DW1) establishes the factum of allotment of the quarters not only to Gurbachan Singh who was allotted Flat No. 23/C as evident from the entry in register Ex.PW11/C but even his other family members namely Gumeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh and Smt. Devender Kaur had been similarly given compensation and allotted separate quarters details of which have been proved and which I reproduce as under:

 Sr.                Name of the allottee                       Flat No.         Record Exhibit  
 No.                                                                                 No.

1.       Amarjeet Singh S/o Swaroop Singh                 16B, Tilak Vihar    Ex.DW11/A

2.       Gurmeet Singh S/o Swaroop Singh                  25C, Tilak Vihar    Ex.DW11/B

3.       Kuldeep Singh S/o Swaroop Singh                  39A, Tilak Vihar    Ex.DW11/C

4.       Gurbachan Singh S/o Swaroop Singh                23C, Tilak Vihar    Ex.DW11/D

5.       Prakash Kaur W/o Swaroop Singh                   C55A, Tilak Vihar   Ex.DW11/E

6.       Satnam Kaur W/o Amreek Singh                     C54A, Tilak Vihar   Ex.DW11/F


St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi                         Page No. 154 of 268
 (157)             Further,   a   perusal   of   the   testimony   of   DCP   Rajiv   Ranjan

(PW26) also establishes that the other three brothers of Gurbachan Singh namely Kuldeep Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Amarjit Singh have not supported the version of Gurbachan Singh. In fact Gurbachan Singh appears to have changed the version given by his other siblings on almost all counts as discussed herein above and the possibility of this being only to implicate the accused persons with a revenge and vendata or the grudge which he was bearing in his mind against the Govt. and the police officials and particularly against the S.H.O. who was one of the members of the interrogation team (Joint) of I.B. and Special Cell, which interrogated Gurbachan Singh at Police Station Nangloi in connection with his suspected involvement in terrorist activities after the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi which fact he has admitted in his affidavit both in English and Gurmukhi (Punjabi) and also in his deposition in the court, cannot be ruled out. In this regard para 17 and 18 of the affidavit of Gurbachan Singh in English which is Ex.PY dated 9.9.1985 are most relevant which I reproduce as under:

".... 17. It looks very strange that thousands of Sikhs were killed intentionally and maliciously in this carnage but no murder case is either registered or investigated. But curiously enough in subsequent Bomb Blast in Delhi, about 49 persons were killed and the investigations are made in the matter as if the entire Sikh community is to be hanged. Where this law had gone out of the statue in November 1984.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 155 of 268

18. That unless these hundred criminal in Police Force and Congress (I) Party are not hanged for murders there does not seems to be any point for us to gain confidence in this partial government. This conspiracy was hatched out by the ruling party and the NonSikh members of the police force...."

(158) Gurbachan Singh (PW1) has not implicated any politician or named any other person in his statement in court. This raises serious questions regarding the veracity and truthfulness of his statement and the possibility of his having implicated the police officials apparently with a strong motive and animus against Government and public servants cannot be ruled out. Also, the incident relates to 1.11.84 or 2.11.84 and for about almost eleven months he did not make any complaint in writing to the civil or police authorities either at Delhi or at Ludhiana where he allegedly stayed for a couple of months.

(159) The totality of the facts and circumstances on record has proved that Gurbachan Singh is not reliable. He has changed his versions at every stage of the investigation and trial. Initially he targeted the political leaders of the area belonging to the Ruling Congress (I), later he exonerated them clearly and then started gunning for the NonSikh police officials on duty either posted or residing in the area and the possibility of this being out of vendetta and revenge cannot be ruled out and this I infer because of his own assertions made in his affidavits Ex.PX (Gurmukhi) and Ex.PY (English).

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 156 of 268 (160) Now in the Court when examined in the year 2004 he has spared all others including the politicians mentioned in his affidavit and even in the examination in court he has not uttered a single word against Prem Chand Jain and Ram Niwas @ Tunda or others mentioned in the affidavits and has only named the Police Officers on duty in the area. His statement about the burning of two members of Sikh community by pouring kerosene oil or petrol on them has not been supported by any other iota of evidence on record and this material part of the allegation has been confronted with his previous statements/affidavits and hence no reliance can be placed on his deposition.

(161) I hereby hold that Gurbachan Singh (PW1) is a non credible, unreliable and untrustworthy witness whose testimony on the face of it is tainted with a sense of extreme hatred and vengeance for the Ruling Party of that time i.e. Congress (I) and also the Non Sikh members of the Police Force which stands confirmed from the fact that Gurbachan Singh after having completed his deposition in the year 2004 through the Special Public Prosecutor had even filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling him on the ground that at the time when his evidence was recorded in the Court Mr. Sajjan Kumar was the sitting MP and was enjoying a powerful position and it was difficult for him (Gurbachan Singh) to resist the threats given by the goons of Sajjan Kumar and hence he succumbed to the pressure and made a statement which was not correct which application was dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide a detail order dated St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 157 of 268 4.6.2011 by observing that Gurbachan Singh had specifically denied on oath in his examination in chief about 5 ½ years ago that Sh. Sajjan Kumar was leading the mob and did not utter anything incriminating against him. (162) I am compelled to note that Gurbachan Singh (PW1) is a member of Sikh Community the guiding force of which are the preachings of the Guru's and is a recorded history that even Guru Govind Singh Ji who fought the operations of Muslim Emperor never exhibited any hatred or anger towards the Muslims or did anything in the spirit of revenge (Ref:

Guru Govind Singh Ji by Professor Puran Singh Ji). I ponder, ......could Gurbachan Singh be as revengeful as he so appears?.....

Testimony of Kuldeep Singh (PW2):

(163) In so far as Kuldeep Singh (PW2) is concerned, he is the real brother of Gurbachan Singh (PW1), Devender Kaur, Amarjeet Singh and Gurmeet Singh. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

"....... On 31.10.84 I was present at my house. Those days I was residing at House No.Y13 JJ Colony NangloiI On 01.11.84 about 300 or 400 people came to our house in the form of a crowd. Some of them were armed with wooden sticks and some of them were armed with iron rods. The crowd started pelting stones at my house. We took shelter on the roof our house. I was residing with my father five brothers namely Gurbachan Singh, myself Gurmeet Singh and Amarjeet Singh wife of my elder brother Gurbachan Singh was also residing with us. All of a sudden the crowd increased, I saw that a police vehicle was passing through that area. Accused Rampal St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 158 of 268 who was SHO of the area those days, was sitting in the vehicle. The Police vehicle went away through the crowd and SHO waived his hand at the crowd signaling them to go ahead. I alongwith my brother Gurbachan Singh, Manmohan Singh, my sister and Sister in law kept on pelting stones from the roof by throwing stones at the crowd. Gurmeet and Amarjeet my brothers were not with us on the roof at that time. After about an hour we all came down. The crowd set my house on fire. We drew our source out to protect ourselves and ran towards petrol Pump to save ourselves. After a little while Dalel Singh and SHO returned with one Karam Singh on foot. I saw that Sikh gentlemen namely Santa and Babla were lying injured. We all went to the nearby Gurudwara for Shelter.

At about 2 P.M a train came from Rohtak.

Some passengers got down from that train, those persons were also armed with wooden sticks. They all came to Gurudwara and charged on the Sikhs Few Sikhs died due to attack by those persons. Later, I came to know that my brother Gurbachan Singh had also sustained injuries at the hands of that public. I took my brother to the house of my maid servant which was nearby at a distance of 45 ft. They were given first aid. By that time, it was 5pm and darkness had descended. Some of my friends came and took us to their house. We stayed for two days in the house of our fiends. After staying for two days there we went to Sultan Puri. Again said it was me alone who had gone to Sultan Puri and stayed there at the house of Tara Chand a friend of mine, overnight. On the third day we were asked to go to PS Nangloi. We went there SHO got our hair cut at the police station . The person who had taken us to the police station subsequently sent us to Gurudwara Tilak Nagar namely Bhatta Sahib On 4th day St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 159 of 268 the same SHO came to Gurudwara in connection with the enquiry investigation and asked us to name the persons whom we suspected for the aforesaid injuries. First of all, I told him that it was he himself who was the culprit and hearing this he went away with his team. The crowd included one Prem Chand Sharma Niwas Singh again said Sri Niwas, and Dr. Gupta whose name later I came to know as Satpal Gupta. I identify the SHO Ramphal Singh who is present in the court today. I also identify Dalel Singh who was present with the SHO and was exhorting the public MARO MARO Accused Karam Singh was also exhorting the public in the same manner. Prem Chand and Ram Niwas to whom I referred as Niwas Singh have since expired. I cannot identify Satpal. He is not present in the court.

At this stage Ld. Addl. PP wants to ask some leading question to the witness as he is resiling from his previous statement made to the police.

On third day I came to know that 4 gentlemen (Sikh) had taken shelter in our house. I am not aware as as to whether or not my father Sardar Swaroop Singh, Amreek Singh Trilochan Singh and other relatives had taken shelter in the house of Patwari. I do not remember whether or not police recorded my statement on 8.10.91. I did not see Sajjan Kumar leading the crowd but later heard some version that Sajjan Kumar the them MP was among the public. Satpal Gupta is not present in the court. It is wrong to say that accused standing in front is Satpal Gupta......"

(164) Kuldeep Singh (PW2) has been exhaustively crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels wherein he has deposed that he never appeared St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 160 of 268 before any Commission headed by Hon'ble Justice Rangnath Mishra or any other committee constituted by the government to inquire into the riot cases of 1984. He has further deposed that he did not move any complaint or application to any of the authorities regarding the alleged incident. According to the witness, he did not tell the police that he saw that a police vehicle was passing through that area and accused Rampal who was SHO of the area those days was sitting in that vehicle and that the police vehicle went away through the crowd and SHO gave a signal by his hand to the crowd signaling them to go ahead, nor did he tell to the police that he saw Sikh gentleman namely Santa and Babla lying injured. He also did not tell the police that Dalel Singh who was present with the SHO was exhorting the public "Maro Maro" or that Karam Singh was also exhorting the public in the same manner. According to Kuldeep Singh, Krishna is his relative who was not present in his house on 01.11.1984 and she she did not visit their house in the morning or stayed in their house or thereafter in the house of the Partwari along with their family members till 02.11.1984. (165) Now coming to a point to point critical analysis of the testimony of Kuldeep Singh the son of the deceased Swaroop Singh and brother of witness Gurbachan Singh (PW1), Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3) and Gurmeet Singh (PW4). Kuldeep Singh (PW2) in his examination in chief dated 20.8.2004 has made allegations against accused Ram Pal Singh Rana the SHO of the area as the person who instigated and signaled to the rioters to go ahead. The relevant portion of the examination in chief is as under:

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 161 of 268 ".....All of a sudden a crowd increased. I saw a police vehicle was passing through that area. Accused Ram Pal Singh was the S.H.O. of the area in those days , was sitting in the vehicle. The police vehicle went through the crowd and the SHO waived his hand at the crowd signaling them to go ahead......."

(166) When confronted in his cross examination conducted on 1.10.2004 with his earlier statement, the witness Kuldeep Singh admitted that he did not tell the police that he saw that a police vehicle was passing through that area and the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana who was the SHO of the area was sitting in the vehicle and that the police vehicle went away through the crowd and the SHO waived his hand to the crowd signaling them to go ahead.

(167) Kuldeep Singh (PW2) in his crossexamination (para 5) has admitted that during investigations he did not tell the police or anyone else that SHO Ram Pal Singh Rana and SI Dalel Singh had returned with one Karam Singh on foot. He also admits that he did not tell the police that he had seen Santa and Babla lying injured nor he told the police that the accused SI Dalel Singh was present with the SHO and exhorting the rioters by saying Maro - Maro nor he informed the police that Karam Singh was also exhorting the public in the same manner. The relevant portion of his statement is as under:

"..... I did not tell the police or any one else that after a while Dalel Singh and the SHO returned with one Karam Singh on foot. I did not tell the police that I saw Sikhs St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 162 of 268 gentlemen namely Santa and Babla were lying injured..... ....It is correct that I did not tell that Dalel Singh who was present with SHO was exhorting the public Maro Maro. It is also correct that Karam Singh was also exhorting public in the same manner was not stated by me to the police or any one else.......".

(168) Clearly what he has now stated before this Court is an improvement. Kuldeep Singh (PW2) has also in his examination admitted that whatever allegations he had made against the police officials were never disclosed by him to anyone including the police official who investigated the cases relating to the riots. I may also observe that Kuldeep Singh had not named any politician or claimed that they were also leading the mob. Rather, in his crossexamination by the Addl. Public Prosecutor he has specifically stated that he did not see Sajjan Kumar the then MP leading the crowd but later on clarified stating that he had heard that Sajjan Kumar MP was also amongst the public. In fact he has also turned hostile on the identity of Satpal Gupta as the person who was present in the mob of rioters. (169) Further, the sequence of events disclosed by Kuldeep Singh (PW2) in examination in chief (last lines) indicate that accused Karam Singh came on foot with SHO and SI Dalel Singh. He has deposed that he had seen Santa and Babla lying injured but he has not made any allegation against the accused Karam Singh to the extent that he was a member of the mob or that he instigated the crowd/ rioters or that accused Karam Singh caused any injury to Babla or Santa nor he has stated that he saw anyone St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 163 of 268 causing injuries to these two persons by anyone. Kuldeep Singh (PW2) has only named accused Karam Singh but he has not identified him in court. He has not attributed any role to accused Karam Singh to the extent that he was the one who poured kerosene oil/ petrol on Santa or Babla and set them ablaze or that he was seen carrying some container. I am sure if it would have been so then Kuldeep Singh would have mentioned the same. Hence, the testimony of the witness Kuldeep Singh (PW2) wholly falsifies the claims of Gurbachan Singh.

(170) Also as per the version given by Kuldeep Singh (PW2) it was at around 2:00 PM that a train had come from Rohtak side and some passengers got down from the train and those persons were also armed with wooden sticks and then all of them came to the Gurdwara and charged at the members of the Sikh community in the said Gurdwara in which a few members of Sikh community had died.

(171) It is very strange that Kuldeep Singh (PW2) has not deposed that his father Swaroop Singh or his relatives Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh had died in the riots, on any of the days. He has also not stated that Santa @ Santokh Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla had died on 1.11.84 at any time in his presence and has only stated that they were lying injured. What happened to them thereafter he does not specify. I am sure if he was present at the spot and had witnessed the incident in which his father and other relatives and neighbours had expired. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 164 of 268 he would certainly make a mention of the same which he has not done. (172) It is writ large that Kuldeep Singh is contradicting the testimony of Gurbachan Singh in material particulars. It is also borne out from the evidence which has come on record that Kuldeep Singh (PW2) had refused to give statement to ACP Rajiv Ranjan (as confirmed by the IO) in his statement. He is, therefore, a witness who is not totally reliable and whose testimony would required an independent confirmation/ corroboration. (173) Further, it is also apparent that the evidence given by Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) individually and inter alia are totally contradictory in material particulars and there are glaring discrepancies, embellishments and improvements made deliberately in consultation or connivance with certain persons of the community and thus not only is the testimony of Gurbachan Singh (PW1) is non reliable but so also the testimony of Kuldeep Singh (PW2) is not wholly reliable and not worthy of credit.

Testimony of Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3) (174) The witness Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3) is the sister of complainant Gurbachan Singh and the witnesses Kuldeep Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Amarjeet Singh and daughter of deceased Swaroop Singh. She is the eye witness who has proved the incident. The relevant portion of her testimony is as under:

"....... In 1984 I was residing in JJ colony house no. do not remember At that time I was of the age of 1819 St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 165 of 268 years. I alongwith my brother Gurjeet Singh Amarjeet Singh Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh were residing in that house alongwith my father Sh. Swaroop Singh Sh. Amrik Singh and Sh. Trilochan Singh brother of my sister in law Paramjeet had also come there on 31 October 1984.

On 1st November 1984 at about 10/10.30 a.m. numbering about 700800 in mob came there and they started throwing stones at us. In mob one persons Sh. Prem Chand Jain who was known to us and was residing in the same locality was also amongst those persons. We climbed roof and after that mob put our house to fire. Our brothers faced the situation with swords in their hands. We took shelter in the house of Patwari whose house was in front of our house. Sh. Prem Chand Jain again came in evening time who was close to my father after using deceitful means he took my father outside my house. About 50100 persons came on 1st November 1984 in evening time when my father was taken out and my father was killed by the mob despite our request. Amreek Singh and Trilochan Singh were also killed on that day. I and my sister in law were called in police station. My brother also came there Inspector Ram Pal Rana was in Police Station and he advised us to cut our hairs so as to save us and we got our hairs cut. I have seen all the persons standing in the court and nobody is present in the court who participated in the riots on 31st October 1984 and 1st November......."

(175) It is evident from the above that the only accused she has named is Prem Chand Jain who has since expired during trial. She has neither named nor identified the accused Satpal Gupta nor the police officers St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 166 of 268 Ram Pal Singh Rana, S.I. Dalel Singh and Karam Singh. Rather, she has made no allegations on the local police similar to the ones made by Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh. On the contrary she has favoured the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana the then SHO as the person who had helped them when they had gone to the Police Station for protection. She has explained that it was Inspector Ram Pal Singh who in the Police Station had advised them to cut their hair so that they are not identified and targeted and could be saved. The relevant portion of her testimony is as under:

"..... Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana was in police station and he advised us to cut our hairs so as to save us and we got our hairs cut...."

(176) Her statement rather falsifies the claims of of Gurbachan Singh that their hair were got cut by force. In her testimony she has specifically deposed that when the accused were put to her that none of the persons in the court had participated in the riots on 31.10.1984 or 1.11.1984. the relevant portion of her testimony is as under:

"..... I have seen all the accused persons standing in the court and nobody is present in the court who participated in the riots on 31 October, 84 and 1st November, 84.....".

(177) In her deposition she does not state that any person by the name Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla were present at their house or that they were killed or burnt by anyone after they were thrown down from roof by the rioters as claimed by her brothers Gurbachan St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 167 of 268 Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) who were with her. (178) I may observe that the narration of Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3) appears to be natural and probable. She has not exaggerated upon the incident. According to her the incident took place much later after the men who took shelter in the house of the Patwari (Ram Dass) were taken out in the evening and killed. There is a material contradiction in her testimony as regards the version of her brothers Gurbachan and Kuldeep on the aspect of time, place and manner in which the crime was committed and a second version has emerged.

Testimony of Witness Gurmeet Singh (PW4) (179) The witness Gurmeet Singh (PW4) is the brother of complainant Gurbachan Singh (PW1), Kuldeep Singh (PW2), Devender Kaur (PW3), Amarjeet Singh (PW5) and son of the deceased Swaroop Singh and also an eye witness to the incident. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

"....... On 1/11/84, a mob had attacked our house and pelted stones. We ran away from our house. I cannot identify anyone from the mob. None of the accused present in Court was in the mob.

(At this stage, Addl. PP for State requests to cross examine the witness as he is resiling from the statement U/s 161 Cr. P. C. Heard. Allowed) XXXXX by Addl. PP for State.

I did not make any statement to police. It is wrong to suggest that I had made statement to police on St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 168 of 268 8/10/91. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated on that day that Sajjar Kumar, SHO Rampal Rana, Premchand Jain, elder son of Dr. Chanderbhan Gupta, a Khal Merchant known as Tunda and a milk vender's son who was in Traffic Police were inciting the mob. I did not make any statement to police on 30/10/91. I did not state to police on that date that I had gone to Nangloi and ascertained the names of the persons who were inciting the mob. I did not mention the names of Sajjan Kumar MP, Inspector Rampal Singh Rana, Ram Niwas Tunda, Dr. Satpal Gupta and HC Karam Singh and Prem Chand Jain in my statement on 30/10/91. Statements Mark P4/1 and P4/2 reader to the witness. He denies having made such statement. It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused persons and deposing falsely....."

(180) It is writ large that he has not supported the versions of Gurbachan Singh or Kuldeep Singh nor he has identified any of the accused in the Court as a part of the mob who had committed the rioting. In the opening lines of his testimony in his examination in chief he has deposed that "...... I cannot identify any one from the mob. None of the accused present in court was in the mob....". When cross examined by the Ld. Public Prosecutor he has denied having made any statement to the police on 30.10.91. He has denied that any of the accused (Satpal Gupta, Ram Pal Singh Rana, Dalel Singh and Karam Singh) were inciting the mob. He has also denied having given names of any of the persons including the police officials (Ram Pal Singh Rana, Dalel Singh and Karam Singh) as the St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 169 of 268 persons who were members of the mob which committed the rioting. He has denied having given any statements Ex.PW4/l and Ex.PW4/2 to the police or that he has been won over.

(181) In his entire testimony he does not testify or state that their hair were got cut forcibly. He also does not depose that Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla were present on their roof Y15, J.J, Camp no.1 or that any one was thrown down on 1.11.84 or that anyone poured kerosene oil and burnt them alive or that they were thrown from the roof. Though he has not been declared hostile by the prosecution, yet he is a witness who has not supported the earlier version given by him to the police. Testimony of witness Amarjeet Singh (PW6) (182) The witness Amarjeet Singh (PW6) is also the brother of Gurbachan Singh (PW1), Kuldeep Singh (PW2), Devender Kaur (PW3), Gurmeet Singh (PW4) and son of the deceased Swaroop Singh. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

"....... 01/11/1984, at about 10.30 or 11.00 AM I was making breakfast alongwith my family at my house. A mob came and pelted stones at our house. We could not face them and we dispersed here and there. We concealed ourselves in the house of some friend. On 3/11/1984. we came out of hiding after the arrival of paramilitary forces and then we came to know that my father had expired. I do not know what happened between 1/11/84 and 3/11/84. I do not know how my father expired. None of the four accused present in court St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 170 of 268 was present amongst the rioters who had attacked our house on 1/11/84.

(At this stage Addl. PP for State requests to cross examine the witness as he is resiling from the statement U/s 161 CrPC. Heard Allowed).

XXXXX by Addl. PP for State.

I did not make any statement to police. It is wrong to suggest that police had recorded my statement on 7/10/91. I did not mention in any such statement the name of any person. I did not state that some of the persons who were leading and inciting the mob were Sajjan Kumar MP. SHO Ram Pal Singh Rana, Prem Chand Jain, A Khal Merchant, elder son of Dr. C P Gupta and the son of a milk vendor who Employed in Delhi Traffic Police. I did not state to police that I had gone to PS Nangloi to lodge report or that SHO Ram Pal Singh Rana Was present there and he refused to register the report. It is incorrect to suggest that I made such statement to police statement Mark P6/1 read over to the witness. He denies having made such statement. It is wrong that I have been won over by the accused persons and deposing falsely....."

(183) It is evident that he too has not supported the version given by his brothers Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh. He has stated that he has no knowledge as to who his father had expired. He has given a clean chit to all the accused and has specifically deposed that none of the accused who were present in the court were present amongst the rioters who attacked their house on 1.11.1984. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

".....I do not know how my father expired. None of the four accused present in the court was present amongst St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 171 of 268 the rioters who had attacked our house on 1.11.84. I do not know what happened between 1.11.84 to 3.l1.84.....".

(184) When crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor he denied that his statement was recorded on 7.10.91. He has further denied having given the names of Sajjan Kumar the then Member Parliament or the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana the then SHO Police Station Nangloi or the accused Prem Chand Jain, or of any Khal merchant or of the elder son of Dr. C.P. Gupta or the son of milk vendor employed in traffic police. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

"......I did not state that some of the persons were leading and inciting the mob were Saijan Kumar M.P., S.H.O. Ram Pal Singh Rana, Prem Chand Jain, a Khal Merchant, elder son of Dr. C.P. Gupta and the son of milk vendor who is employed in Traffic Police.....".

(185) He has also denied the allegations made against Ram Pal Singh Rana the then SHO Nangloi of refusing to register the report on this complaint. In his entire testimony there is also no reference to their hair being cut by a Barber under force or compulsion. He has also not deposed anything to the extent that Santokh Singh @ Santa Singh or Darshan Singh @ Babla or any other were present at their house or that they thrown from the roof or that some one threw kerosene oil or petrol on said person and they were burnt. Though he has not been declared hostile by the prosecution yet it is writ large that he has not supported the earlier version given by him.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 172 of 268 Testimony of witness Krishna W/o Inder Singh (PW10):

(186) The witness Smt. Krishna W/o Inder Singh (PW10) is also a close relative of Gurbachan Singh being the motherinlaw of his brother in law (sala) the deceased Amrik Singh and mother of the deceased Trilochan Singh. She is an eye witness to the incident and has proved that on 31.10.84 she had gone to meet her soninlaw Amrik Singh at J.J. Colony Camp no.1, Nangloi where the family members of Swaroop Singh, father of her sonin law Amrik Singh, Gurbachan Singh and other were residing and that she stayed there in the house of her soninlaw and that on the same night her son Trilochan Singh, her soninlaw Amrik Singh and several persons were killed but she is unable to give the details as to how, when and where they were killed. The relevant portion of her testimony is as under:

"....... Satnam Kaur is my daughter and she was married to Amrik Singh. My son in law used to deal in scrap (kabari) in Mayapuri. The name of my son is Trilochan Singh who was about 24 years at that time. My son in law Amrik Singh came back from Bombay to Delhi on

31.10.1984 in the morning. In the evening my son went to meet my son in law at Nangloi from Subhadra Colony. On the same day, Mrs. Gandhi was assassinated and I came to know that riots are going on in whole of Delhi. I had gone to Nangloi to the house of my son in law Amrik Singh where the whole family members were present there. The family members consists of Swaroop Singh / father, my son in law Amrik Singh, Gurbachan Singh / brother in law of Amrik Singh.

Same day in the evening I started for my house by bus and reached General Store, Punjabi Bagh. There St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 173 of 268 was traffic jam and riots were going on. So I again went back to Nangloi to the house of my son in law. On the same night my son Trilochan Singh, my son in law Amrik Singh and several other persons were killed but I do not know how they were killed or who killed them. Some police official who was not in uniform by misrepresentation had taken away some documents from my possession and had obtained my signatures. (Court observation: on record there is photocopy of the seizure memo and defence counsel has no objection if the same is exhibited. I have seen the photocopy of the seizure memo bearing my signatures at point A. The same is Ex.PW10/A...."

(187) It is evident that she does not incriminate any of the accused persons namely Satpal Gupta Ram Pal Singh Rana, Dalel Singh and Karam Singh in any manner whatsoever. She has not stated that Santokh Singh @ Santa Singh or Darshan Singh @ Babla or any other Sikh were in their house or at their house on 01.11.84.

(188) I may further note that Smt. Krishna (PW10) is the mother of Satnam Kaur who is the wife of the deceased Amreek Singh. Satnam Kaur had been cited as a prosecution witness in the charge sheet but she has not appeared in the Court to submit for examination. It is reported by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor that perusal of the Police File shows that Smt. Satnam Kaur had been dropped as a witness by prosecution since she was not a witness to the 1984 riots. It is also evident from the file that after the summons were issued to Satnam Kaur there was a report that her mother St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 174 of 268 Smt. Krishna had met the Process Server and made a statement that her daughter Satnam Kaur i.e. the wife of Amrik Singh had expired on 5.11.2005.

(189) In this background, I now proceed to carry out a comparative evaluation of the testimonies of the three public witnesses i.e. Gurbachan Singh (PW1), Kuldeep Singh (PW2) and Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3) all of whom are reported to be eye witnesses being closely related to the deceased Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh, in a tabulated form as under:

Sr. Sequence of events as Sequence of events as Sequence of events as No. borne out from testimony borne out from testimony borne out from testimony of Gurbachan Singh of Kuldeep Singh of Devender Kaur

1. ➢ That in the year 1985 That on 31.10.1984 he ➢ That in 1984 when he was residing with was present at his house she was aged 1819 his family at JJ i.e. house No. Y13 JJ years she was colony, Y15, Nangloi, Colony, Nangloi along residing in JJ Colony Delhi and used to put with his father, five along with her a rehri. brothers namely brother Gurjeet ➢ That on 31.10.1984 he Gurbachan Singh, Singh, Amarjeet was present in his Gurmeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Gurbachan house at Y15, JJ Singh, wife of his elder Singh and Kuldeep Colony, Nangloi, brother Gurbachan Singh. Singh and their father Delhi and his relatives Sh. Swaroop Singh.

          including Amrik Singh                                           ➢   That Sh. Amrik Singh  
          and   Trilochan   Singh                                             and   Sh.   Trilochan  
          had come to meet him,                                               Singh, brothers of her  
          when   about   1012                                                sister   in   law  
          persons   came   to   him                                           Paramjeet   had   also  
          while   he   was   selling                                          come   there   on   31st 
          eggs   on   rehri   at   the                                        October, 1984.  
          road   and   was   away  
          from   his   house   at   a  


St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi                            Page No. 175 of 268
  Sr.   Sequence of events as     Sequence of events as      Sequence of events as

No. borne out from testimony borne out from testimony borne out from testimony of Gurbachan Singh of Kuldeep Singh of Devender Kaur distance of two fur longs, Tirlocahn Singh and Amrik Singh were standing with him.

2       That   those   1012   boys   No   deposition   on   this   No   deposition   on   this  
        told him that their Prime   aspect.                         aspect.
        Minister   had   been   killed  
        and asked him to close the  
        shop but he refused to do  
        so   on   which   they   started  
        quarreling   with   him   and  
        his   brother   in   laws  
        intervened  and ultimately  
        he   took   the   rehri   to   his  
        house.
3       That at about 9:00 AM on   That on 01.11.1984 about   That   on   01.11.1984   at

01.11.1984 the crowd 300 or 400 people came to about 1010:30 AM collected and started their house in the form of numbering about 700800 pelting stones on their a crowd and some of them in mob came there and house and he asked his were armed with wooden they started throwing children to hide sticks and some of them stones on them.

        somewhere nearby.                were   armed   with   iron  
                                         rods.  
4       That   thereafter,   he  went   That   the   crowd   started   That   they   climbed   roof

to roof on the first floor pelting stones at his house and after that mob put and saw the crowd on which they took shelter their house to fire and pelting stones on which on the roof of their their brothers faced and they (witness) also started house. met the situation with pelting stones which were swords in their hands thrown by the crowd. and they took shelter in the house of Patwari whose house was in front of their house.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 176 of 268 Sr. Sequence of events as Sequence of events as Sequence of events as No. borne out from testimony borne out from testimony borne out from testimony of Gurbachan Singh of Kuldeep Singh of Devender Kaur 5 That two others Sikh No deposition on this No deposition on this gentlemen also came aspect. aspect.

there to take shelter, who were not known to them but Santa and Babla their neighbors were with them.

6 No deposition on this No deposition on this ➢ That in the mob one
aspect. aspect. person Sh. Prem
Chand Jain who was
known to them and
was residing in the
same locality was also
amongst those
persons.
➢ That Sh. Prem Chand
Jain again came in
evening time who was
close to her father
after using deceitful
means took her father
outside her house and
about 50100 persons
came on 01.11.1984
in evening time when
her father was taken
out and her father
was killed by that
mob despite their
request.
7 That the crowd gave a No deposition on this No deposition on this
beating to Babla and aspect. aspect.
Santa and the above two
strangers with lathies.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 177 of 268
Sr. Sequence of events as Sequence of events as Sequence of events as

No. borne out from testimony borne out from testimony borne out from testimony of Gurbachan Singh of Kuldeep Singh of Devender Kaur 8 That all this continued for That at about 2 PM a No deposition on this quiet some time when in train came from Rohtak aspect. the meantime a crowd of side and some passengers about 700800 came from got down from that train buses from Rohtak side who were also armed with and all of them were wooden sticks and they all having lathies and dandas came to Gurudwara and in their hand and they charged on the members indulged into rioting. of Sikh community.

9 That when the rioting ➢ That few members of No deposition on this started Kuldeep and Sikh community died aspect.

        Gurmeet   his   brothers             due to attack by those  
        were   with   him   and   they       persons   and   later,   he  
        continued   to   face   the          came to know that his  
        crowd   and   his   younger          brother   Gurbachan  
        brother Amarjeet went to             Singh   had   also  
        take   care   of   Gurudwara         sustained   injuries   at  
        at 9:00 AM.                          the   hands   of   that  
                                             public.
                                           ➢ That   he   took   his  
                                             brother to the house of  
                                             his maid servant which  
                                             was   nearby   at   a  
                                             distance   of   45   feet  
                                             and   there   they   were  
                                             given first aid.

10. That the accused Karam That the accused Karam No deposition on this Singh was one of the Singh was also exhorting aspect.

persons who was the public in the same exhorting the crowd for manner Prem Chand and rioting. Ram Niwas.

11. That thereafter at the No deposition on this That on the same day in instigation of Karam aspect. the evening Amreek Singh Singh the crowd gave and Trilochan Singh were St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 178 of 268 Sr. Sequence of events as Sequence of events as Sequence of events as No. borne out from testimony borne out from testimony borne out from testimony of Gurbachan Singh of Kuldeep Singh of Devender Kaur lathi blows to Santa and also killed.

Babla and Karam Singh snatched away one can containing kerosene or petrol and sprinkled the same over the bodies of Babla and Santa and Karam Singh put their bodies a blaze on which both of them died.

12. That in the meantime, That all of a sudden, the No deposition on this police jeep also arrived crowd increased and he aspect. there and the accused saw that a police vehicle Rampal Rana the then was passing through that SHO came out of the jeep area and accused Rampal and gave an indication to who was SHO of the area the crowd which resulted those days, was sitting in continuing pelting stones that vehicle, who waived over their house by the his hands at the crowd crowd. signaling them to go ahead.

13. That the crowd threw No deposition on this No deposition on this petrol over their house, aspect. aspect.

doors of their house were burnt on which they also came armed with swords in their hand and they asked the people to face them at the point of sword/ talwar but nobody came forward.

14. That in the meantime SI ➢ That the accused Dalel No deposition on this Dalel Singh also reached Singh who was present aspect. near their house and with the SHO St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 179 of 268 Sr. Sequence of events as Sequence of events as Sequence of events as No. borne out from testimony borne out from testimony borne out from testimony of Gurbachan Singh of Kuldeep Singh of Devender Kaur SHO Rampal Rana and Inspector Ram Pal SI Dalel Singh exhorted Singh was exhorting the crowd to leave Babla the public "Maro and Santa Singh and Maro".

        take   care   of   those   who   ➢      That   the   crowd  
        were having swords.                     included  one   Prem  
                                                Chand   Sharma,   Sri  
                                                Niwas, one Dr. Gupta 
                                                whose   name   later   he  
                                                came   to   know   as  
                                                Satpal Gupta.

15. That he received injuries No deposition on this No deposition on this due to pelting of stones aspect. aspect.

16. That his children met him No deposition on this No deposition on this on third November at the aspect. aspect.

Police Station and Dr. Gupta was also exhorting the crowd.

17. That after getting injured No deposition on this No deposition on this he started moving aspect. aspect.

        towards     the   Gurudwara  
        for shelter but fell on the  
        way   and   when   he  
        regained consciousness it  
        was   quiet   dark   and   for  
        saving   himself   he   went  
        towards   Camp   No.   3  
        Nangloi.

18. That he took shelter in a No deposition on this No deposition on this house of one Sikh where aspect. aspect.

other persons 7080 in number were also residing.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 180 of 268 Sr. Sequence of events as Sequence of events as Sequence of events as No. borne out from testimony borne out from testimony borne out from testimony of Gurbachan Singh of Kuldeep Singh of Devender Kaur

19. That on 03.11.1984 when ➢ That he alone had That she and her sister in the riots subsided, police gone to Sultanpuri and law were called in Police came and removed the stayed there at the Station and her brother persons from there where house of Tara Chand, also went there and he met his family a friend of him, Inspector Rampal Rana members and when he overnight and on the was in Police Station who was still at the Police third day, they were advised them to cut their Station, Inspector Ram asked to go to Police hairs so as to save them Pal Rana and SI Dalel Station Nangloi on which they got their Singh came there and where the SHO got hairs cut.

        both   of   them   called   a           their   hair   cut   at   the  
        Barber and got their hair               Police Station.
        cut.                              ➢     That   the   persons   who  
                                                had taken them to the  
                                                Police             Station,  
                                                subsequently sent them  
                                                to   Gurudwara   Tilak  
                                                Nagar,  namely   Bhatta  
                                                Sahib.

20. That at that time Bharat No deposition on this No deposition on this Singh, Chairman and aspect. aspect.

Raj Singh were also present and when he asked them as to why were they treated like that, they told them that they should live like Hindu otherwise will meet this fate and from that Police Station they were taken to Gurudwara Tilak Nagar and stayed there for a month.

21. That on 07.11.1984 That on 4th day, the same No deposition on this Inspector Rana and his SHO came to Gurudwara aspect. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 181 of 268 Sr. Sequence of events as Sequence of events as Sequence of events as No. borne out from testimony borne out from testimony borne out from testimony of Gurbachan Singh of Kuldeep Singh of Devender Kaur Constables came there to in connection with the meet them and to make inquiry/ investigations and inquiry about the persons asked them to name the who had caused the above persons whom they said injuries to them on suspected for the which he replied that they aforesaid injuries and he were the persons who did told him that it was he all this to them. (SHO) who was the culprit on which they went away with his team.

22. That after one month they No deposition on this No deposition on this were taken to the Police aspect. aspect.

Station where Dalel Singh and Inspector Ram Pal Rana met them and threatened them not to depose against them otherwise they will have to face the consequences and they also took addresses of all of their relations living in India and they were made to sit for hours in the Police Station.

23. That he had heard that No deposition on this No deposition on this Sajjan Kumar was aspect. aspect.

leading the crowd but he did not see Sajjan Kumar.

(190) The above table clearly confirms that all the three alleged eye witnesses have contradicted each other on material particulars as regards the time, place, manner of the incident and the role attributed to the accused St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 182 of 268 before this Court including Sajjan Kumar a politician belonging to Congress (I) who had been earlier named in the affidavit filed before Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission but against whom no allegations whatsoever had been made by any of the witnesses when they were so examined before the Court. Official Witnesses involved in material investigations:

(191) Now coming now to the testimonies of the other Prosecution Witnesses involved in material Investigations.

Testimony of Inspector Raj Singh (PW9) (192) Inspector Raj Singh (PW9) of the Crime Branch. Prashant Vihar, Delhi has proved the relevant Roznamcha/ Daily Diary entries on which the prosecution is placing its reliance confirming that ASI Dalel Singh was on official leave during the period 27.10.1984 to 5.11.1984 and was required to resume his duties on 5.11.1984. he has been exhaustively crossexamined and the relevant portion of his crossexamination is as under

".....It is correct that as per procedure the Roznamcha (daily diary) A and B are being written/ run from 12 mid night to next midnight every day. Dalel Singh (accused present in court) was posted as ASI at PS Nangloi during OctoberNovember, 1984. I have seen carbon copy of Roznamcha dated 27.10.84 of P.S. Nangloi, Delhi, prepared in the same process and at serial no. 27 of the Roznamcha there exist an entry regarding ASI Dalel Singh about his departure on casual leave for six days plus two holidays combined, which was recorded at 2.15 p.m. mentioning therein the period of his casual leave St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 183 of 268 sanctioned by D.C.P. West , and as per this entry he was required to resume his duties on 5.11.84 before noon. I know accused Dalel Singh is resident of Qutab Garh, Delhi and he was living with his children in the village during the relevant time, The carbon copy of the daily diary is Ex.PW9/DA. Kulbhushan HC was on duty and he had opened the Roznamcha as per first entry in Ex.PW9/DA at midnight on 27.10.84. Chhattar Singh Constable no. 101W was the Head Moharar (Assistant Clerk) on that night and I identified the entry at serial no.

27 regarding Dalel Singh, which is encircled in Red at 'A' and 'B' same is written and signed by constable Chhatter Singh who has worked under me and I had seen him writing and signing. I have also seen him writing and signing. I have also seen copy (photo) of the duty roaster dated 31.10.84 and 1.11.84 of P.S. Nangloi and as per the duty roasters (chitha), ASI Dalel Singh shown/mentioned on casual leave on those days and that the photocopy of the duty roasters are attested as true copies by Sh. A.K. Singh, Section Officer, Justice Nanavati Enquiry Commission. The same are Ex.PW9/DB, Ex.PW9/DC, Fx.PW9/DD, Ex.PW9/DE and Ex.PW9/DF respectively. These documents relate from 31.10.84 to 4.11.84. On the day of the incident i.e. 1.11.84, 1 was also on duty at PS Nangloi and have continuously patrolling in the area due to the riots after the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi. All the staff of PS remained in the area of PS Nangloi to prevent the rioting. I was Incharge of Camp no.1, J.J. Colony, Nangloi for the last one week prior to the way of riots and on that day i.e. 1.11.84 I along with the staff was in the area of PS Nangloi including my own division. A large number of call received and officers/officials were on their toes to prevent the incidents. Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana have attended the large number of calls St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 184 of 268 (information) at that day including the incident of burning of Gurunanak Body Builders at Main Rohtak Road and Ram Pal Singh Rana SHO with staff had attended the said calls besides, so many other calls. I have not seen Inspector Rana at Camp no.1, J.J. Colony, Nangloi between 10 to 11 a.m. or so on that day. I have again seen the duty roaster Ex.PW9/DB to Ex.PW9/DF and there is no reference or mention in these duty roasters about HC Karam Singh accused present in court his name does not exist on these duty roasters as he was not posted at PS Nangloi during the period i.e. Oct./Nov. 1984........" (193) It is apparent from the testimony of the above witness that rather than furthering the case of the prosecution, the said official record confirms that the accused SI Dalel Singh was on leave on the date of the incident and not present on duty at Police Station Nangloi along with Inspector Ram Pal Singh on 1.11.1984 being on leave from 27.10.1984 to 5.11.1984.

Testimony of ASI Harpal Singh (PW16):

(194) ASI Harpal Singh (PW16) was posted with PS Nangloi as Constable/Driver in the year 1984 and posted with SHO Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, on Jeep no. 2157 and pick up Van no. DED 4318. On 31.10.1984 when the riots broke out in Delhi and also on the date of alleged incident dated 1.11.2984 he was on duty along with Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana and had driven him around to various places in the official vehicle. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 185 of 268 "....... On 1.11.84 I was on duty along with SHO / Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana and whenever a call was received by the SHO I accompanied him to different places on that day i.e. 1.11.84. There were riots on account of the assassination of the P.M. of India Smt. Indira Gandhi and messages were received by the S.H.O. on wireless about riots in different places. I was maintaining the log book of vehicle no.2 157 Jeep. During those days I remained on duty along with the SHO for 45 days continuously. On 31.10.84 I was on duty with the SHO as driver from 7.30 a.m. on 31.10.84. I remained on duly along with S.H.O. as driver till 4.11.84. Wherever I accompanied the S.H.O. in the aforesaid vehicle and period and obtained the signatures of the S.H.O. I can identify the signatures of the then SHO/ Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana if shown to me. I have seen the relevant entry in the log book register from 3 1.10.84 till 4.11.84 running into figure 9 pages containing 84 (eighty four) entries. These entries pertain to both the vehicles. The entries pertaining to vehicle no. 2157 (Jeep) in the log book are in my hand during the period 31.10.84 to 4.11.84. The relevant entries in the log book are already marked PW9/A to PW9/L now Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PWI6/A9. I identify the signature of Inspector SHO Ram Pal Singh Rana at point X on page Ex.PW16/A9 (original seen and returned). I know HC Karam Singh present in court. I had also known his father Sh. Kaptan Singh (now dead) who was also employed in Delhi Police and that he had retired in 1987. I have seen log book entry of vehicle no. 2157 (Jeep) and there is no reference of any call having received about the alleged incident at JJ Colony Camp no.1, Nangloi, Delhi before 12.20 p.m. or any other place in the area. The first entry of the incident at Gurunanak Body Builders was received at St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 186 of 268 12.20 p.m. and thereafter, other calls were received of Shiv Nagar as per entry mentioned in the log book. I had accompanied the SHO as a driver in the aforesaid Jeep to the places where I was directed by the SHO as per the calls received. I along with the SHO had returned to the P.S. Nangloi at 9.20 p.m. from the area of P.S. Nangloi on 1.11.84, and a report DD entry no. 18A was recorded by the S.H.O. about all the proceedings/acts performed on the day since morning till our return and copy of the said entry is Ex.PWI6/A6. Since I remained with the S.H.O. on duty on that day no incident had taken place in our presence at the J.J. Colony Camp no.1, Nangloi nor we had visited that place......."

(195) His presence along with the accused Ram Pal Singh is Natural and Probable. He has proved the various entries in the log book of the vehicle No. 2157 Jeep which entries does not in any manner further or confirm the oral testimonies of Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) showing the presence of Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana in the area of Camp No.1, Nangloi during the time the witness Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh claim the alleged incident took place. Testimony of ACP (Retd.) K.P. Sharma (PW21):

(196) Coming next to the testimony of ACP (Retd.) K.P. Sharma (PW21) it is evident that he had got registered the present FIR on the basis of the affidavits of Gurbachan Singh and Smt. Krishna received from Delhi Administration through /from Dr. (Mrs.) Satbir Silas (PW24). He has in his crossexamination (page 4) stated that he did not make any enquiry during St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 187 of 268 investigation as to which official was posted at PS Nangloi during the relevant period or which police officials was on duty on 1.11.84. He has also stated that he did not contact or met Ram Pal Singh Rana when SHO PS Nanglol or ASI Dalel Singh nor called them for interrogation/enquiry in this case. The record also reveals that there is nothing to show that the attendance or enquiry from the three police officials was required for which they were called by the Investigating Officer at any point of time and hence the inference that till such time their involvement was not an issue.

Testimony of Sh. MM Kutti (PW22) Joint Secretary (197) Sh. M.M. Kutti (PW22) the then Joint Secretary has proved and authenticated the sanction order Ex.PW22/A reflecting the allegations that on 1.11.84 the mob of rioters was instigated by the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana, Dalel Singh and Karam Singh but there is no reference in the said order that Santa @ Santokh Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla were burnt alive by pouring kerosene oil by Karam Singh or by any one else. It is pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the sanction was granted for the commission of offences under Sections 109/114/217/221 IPC and not for the commission of offence for which they have been charged (i.e. under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 r/w 149, 396 r/w 149 and 436 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code Indian Penal Code) and I find merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel since the sanction order Ex.PW22/A confirms that it does not cover the charge of alleged killing of Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 188 of 268 @ Babla. Hence for this reason in so far as the charge sheet against the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana (the then Inspector/ SHO Police Station Nangloi), Dalel Singh (the then Sub Inspector) and Karam Singh (the then Head Constable) relating to killing of Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla is concerned, they cannot be prosecuted for the same in the absence of a specific sanction in this regard unless proved Fristly that Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla had been killed (i.e. factum of homicidal killing) and Secondly that the act was not within the colour of office, both of which have not been established. Testimony of Inspector Mam Chand (PW23) (198) Inspector (Retd.) Mam Chand (PW23) is the Investigating officer in respect of the earlier FIR registered on the basis of statement of Gurbachan Singh S/o Swaroop Singh vide FIR No. 67/1987 Police Station Nangloi which is Ex.DW23/D1 wherein he had recorded the statement of Gurbachan Singh as regards the same incident in which the charge sheet has not been filed till date. The relevant portion of his crossexamination is as under:

"...... It is correct that in the case FIR No. 67/87 P.S. Nangloi, there is reference of Gurbachan Singh S/o Swaroop Singh R/o YBlock, J.J. Colony, Camp no.1, Nangloi. The copy of the said FIR is Ex.PW23/D1. It is correct that I had recorded statement of Gurbachan Singh U/S 161 Cr.P.C. on 25.10.90 amid on 28.7.91. The statement dated 25.10.90 is Ex.PW23/D2 and statement St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 189 of 268 dated 28.7.91 is Ex.PW23/D3. It is correct that in both these statements there is no reference of involvement of any of the accused present in the court, in the riots in any manners. I had recorded both the above statements correctly under my signatures. Before I joined the investigation of case FIR. no. 67 of 87, it was being investigated by ASI Charan Dass of Crime Branch. I had also seen the statement of Gurbachan Singh dated 30.9.89 recorded by ASI Charan Dass when the investigation was handed over to me. It is correct that even in the said statement now Ex.PW23/D4, it is nowhere mentioned that all the accused present in the court were involved in the riots in any manner......"

(199) He has proved the statement of Gurbachan Singh recorded by him vide Ex.PW23/D2 and Ex.PW23/D3 and also the statement of Gurbachan Singh recorded by ASI Charan Dass which is Ex.PW23/D4 in which Gurbachan Singh makes no mention whatsoever of any of the accused whom he has now named and identified for the first time. Testimony of ACP (Retd) Sh. Amarjeet Singh (PW25):

(200) ACP (Retd) Sh. Amarjeet Singh (PW25) is one of the Investigating Officer who had recorded the statements of family members of the victims and according to the witness none of them had made any allegations against any of the accused now named in the Court. the relevant portion of his crossexamination is as under:

"...... It is correct that during investigation none of the witnesses examined by me in this case had disclosed or St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 190 of 268 stated that any of the accused person present in court, had poured kerosene oil on any person and set him or her on fire on 1.11.84 or thereafter, during the riots after the assassination of late P.M. Indira Gandhi. It is correct that as per the record i.e. DD of P.S. Nangloi and daily duty roaster of P.S. Nangloi of 1.11.84 onwards HG Karam Singh was not posted at PS Nangloi nor he was assigned any duty there during the riots....... S.I. Dalel Singh was on casual leave w.e.f. 27.10.84 to 5.11.84 as per the entry in daily diary Ex.PW9/DA and the chitha Ex.PW9/DB. It is also correct that I have recorded the statement of ASI Harpal Singh, HC Umed Singh, SI Raj Singh in this case and all the documents including the chitha of the duty roaster PS Nangloi Ex.PW9/DB to confirm the writing and duties of the officials of P.S. Nangloi and it was confirmed that SI Dalel Singh was not on duty on 1.11.84...... It is also correct that I have also recorded the statements of Ram Dass Patwari, Afroz Ali and Smt. Krishna and none of these witnesses have made any allegations against the present accused persons about their involvement or role in any manner whatsoever during the riots on 1.11.84 and subsequent thereto.......

During investigation, it was found from the statements of the witnesses recorded by me that Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh and Swaroop Singh had taken shelter in the house of Ram Dass Patwari during the night intervening between l/2.l1.84 and that at about 4 AM on 2.11.84, they have alleged to have been murdered...... It is correct that record about the mobility of S.H.O. /wireless messages, the log book of vehicle were also seized by me and the entries made therein were verified which were found to be correct. I did not find any St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 191 of 268 kind of involvement of SH.O. Ram Pal Singh Rana accused present in the courting the riots which had taken place on 1.11.84 which was working as S.H.O. P.S. Nangloi. I have also verified the proper deployment of the force in the area by the S.H.O. P.S. Nangloi during riot......

I do not recollect if I have confirmed from the traffic office regarding the duties of HC Karam Singh on 1.11.84.....

I have seen the order of SI. Dalel Singh vide which he was released on anticipatory bail and at that time he was not found involved in the incident of 1.11.84......"

(201) The above witness being the Investigating Officer who recorded the statements of the family members of the deceased has confirmed that in so far as the version now put forth by Gurbachan Singh regarding time, place and manner of death of deceased Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh is concerned, there is a material contradictions in the same.

Testimony of DCP Rajiv Ranjan (PW26) (202) DCP Rajiv Ranjan (PW26) is the last Investigating Officer who had filed the charge sheet wherein in his crossexamination he has admitted that he had not personally checked the Roznamchas or Duty Roaster of Police Station Nangloi. He has also admitted that he did not collect any posting details of HC Karam Singh or his duty chart. The relevant portion of his crossexamination is as under:

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 192 of 268 "......I had not checked the Roznamcha or the duty roaster (chitha) of P.S. Nangloi for the relevant period i.e. during the riots which was done by A.C.P. Amarjit Singh. When I took over the investigation of this case for the second time the above relevant record to that effect was also handed over to me. I have to see the record to answer the question if accused then ASI Dalel Singh was on leave w.e.f. 27.10.84 to 5.11.84 (the witness is allowed to go through the record). The document Ex. Duty roaster shows ASI Dalel Singh was on casual leave w.e.f. 27.10.84 to 5.11.84.....

I must have seen DD entry no. 18A dated 1.11.84 PS Nangloi on the record if it was collected during the investigation by ACP Amarjit Singh and placed on record.......

I have seen the document Ex.A1. I seized vide memo Ex.PWI2/A. It is departure entry regarding S.I. Raj Singh along with one Head Constable and four constables and four home guards at 8.12 a.m. on 1.11.84 recorded vide DD no. 14B PS Nangloi......

It is correct that from the recording of statement of Smt. Krishna, I came to know that Sardar Swaroop Singh, Trilochan Singh and Amrik Singh had died on 2.11.84 in the morning at about 4 a.m. These three persons were hiding in the house of Ram Dass Patwari across the house of Gurbachan Singh. I had interrogated Ram Dass Patwari who corroborated the fact that these three persons, now deceased, other women of the family were in his house. It is correct that Ram Dass Patwari did not make any allegation against any person by name....... It is correct that there two charge sheets prepared in the present case main charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheets. I filed the main charge sheet in the court St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 193 of 268 and the supplementary charge sheet was filed by somebody else in 2002 on the orders of the court on the application of the special P.P......

I did not record the statement of any police official who are accused in the present case. I had visited the spot and large number of persons were contacted and interrogated. However, since nothing relevant was disclosed by them as such; their statements were not recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC......

I did not collect any record dated 1.11.84 relating to the duty of accused HC Karam Singh from the Traffic office.......

Most of the investigation relating to the police officials accused in the present case was conducted by A.C.P. Amarjit Singh. I had not checked the log book of the official vehicle of the then SHO R.P.S. Rana, PS Nangloi regarding the movement 1.11.84. It was done by ACP Amarjeet Singh......

I had seen aforesaid record. It is correct that as per record prior to document Mark A8 wireless log book now Ex.PW26/D1 no other information was received regarding the incident of rioting at any place within the jurisdiction of P.S. Nangloi before 12.15 p.m. on 1.11.84......".

(203) The above testimony of the then ACP Sh. Rajiv Ranjan establishes that there was no information of the rioting incident (if any) before 12.15 PM whereas according to the statement of Gurbachan Singh and others the incident is reported to be 9:00/10:00 AM. In para 3 of the English affidavit (Ex.PY) the time of the incident as mentioned is of 10:00 AM whereas in his affidavit in Gurmukhi (Punjabi) which is Ex.PX the time St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 194 of 268 he has given is of the morning hours on 1.11.84 (para 23). Similarly, Smt. Krishna in her affidavit Ex.PW11/A has given the time in para 3 of her affidavit as 10:00 AM. When as per the record produced in the court and testimony of the official witnesses produced by the prosecution there was no information at 10:00 AM regarding the riots at JJ Camp no.1 and no one else has stated that Ram Pal Singh Rana was present in the morning at JJ Camp no.1 or that he was seen there, then under the given circumstances the statement of Gurbachan Singh in this regard does not appear reliable and truthful.

(204) Having discussed the oral versions given by the various witnesses and tested their reliability and correctness of their claims on the touchstone of truthfulness, I hereby hold that the only two witnesses who have made allegations against the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana, Dalel Singh and Karam Singh i.e. Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) are not reliable and their depositions do not appear to be Honest and Truthful there being no independent corroboration, confirmation and support from any other source and hence the Ocular Evidence on which the prosecution places its reliance does not help the Prosecution in any manner. Forensic Evidence:

(205) Though the case of the prosecution is that the victims Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh, Sat Singh and Darshan Singh had been killed in 1984 Anti Sikh Riots in Nangloi and the properties of the St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 195 of 268 victims had been destroyed and looted yet no forensic evidence in the form of Crime Team Report, Photographs taken by the Experts, Exhibits lifted from the spot to establish the burning and destruction of property or any Chemical Analysis Report there of has been placed on record to independently confirm and establish the factum of destruction of the property as also the death of the deceased Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh, Sat Singh and Darshan Singh and the entire evidence on record is the Ocular and Circumstantial Evidence. In so far as Civil Liability is concerned the parameters for ascertaining the same are different from the parameters to be applied in cases where the Criminal Liability has to be fixed. In case of Criminal Liability the proof has to be beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately in the present case there is no evidence in the form of Chemical Analysis Report of the ashes or the photographs of the scene of crime to confirm the destruction of property of which the destruction is so attributed to the accused.

Aspect of death of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Triochan Singh, Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla - Not Established:

(206) The case of the prosecution is that on 31.10.1984 the Brutal Assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minster of India by her two Sikh Security Personnel's resulting into eruption of large scale of communal riots on 1.11.1984. It is the case of the prosecution that during St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 196 of 268 the said riots Swaroop Singh father of the complainant Gurbachan Singh, Amrik Singh brother in law of the complainant Gurbachan Singh, Trilochan Singh (brother in law of Amrik Singh the brother in law of complainant Gurbachan Singh) and the neighbours of Gurbachan Singh namely Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla had been brutally killed by the mob provoked by the accused named in the chargesheet.

(207) In order to prove its case the prosecution is placing its reliance on the oral testimonies of the family members of the alleged deceased Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh who according to the prosecution were the neighbours of the deceased Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla but unfortunately no Medical Record in the form of Death Summary, MLCs, Postmortem Reports etc. have been produced in the Court to substantiate the said claims. Reliance, however, is placed on the copy of extracts of particulars given to the informant in respect of Amrik Singh which extracts are dated 28.12.1984 copy of which is Mark PW26/X, copy of extracts of particulars given to the informant in respect of Trilochan Singh which extracts dated 22.12.1984 is Mark PW25/A and the record of the same is Ex.PW5/B and the copy of the extracts of particulars given to the informant in respect of Swaroop Singh which extracts dated 18.1.1985 is Ex.PW5/A which have been issued by the Government. Reliance is also placed upon the list of persons whose houses were looted and burnt and were staying in Gurdwara Sangat Sabha, Tilak Nagar which is Ex.PW17/A14 and the list of killed and missing persons of St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 197 of 268 YBlock, JJ Colony, Nangloi which is Ex.PW17/A15 provided by the Gurdwara Sangat Sabha, Tilak Nagar.

(208) Ld. Special Public Prosecutor Sh. B.S. Joon has explained that in the frenzy which took place following the death of Smt. Indira Gandhi the then Prime Minister of India on 31.10.1984, large scale riots broke put in various parts of the country including New Delhi when a large number of members belonging to Sikh community were reported to have been killed many of whose dead bodies were never recovered nor sent for postmortem and hence there is no availability of Medical or Forensic Record for this reason.

(209) The Ld. Defence Counsel Chaudhary Ram Kishan has vehemently argued that he is not disputing the factum of riots but in so far as the aspect of deaths is concerned the same is required to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that in order to make the accused Satpal Gupta, Ram Pal Singh Rana, Dalel Singh and Karam Singh liable for the offence of homicide it is the paramount obligation of the prosecution to First establish the factum of death of the victims (i.e. Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh, Dantosh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla) and Second that it was a homicidal death. He has argued that the criminal law does not permit any presumptions, assumptions or inferences in this regard and the factum of homicidal death has to be established beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to place before this St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 198 of 268 Court any evidence of death of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh, Santok Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla in the form of postmortem report, death summary/ medical record, FIR/ NCR, photographs/ vidoegraphy or forensic reports to establish the same. He has also argued that the extracts of the particulars given to the informant, Death Certificates and the entries made in the Death Register on which the prosecution is placing its reliance, are not admissible in evidence perse as they have not been proved in accordance with law and hence the factum of death of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh, Santok Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla do not stand conclusively established.

He has also pointed out that the family members of the deceased particularly of the deceased Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla have neither been cited as witnesses except for their father Channa Singh who was cited as a witness but has not been examined in the Court to confirm the factum of their homicidal death and prove their Death Certificates. He has further pointed out that in so far as deceased Amrik Singh is concerned his wife, parents and other relatives who were the best witnesses who could have proved his death have not been examined in the Court. He has pointed out that Satnam Kaur the wife of Amrik Singh was cited as a witness but not examined. It is argued that in so far as Trilochan Singh is concerned his case is also almost similar since despite the fact that his mother Smt. Krishna has appeared in the Court and deposed that Trilochan Singh had been killed in the 1984 riots yet her conduct is most unnatural and non St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 199 of 268 probable since earlier when the case bearing FIR No. 398/1984, under Sections 147/148/149/436/427/395/397 IPC Police Station Nangloi was registered which was relating to armed dacoity, arson, loot and destruction of property by fire etc. she did not even for once mention the factum of death of her son Trilochan Singh. He has submitted that it is not possible that a mother would omit to mention the fact relating to death of her son while getting a case registered and only mention the fact regarding looting and destruction of her property and it is this conduct of Smt. Krishna the mother of Trilochan Singh which casts shadow of doubt on the death of Trilochan Singh. It is also pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel that recently a large number of cases have come to light relating to 1984 riots where persons who had been shown to have expired in the 1984 riots and whose homicidal death was an issue before the Courts, have been found to be very much alive and in many of such cases compensation have been claimed and received by the family members and Legal heirs deceitfully by many persons by claiming themselves to be the victims whereas the genuine victims continued to suffer. He has pointed out that in this background many State Governments have also setup committeed to inquire into the said cases of deceit and fraud. In this regard he has placed his reliance in the case of Manohar Lal @ Munna Vs. State of Delhi in Crl. Appeal No. 630631 of 1999 decided on 16.10.1998 and has pointed out that this is one such case of 1984 riots where the victim was claimed to have expired pursuant to which the accused persons have been convicted for the St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 200 of 268 homicidal death but was ultimately found to be very much alive. He has further placed his reliance on the various news reports of the year 2013 showing that in Jharkhand about 25 Sikh families were found to have been fraudulently received Rs.1.5 Crores by furnishing false documents like fake medical certificates and medical bills and have swindled this amount at the cost of genuine victims and in Delhi where it has been discovered that around Rs. Two Crores, Eighty Seven lacs had been given to the families of Forty One Sikhs claiming the killings in 1984 Riots whereas the alleged victims were found to be very much alive, pursuant to which an FIR had also been registered at Crime Branch (EOW). He has pointed out that in both the States i.e. Jharkhand and GNCT of Delhi committees have also been set up to look into these cases of false claims. Chaudhary Ram Kishan Advocate has also pointed out that when this fraud was exposed regarding the genuine victims of riots are still awaiting compensation only because many Sikh families had deceitfully received the compensation by fraudulently magnifying their claims before the District Administration, the same was even widely criticized by the members of Sikh Community. It is submitted that the possibility of the same having happened in the present case cannot be ruled out in view of the fact that each and every adult member of the family of deceased Swaroop Singh, which includes Gurbachan Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Devender Kaur, Gurmeet Singh and Amarjeet Singh have not only been financially compensated but also allotted separate quarters/ accommodations and at present five independent St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 201 of 268 accommodations/ units are available with their family i.e. Quarter No. 16B, 25C, 39A, 23C, C55A and C54A at Tilak Vihar which aspect Gurbachan Singh refused to acknowledge in his crossexamination. (210) I have considered the rival contentions and also the material which has been placed before me as aforesaid and it is in the light of the aforesaid circumstances that I am required to deal with the issues relating to the alleged homicidal death of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh in respect of which charge sheet was filed against Prem Chand Jain in which the accused Prem Chand Jain was accordingly charged and the issue relating to homicidal death of Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla in respect of which charge sheet was filed against the accused Prem Chand Jain, Ram Niwas @ Tunda, Satpal Gupta, Ram Pal Singh Rana, Dalel Singh and Karam Singh and the accused accordingly charged. (211) The Ld. Defence Counsel has raised two fold arguments. The first plank of the argument is relating to the correctness of factum of death of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh, Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla whereas the second is relating to manner of proof of the same.

(212) In so far as the prosecution is concerned in order to establish the homicidal death of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh in the charge sheet filed against the accused Prem Chand Jain and the homicidal death of Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla in the charge sheet filed against the accused Prem Chand Jain, Ram Niwas @ St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 202 of 268 Tunda, Satpal Gupta, Ram Pal Singh Rana, Dalel Singh and Karam Singh, they are placing their reliance First on the testimonies of the alleged eye witnesses; Second on the list of the persons who had been killed and whose properties have been destroyed as provided by the Gurdwara Sangat Sabha, Tilak Nagar and Third on the official record relating to Birth and Death maintained by the GNCT of Delhi.

(213) At the very Outset I may observe that admittedly the dead bodies of none of these allegedly deceased i.e. Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh, Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla had been recovered nor there is any documentary record in the form of Postmortem Reports, Death Summary, photographs/ videographs or forensic reports etc. to establish the factum of their death. (214) Secondly coming to the oral testimonies of the various eye witnesses i.e. Gurbachan Singh (PW1), Kuldeep Singh (PW2), Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3), Gurmeet Singh (PW4), Amarjeet Singh (PW6) and Smt. Krishna (PW10), it is only Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh who have for the first time have made allegations against the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana, Dalel Singh and Karam Singh of having poured kerosene oil and set them on fire. As has been discussed separately both Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh have been held to be unreliable witnesses and their testimonies do not find any support from any other source. In so far as Smt. Devender Kaur is concerned she has only named Prem Chand Jain the deceased accused against whom the proceedings have been Abated and St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 203 of 268 there is no other evidence in the form of oral testimony of any other public witness to confirm the deaths of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh, Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla. (215) Thirdly coming next to the list of persons whose houses were looted and burnt and were staying in Gurdwara Sangat Sabha, Tilak Nagar (Ex.PW17/A14) and the list of killed and missing persons of YBlock, JJ Colony, Nangloi (Ex.PW17/A15) provided by the Gurdwara Sangat Sabha, Tilak Nagar. These copies of lists have only been Exhibited but not Proved by the prosecution. Hence, a very big question mark has been raised on the authenticity and correctness of the said list. They are the typed lists which does not bear any authentication stamp nor the source from which it emanated has come on record. The best persons who could have proved the said list were the members of the Gurdwara Sangat Sabha Committee who have prepared this list along with details of addresses, who incidentally have neither been cited as witnesses nor examined in the Court. What was the source of information with them on the basis of which this list was prepared? Whether these members of the Gurdwara Committee had conducted their verification of the claims with regard to the assertions of death and looting/ burning of properties? If yes, then who were the persons who conducted these verifications? These again are the questions which could only have been answered only by the members of the Gurdwara Committee. Having secured the copies of these lists what is it that prevented the Investigating Agency from examining and citing these St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 204 of 268 members as witnesses and from carrying out independent investigations on the aspect of authenticity and correctness of these lists. The best evidence has not been brought before the Court, rather have been withheld from the Court.

(216) Fourthly I may observe that registration of Birth & Death in India are governed by Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Death Certificates is issued in strict compliance to its provisions. As per the provisions of Section 12 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 The Registrar shall, as soon as the registration of a birth or death has been completed, give, free of charge, to the person who gives information under section 8 or section 9 an extract of the prescribed particulars under his hand from the register relating to such birth or death. Further, as per the provisions of Section 13 (1) Any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period specified therefor, but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed. (2) Any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority and on payment of the prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. (3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 205 of 268 registered only on an order made by a magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. (4) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to any action that may be taken against a person for failure on his part to register any birth or death within the time specified thereof and any such birth or death may be registered during the pendency of any such action.

(217) In the present case though it is alleged that the death of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh, Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla had occurred on 1.11.1984 yet the information was given to the competent authority after thirty days i.e. in December 1984 - January 1985.

(218) Fifthly as per the Statutory Law (i.e. Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969) in case of delayed information after thirty days but within one year the registration is permissible only on payment of prescribed fee and production of affidavit made before a Notary Public or any other officer in this regard. The perusal of mark 26/X and Mark 25/A confirm that they are only the Extracts of Particulars given to the Informant as per the provisions of Section 12 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 in respect of Amrik Singh which is Mark 26/X and in respect of Trilochan Singh which is Mark PW25/A which have been labeled as 'Death Certificates' but are not actually the Death Certificates. The prosecution has St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 206 of 268 not been able to prove or establish whether the Death Certificates have ever been issued by the competent authority under Section 13 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The record produced before this Court also does not confirm the said aspect of issuance of Death Certificates after completion of the mandatory requirements and verification and I am sure that in case if they would have been issued, the details of the persons giving the affidavit and attested by the Notary or Competent Officer as the case may be and the permission of the Registrar would have found a mention in the official record produced in the Court which again is not the case. (219) Sixthly in so far as Amrik Singh the brother in law of Gurbachan Singh is concerned, the wife of Amrik Singh namely Smt. Satnam Kaur was cited as a Prosecution Witness. However, since she was not a witness to the incident, therefore, the prosecution has chosen not to examine her and dropped her. No other family members of Amreek Singh including his parents and siblings have been examined to prove the extent of his death. Further, the sister of Amrik Singh and wife of Gurbachan Singh has also not been examined by the prosecution. However, the Extract of Particulars given to the Informant of Amrik Singh which is Mark PW26/X has been placed on record and there is no evidence or document produced before the Court by the accused that Amrik Singh had been heard and seen alive.

(220) Seventhly in so far as Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla are concerned though their Death Certificates have been St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 207 of 268 placed on record but they have neither been exhibited nor marked nor proved as per the provisions of Section 13 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The record of the registration along with details of informant and supporting affidavit have not been placed on record. The list given to the police by Gurdwara Committee which also gives the details of their Ration Card has not been proved nor the copies of the Ration Card have been collected to prove their identity and addresses. Also, their father Sh. Channa Singh though has been cited as a witness but has not been produced in the Court. The perusal of record reveals that summons were issued against him but as per the report on the summons he was not found available on the given address. No attempts were made by the prosecution to trace him or get him to the Court. He was the best person who could have proved the factum of death of his sons but unfortunately this best witness had been withheld from the Court. No other family member of Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Bablahad been cited as a witness nor produced in the Court to prove the factum of their death. Only the witness Gurbachan Singh - PW1 (who has already been held to be an unreliable witness) has stated that Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla had been killed whereas Kuldeep Singh (PW2) stated that they were only injured. It is writ large from the lists provided by Gurdwara Sangat Sabha that the details of the ration cards of the persons who had expired was in the possession of Investigating Agency. No efforts have been made to bring the said documents to verify the claims of the eye witnesses regarding Santokh St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 208 of 268 Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla residing at the spot and to confirm the eye witness count given by them. No attempt has been made to produce their family members to the Court in order to prove the factum of their death.

(221) Eighthly during the Course of arguments Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the State has place his reliance on the provisions of Section 107 and 108 of Evidence Act dealing with the presumption on the question whether a man is alive or dead. I may observe that as per the provisions of Section 107 Indian Evidence Act when the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is shown that he was alive within thirty years, the burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who affirms it. Further, as per the provisions of Section 108 Evidence Act when the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it and needless to say this is a declaration which can only be given by a competent Civil Court.

(222) Lastly having said this I now proceed to put the details of the alleged deceased Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh, Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla so placed before the Court by the prosecution in the form of Extracts of Information given to the Registrar Death and Birth and the alleged list of persons whose houses were looted and burnt and were staying in Gurdwara Sangat Sabha, Tilak Nagar St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 209 of 268 (Ex.PW17/A14) and the list of killed and missing persons of YBlock, JJ Colony, Nangloi (Ex.PW17/A15) provided by the Gurdwara Sangat Sabha, Tilak Nagar (though not proved by the prosecution), in a tabulated form with the details so given in the said documents which would show the material differences as reflected in the aforementioned documents as regards the addresses of the alleged deceased:

Sr.   Name of the                   Address                 Date of        Record          Date of  
No. deceased                                                death        proving the     issuance of  
                                                                            death           death  
                                                                                          Certificate/  
                                                                                         Execution of  
                                                                                          document

  1. Swaroop             Y33,34,   JJ   Colony,  1.11.1984 Ex.PW5/A                     18.1.1985 
     Singh S/o           Nangloi,   Delhi   (as   per                                    vide no. 27  
     Surjan              Death Certificate)                                              Not Proved
     Singh, aged 
     45 years,           Y13,   33   (As   per   the  Nil              Nil              Not Proved 
     married             List   of   persons   whose 
                         whose were looted  and 
                         burnt   and   were   staying 
                         in   Gurdwara   Sangat 
                         Sabha,   Tilak   Nagar   - 
                         Ex.PW17/A14 

                         (Note:   the   address 
                         mentioned   in   Death 
                         Record   is   Y3334 
                         whereas in the present 
                         list   it   is   mentioned   as 
                         Y13, 33 for which no 
                         explanation                  is 
                         forthcoming)



St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi                             Page No. 210 of 268
 Sr.   Name of the                   Address                 Date of        Record          Date of  
No. deceased                                                death        proving the     issuance of  
                                                                            death           death  
                                                                                          Certificate/  
                                                                                         Execution of  
                                                                                          document

                         Y1323   (As   per   the  Nil                 Nil              Not Proved
                         List   of   killed   and 
                         missing   persons   of   Y 
                         Block,   JJ   Colony, 
                         Nangloi 
                         Ex.PW17/A15)

                         (Note:   the   address 
                         mention   in   the   Death 
                         Record   is     Y3334 
                         whereas in the present 
                         list   it   is   mentioned   as 
                         Y13, 23 for which no 
                         explanation                  is 
                         forthcoming)

2      Amrik Singh  Y1535,   JJ   Colony  1.11.1984 Mark PW26/X 28.12.1984 
       @   Amritsar  Nangloi                                      Not Proved
       S/o   Jeet 
       Singh,   aged  Dhobi Ghat (As per the  Nil     Nil         Not Proved
       28 years       List   of   killed   and 
                      missing   persons   of   Y 
                      Block,   JJ   Colony, 
                      Nangloi 
                      Ex.PW17/A15)

                         (Note:   the   address 
                         mentioned   in   Death 
                         Record   is   Y1535 
                         whereas in the present 
                         list   it   is   mentioned   as 
                         Dhobi Ghat for which 
                         no   explanation   is 

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi                             Page No. 211 of 268
 Sr.   Name of the                   Address                Date of        Record          Date of  
No. deceased                                               death        proving the     issuance of  
                                                                           death           death  
                                                                                         Certificate/  
                                                                                        Execution of  
                                                                                         document

                         forthcoming)

3      Trilochan       JJ Colony, Nangloi No. 1.11.1984 Mark PW25/A  22.12.1984 
       Singh   S/o  1, Delhi                            and Ex.PW5/B Not Proved
       Inder   Singh, 
       aged   30  Sarai Rohilla, Subhadra  Nil          Nil          Not Proved
       years           Colony,   Delhi  (As   per 
                       the   List   of   killed   and 
                       missing   persons   of   Y 
                       Block,   JJ   Colony, 
                       Nangloi 
                       Ex.PW17/A15)

                         (Note:   the   address 
                         mentioned   in   Death 
                         Record   is   JJ   colony 
                         No.1, Delhi whereas in 
                         the   present   list   it   is 
                         mentioned                  as 
                         Subhadra   colony, 
                         Sarai   Rohilla   for 
                         which   no   explanation 
                         is forthcoming)

4      Sant   Singh  Y31,32,   JJ   colony,  1.11.1984                Neither          7.1.1985 vide 
       @ Santa S/o  Nangloi                                            exhibited   nor  no. 10  
       Channa                                                          marked   nor  Not Proved
       Singh,   aged                                                   proved
       25   years 
       (married)      Y31,   32   (As   per   the  Nil                Nil              Not Proved
                      List   of   persons   whose 
                      whose were looted  and 
                      burnt   and   were   staying 

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi                             Page No. 212 of 268
 Sr.   Name of the                   Address                  Date of        Record          Date of  
No. deceased                                                 death        proving the     issuance of  
                                                                             death           death  
                                                                                           Certificate/  
                                                                                          Execution of  
                                                                                           document

                         in   Gurdwara   Sangat 
                         Sabha,   Tilak   Nagar   - 
                         Ex.PW17/A14

                         Y319, 320 (As per the  Nil                     Nil              Not Proved
                         List   of   killed   and 
                         missing   persons   of   Y 
                         Block,   JJ   Colony, 
                         Nangloi 
                         Ex.PW17/A15)

                         (Note:   the   address 
                         mentioned   in   Death 
                         Record   is   Y3132 
                         whereas in the present 
                         list   it   is   mentioned   as 
                         Y319,   320   for   which 
                         no   explanation   is 
                         forthcoming)

5      Darshan        Y11,12, JJ colony,                   1.11.1984 Neither          27.2.1985 
       Singh   @  Nangloi                                             exhibited   nor  vide No. 46
       Babla   S/o                                                    marked   nor  Not Proved 
       Channa                                                         proved
       Singh,   aged 
       17 years

                         Y11,   12   (As   per   the  Nil               Nil              Not Proved
                         List   of   killed   and 
                         missing   persons   of   Y 
                         Block,   JJ   Colony, 
                         Nangloi 
                         Ex.PW17/A15)


St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi                              Page No. 213 of 268
 (223)              It   is  hence   reflected from  the above that  there is  a material

variation in the details of addresses mentioned in the Information given to the Registrar Birth and Death and the list provided by the Gurdwara Sangat Sabha, Tilak Nagar and there is no strict proof of death of the above victims. (224) The law as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilawar Hussain & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in AIR 1991 SC 56 is very clear. Even in a case which of communal violence the evidence produced before the Court should be reliable, truthful, honest and fair and the acquittal or conviction depends on proof or otherwise of the criminological chain which invariably comprises of why, where, when, how and who. The appreciation of evidence and credibility of the witnesses in such cases has to be measured with the same yard stick as used in an ordinary crime and it does not matter whether the crime before the Court is one which is ordinary or a crime emanating due to communal frenzy. Law does not make any distinction in leading of evidence or its Assessment. (225) No doubt, as pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel there may have existed some cases unearthed in the country for which Special Committees have been set up where persons have been found to be deceitfully enjoying the benefits so granted by the Government at the cost of genuine victims who continued to suffer, yet this I feel is only an aberration and cannot be generally inferred or presumed though rule of caution would, of course, apply. In so far Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 214 of 268 Singh are concerned the records so placed before the Court which are Extracts of information regarding their death, have not been proved in accordance with law nor it stands established that any order for verification, confirmation and issuance of Death Certificates in accordance with law has been passed. Further, in so far as Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla are concerned the prosecution has not proved their Death Certificates in accordance with law. Even the Ocular Evidence as discussed herein above is insufficient in this regard. However, merely because the prosecution has not been able to prove or establish the killings of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh, Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla, it does not imply that the said persons are still alive, but only that the fact of killing as alleged has not been proved in accordance with law beyond reasonable doubt.

(226) In so far as the Civil Liability is concerned there is a presumption regarding death of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh, Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla but in so far as Criminal Prosecution is concerned the proof adduced has to be beyond reasonable doubt which in the present case is not and I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove firstly the factum of death of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh, Trilochan Singh, Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla in the incident as alleged beyond reasonable doubt and secondly that the deaths in question were homicidal.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 215 of 268 Spot of the incident and time of death of alleged deceased in both charge sheets - Not Established:

(227) The case of the prosecution is that after the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi the then Prime Minister of India, Riots erupted in various places in Delhi and its impact reached Nangloi on 1.11.1984. It has been alleged that on 1.11.1984 between 10:00 AM to 2:30 PM at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi, Delhi the accused Prem Chand Jain (deceased), Ram Niwas @ Tunda (deceased), Satpal Gupta, Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, ASI Dalel Singh and Head Constable Karam Singh along with their other associates being the members of unlawful assembly instigated the rioters to kill the members of Sikh community namely Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla both sons of Channa Singh pursuant to which both Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla were murdered.

(228) Further, it has been alleged that on 2.11.1984 i.e. intervening night of 12.11.1984 at about 03:0004:00 AM near the house of Ram Dass Patwari, YBlock, JJ Colony, Nangloi, Delhi the accused Prem Chand Jain along with 700800 members of an unlawful assembly instigated the rioters to kill the members of Sikh community namely Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh pursuant to which they were murdered.

(229) However, from the evidence which has come on record three different versions of the incident have emerged. In the English Affidavit filed by Gurbachan Singh before Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission (Ex.PY) Gurbachan Singh had mentioned about the incident which had St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 216 of 268 taken place on 1.11.1984 at 10:00 AM whereas in the Gurmukhi (Punjabi) Affidavit which is Ex.PX Gurbachan Singh mentioned about two incidents, First of 1.11.1984 in the morning when he alleged that their house was attacked by the mob and after some time their neighbours Santa and Babla were killed and Second of 1.11.1984 at 11:00 PM when he alleged that Prem Chand Jain knocked at the house of Ram Dass Patwari and surrendered their men i.e. Swaroop Singh, Trilochan Singh and Amrik Singh to the mob who were then killed by the mob. In the Court Gurbachan Singh (PW1) has given the time of incident as 9:00 AM on 1.11.1984 when he alleged that the crowd collected and started pelting stones on their house.

(230) In so far as his brother Kuldeep Singh (PW2) is concerned, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. given to the police he alleged that in the morning of 1.11.1984 the mob attacked their house but he along with his brothers escaped and later he came to know that at about 12:00 Noon the mob had killed the members of Sikh community who had taken shelter in their house and also came to know that on the instigation of Prem Chand Jain the mob killed his father Swaroop Singh and other relatives Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh on 2.11.1984 near the house of Patwari (basis of information is hearsay). However, in the Court he is totally vague and non specific in respect of time and place of the incident.

(231) The last version which has emerged is on the basis of the testimony of Devender Kaur (PW4) daughter of the deceased Swaroop Singh who in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. alleged that the St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 217 of 268 incident of killing of her father Swaroop Singh and two other relatives namely Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh took place on 1.11.1984 during midnight hours and later on she came to know that in the morning of 1.11.1984 when the mob attacked their house, two sons of her neighbour Channa Singh had died (basis of information is hearsay). Whereas in the Court she has given the time of incident as 10:0010:30 AM of 1.11.1984 when she alleged that the mob started pelting stones at their house and it was in the evening that her father Swaroop Singh and two other members of Sikh community i.e. Trilochan Singh and Amrik Singh were killed.

(232) As already discussed none of the above versions have been proved and established beyond reasonable doubt. While the witness Gurbachan Singh in his crossexamination admitted that personally he is not aware when his father Swaroop Singh and other relatives Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh had died, the witness Kuldeep Singh (PW2) has not deposed that his father Swaroop Singh or his relatives Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh had died in the riots, on any of the days. He has also not stated that Santa @ Santokh Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla had died on 1.11.84 at any time in his presence and has only stated that they were lying injured and the version of Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3) finds no independent confirmation.

(233) Coming next to the Spot of Incident, I may observe that the prosecution is relying upon the Rough Site Plan (Ex.PW7/A) and Scaled Site Plan (Ex.PW7/B) to prove the spot of incident. However, both the said St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 218 of 268 site plans are non specific and vague. The exact status and position which existed at the spot has neither been established nor established. The above site plans does not show the Railway Lines or the Bus Stand from where it is alleged that the Rioters had come and hence in this background it is not possible to ascertain the distance between the said places and the spot where Gurbachan Singh and Kuleep Singh were allegedly present. It is also not possible to ascertain whether both these witnesses i.e. Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh were in a position to clearly see the incident as claimed by them. I am informed by the Special Public Prosecutor that as on date the position at the spot has drastically changed and at the place where the house of Gurbachan Singh and his four brothers was situated presently, there exists a Jain Temple. The basic question which still remains is that neither the addresses of the victims where they were residing at the time of the incident has been established by bringing on record their Ration Card, ID Cards etc. nor any of these witnesses ie. Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) have in their testimonies proved the said spot so much so that even the site plan has not been put to any of the witnesses to establish the same and to make the matter worse, the addresses of the victims so mentioned in the list of those killed in the riots provided by the Gurdwara Sangat Sabha, Tilak Nagar are different from the addresses so reflected in the official records of Registrar Birth and Death (which record has even otherwise not been proved as per law).

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 219 of 268 (234) I may add that as already discussed herein above, even the dead bodies of Swaroop Singh, Trilochan Singh and Amrik Singh, Santokh Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla had not been recovered and hence there is no Medical, Forensic or Scientific Evidence to confirm the place and time of death. No explanation is forthcoming as to what happened to their bodies, in case if they were killed. This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and establish the exact spot/ place of the incident as well as the time of the incident as claimed by the witnesses.

Observations & Findings against various accused:

(235) Having discussed the various evidence which has come on record, I now proceed to discuss the allegations against the various accused individually. My observations and findings are as under:

Allegations against accused Ram Niwas @ Tunda (now deceased):

(236) I may observe that two separate charge sheets were filed on 14.2.2002, one in respect of accused Prem Chand Jain for the riots/ alleged killing of Swaroop Singh, father of Gurbachan Singh and his two relations Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh on the early morning of 2.11.1984 at the house of Sh. Ram Dass Patwari and Second against six accused namely (1) Prem Chand Jain, (2) Ram Niwas @ Tunda, (3) Satpal Gupta, (4) Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, (5) ASI Dalel Singh and (6) Head Constable Karam St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 220 of 268 Singh for inciting the mob/ unlawfully assembly on 1.11.1984 around 10/11 A.M. at Y15, JJ Camp no.1, Nangloi regarding the alleged killing of Sant Singh @ Santokh Singh @ Sat Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla S/o Channa Singh R/o JJ Colony Camp no. 1, burning/looting by the mob of house of Gurbachan Singh and his family members.

(237) I may observe that as per the Judicial even before the framing of charges the accused Ram Niwas @ Tunda had expired. Therefore in this view of the matter no findings are required to be given as the proceedings against him having Abated.

Allegations against accused Prem Chand Jain (now deceased):

(238) It has been alleged that on 1.11.1984 between 10:00 AM to 2:30 PM at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi the accused Prem Chand Jain (now deceased) and Ram Niwas @ Tunda (now deceased) along with five hundred to seven hundred unknown persons (not arrested) were member of an unlawful assembly with the common object to kill members of Sikh community and in prosecution of the common object of the same committed rioting duly armed with deadly weapon which rioters had used as weapons of offence and was likely to cause death. It has also been alleged that the accused being members of unlawful assembly instigated the rioters to kill members of Sikh community namely Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh which they knew likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. Further, as per allegations St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 221 of 268 pursuant to the said instigation members of Sikh community namely Sat Singh, Darshan Singh both sons of Charan Singh were murdered. Also, as per the allegations the accused being a member of unlawful assembly, committed dacoity by looting the household properties of Gurbachan Singh situated at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi and while doing so they killed Sat Singh and Darshan Singh. It has also been alleged that the accused persons were the members of unlawful assembly with the prosecution of the common object to commit mischief and burnt the dwelling house of Gurbachan Singh situated at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi.

(239) Charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 r/w 149, 396 r/w 149 and 436 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Prem Chand Jain. However, during the trial the accused Prem Chand Jain against whom the main allegations were made and who has also been identified as the assailant by the witness Devender Kaur (PW3) had expired.

Therefore, no findings are required to be given in view of the proceedings against him having Abated.

Allegations against the accused Satpal Gupta:

(240) As per allegations, on 1.11.1984 between 10:00 AM to 2:30 PM at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi the accused Satpal Gupta along with other accused i.e. Dalel Singh (the then Sub Inspector), Karam Singh (the then Constable), Ram Pal Singh Rana (the then SHO Police Station Nangloi), Prem Chand Jain (now deceased) and Ram Niwas @ Tunda (now St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 222 of 268 deceased) along with five hundred to seven hundred unknown persons (not arrested) were member of an unlawful assembly with the common object to kill members of Sikh community and in prosecution of the common object of the same committed rioting duly armed with deadly weapon which rioters had used as weapons of offence and was likely to cause death. It has also been alleged that all the accused being members of unlawful assembly instigated the rioters to kill members of Sikh community namely Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh which they knew likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly.

Further, as per allegations, pursuant to the said instigation members of Sikh community namely Santokh Singh @ Sat Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla both sons of Charan Singh were killed/ murdered. Also, all the accused persons which includes Satpal Gupta being members of unlawful assembly, committed dacoity by looting the household properties of Gurbachan Singh situated at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi and while doing so they killed Sat Singh and Darshan Singh. It has also been alleged that the accused persons were the members of unlawful assembly with the prosecution of the common object to commit mischief and burnt the dwelling house of Gurbachan Singh situated at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi. (241) I have gone through the evidence on record and I may observe that charges were framed against the accused Satpal Gupta on the basis of the statements of Gurbachan Singh (PW1), Kuldeep Singh (PW2), Devender Kaur (PW3), Gurmeet Singh (PW4), Amarjeet Singh (PW6) and Smt. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 223 of 268 Krishna (PW10). However, during their depositions in the Court none of these witnesses have identified the accused Satpal Gupta as one of the person who was a member of the Unlawful Assembly and the witnesses Devender Kaur (PW3), Gurmeet Singh (PW4), Amarjeet Singh (PW6) and Smt. Krishna (PW10) have turned totally hostile and have not supported their earlier version at all as regards the manner in which the incident took place and on identity of the accused Satpal Gupta. Further, in so far as the witness Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh are concerned, they have given their version of the manner in which the incident took place but have not identified the accused Satpal Gupta as a part of the unlawful assembly. In fact Kuldeep has named one Satpal Gupta being a part of the mob but not identified him in the Court as the same person who was a part of the mob as is being referred to by him.

(242) Under the given circumstances there being no direct ocular evidence against the accused Satpal Gupta and the material eye witnesses of the prosecution having turned hostile on the identity of the accused Satpal Gupta nor there is any circumstantial evidence against him. This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and establish the charges against the accused Satpal Gupta who is Acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 r/w 149, 396 r/w 149 and 436 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 224 of 268 Allegations against the accused Karam Singh S/o Kaptan Singh:

(243) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Karam Singh (Constable in Delhi Police) who is a resident of Nangloi was present in the area on the fateful day when the riots took place on 1.11.1984 and was a part of the unlawful assembly along with other accused. It is alleged that on 1.11.1984 between 10:00 AM to 2:30 PM at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi all the accused namely Dalel Singh (the then Sub Inspector), Karam Singh (the then Constable), Ram Pal Singh Rana (the then SHO Police Station Nangloi), Satpal Gupta and one Prem Chand Jain (now deceased) along with five hundred to seven hundred unknown persons (not arrested) were member of an unlawful assembly with the common object to kill the members of the Sikh Community and in prosecution of the common object of the same committed rioting duly armed with deadly weapons which weapons the rioters had used for offence and was likely to cause death. It has also been alleged that all the accused being members of unlawful assembly instigated the rioters to kill the members of the Sikh Community namely Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh which offence they knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. Further, as per allegations, pursuant to the said instigation Santokh Singh @ Sat Singh @ Santa and Darshan Singh @ Babla both sons of Channa Singh both members of the Sikh Community were murdered. Also, all the accused persons including HC Karam Singh being members of unlawful assembly, committed dacoity by looting the St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 225 of 268 household properties of Gurbachan Singh situated at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi and while doing so they also killed Sat Singh and Darshan Singh both sons of Channa Singh. It has also been alleged that the accused persons including HC Karam Singh were the members of unlawful assembly with the prosecution of the common object to commit mischief and burnt the dwelling house of Gurbachan Singh situated at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi.

(244) Also, as per the allegations the accused Dalel Singh (the then Sub Inspector), Karam Singh (the then Constable) and Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana (the then SHO of Police Station Nangloi), being public servants knowingly disobeyed the directions of law, did not protect the life and property of the members of Sikh community. It has been alleged that the above accused including HC Karam Singh being public servants were legally bound to apprehend the offenders who were charged and liable to be apprehended for offence under Section 147/148/149/302/436/396 Indian Penal Code punishable with death and life imprisonment, omitted to apprehend such person or intentionally allowed to escape or intentionally aided them in escaping.

(245) In support of its case the prosecution is placing its heavy reliance on the testimonies of Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) both sons of deceased Swaroop Singh and also upon the sanction order Ex.PW22/A duly proved by Dr. M.M. Kutty, the then Joint Secretary (Home) GNCT of Delhi. In so far as the accused Karam Singh is concerned undisputedly he is a resident of the same area but in so far as his identity as St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 226 of 268 one of assailant is concerned, the same has been disputed. While on the one hand case of the prosecution is that he was present at the spot and leading the mob along with others whereas on the other hand Karam Singh is pleading Alibi as defence arguing that at the relevant time of the incident he was on duty at the place of his posting i.e. Traffic Lines, Chanakya Puri from 31.10.1984 to 5.11.1984 there being an Emergency Situation as the Prime Minster had been assassinated, all leaves were thereby cancelled and hence the question of his presence in the area does not arise. (246) In fact, the case of the defence is that the accused Karam Singh was posted at Traffic Lines Teen Murti, Chanakyapuri for almost three days and was on duty and was not in the area of Nangloi. In this regard the defence is placing its reliance on the explanation given by the accused Karam Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has provided the details of his postings and the statement of accused Ram Pal Singh Rana confirming that HC Karam Singh was not posted at Police Station Nangloi at the relevant point of time and also the testimonies of ASI Jogender Singh (DW3) and HC Daljeet Singh (DW4). The accused Karam Singh has in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that after the brutal assassination of Late Smt. Indira Gandhi the staff of the traffic police were kept alert and in reserve for emergency/ contingency duties and on 31.10.1984 he along with other staff immediately were called in Traffic Police Lines, Chanakya Puri where he remained on Duty reserve from 31.10.1984, 1.11.1984 till a few days and thereafter till the St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 227 of 268 situation became normal in Delhi. According to the accused he had no occasion to leave his duty from Chanakya Puri, Traffic Police Line on 1.11.1984 at any time. He has also claimed that his late father Sh. Kaptan Singh was also employed in Delhi Police and had retired in 1987 and was not a Milk Vendor in the area or having a dairy as claimed by the prosecution.

(247) I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the evidence on record. At the very Outset I may observe that in so far as the accused Karam Singh is concerned he has not been named any where either in the first statement or even the affidavits filed by Gurbachan Singh or by Smt. Krishna on the basis of which the present FIR has been directed to be registered. The only reference made to him is as "son of a milk vendor who has a diary in the same locality" which finds a mention in the affidavits of Gurbachan Singh both in English and in Gurmukhi filed by him on 4.9.1985 and 9.9.1985 before Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission of Inquiry constituted by Government of India. I have gone through the said affidavit of Gurbachan Singh in English which shows that the description of the assailants given in para 6 of his affidavit as "son of Milk Vendor of the same locality" and the description given in the affidavit in Gurmukhi language is "Son of a milk dairy owner (who was serving in Delhi Police) whose dairy is threefour streets away from their house". This being the background, it was necessary for the prosecution to have subjected the accused Karam Singh to Judicial Test Identification Parade which has not St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 228 of 268 been done. At no point of time any Judicial Test Identification Parade has been carried out to confirm that HC Karam Singh is the same person who is residing threefour streets away from the house of Gurbachan Singh and is the son of a milk dairy owner of the same locality and was posted in the area on the date of incident.

(248) The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has placed his reliance on the case of Vijay Kumar Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Madras and Anr. reported in 2009 IV AD (Cr.) (SC) 171. On the contrary the Ld. Defence Counsel has placed his reliance on the Santosh Devidas Behade and Ors. Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2009 III AD (Cr.) (SC) 325. (249) I have gone through the relevant case law and the broad principles which can be culled out is that the necessity of conducting Test Identification Parade arises when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses and the whole idea of the Test Identification Parade is that the witnesses who had seen the incident are able to identify the assailants from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source which is for the purposes of testing their veracity. The identification parades belong to the stage of investigations and there is no provision in the Code which obliges the Investigating Agency to hold or confers a right upon the accused to claim a test Identification Parade and it also does not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in the Court but the weight to be St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 229 of 268 attached to such identification should be a matter of the Courts of fact. (250) In the present case there is a Dock Identification of the accused Karam Singh who has not been named either in the FIR or in any of the subsequent statements by these witnesses and there being no Judicial Test Identification Parade conducted so as to confirm the identity of Karam Singh as the same person whose father had a Milk Dairy in the area coupled with the fact that his identity is disclosed as son of Milk Vendor having a dairy in the area being Factually Incorrect, it becomes necessary for this Court to read the testimonies of Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) with caution and there should be independent authentic evidence to substantiate this allegation. I may observe that except for the witnesses Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) none of other witnesses including their real brothers, sister and relatives i.e. Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3), Gurmeet Singh (PW4), Amarjeet Singh (PW6) and Smt. Krishna (PW10) have pointed out towards Karam Singh in the Court as one of the assailants or as one of the person seen in the locality on the date of the incident nor they have attributed any overt act to him and there is no other evidence whatsoever.

(251) Secondly in so far as Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) are concerned in their testimonies they do not specifically confirm that the accused Karam Singh is the same person whom they refer to in their affidavits as the son of Milk Vendor. They also do not state that Karam Singh was residing threefour streets away from their house or that St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 230 of 268 he had been seen by them in the locality. I note that Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) are old residents of the area and if we go by their versions that Karam Singh was a resident of the same area residing about twothree streets away from them, I am sure that under the given circumstances assuming that Gurbachan Singh was not aware of his name he would have at the first instance give the description of accused Karam Singh, which he did not do. Even later when Gurbachan Singh filed this affidavit before the Commission which is almost five years after the incident, he is unable to give his name which does not appear to be Natural and Probable. I am sure that being residents of the area even if they were not aware of the name of the assailant (son of the Milk Vendor) at that time, they would have come to know of it at some later stage. (252) Thirdly when Gurbachan Singh (PW1) was examined by the officials of the Riots Cell in FIR No. 67/1987, Police Station Nangloi in a case relating to 1984 riots wherein he had made his statement on 25.10.1990 which is Ex.PW23/D2 and he again made a subsequent statement on 28.7.1991 which is Ex.PW23/D3 and another statement on 30.6.1989 which is Ex.PW23/D4. In none of these statements he has either named HC Karam Singh nor he has given any description which matches him and the only thing which he has mentioned is "son of the Milk Vendor". Neither the name of the Milk Vendor nor his son is mentioned nor there is any indication as regards their identity like the number of the street or the place where the Milk Dairy is situated. It is in this background that now before St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 231 of 268 this Court it became imperative for the prosecution to establish that this son of Milk Vendor was none else but the accused Karam Singh, which they have not been able to establish.

(253) Fourthly the statements of Gurbachan Singh (PW1) were also recorded in FIR No.418/1991 i.e. in the present case on three occasions i.e. 24.9.1991, 13.10.1991 and 18.10.1991 and in all the three statements he only states that the son of Milk Vendor is involved. He again does not make any reference that it is the accused Karam Singh who is the son of Milk Vendor whom he has referred to, or that his father is the owner of a milk dairy which is situated from twothree streets away from their house.

(254) Fifthly the perusal of the testimony of Inspector K.P. Sharma (PW21), ACP Amarjeet Singh (PW25) and DCP Rajeev Ranjan (PW26) also show that in their testimonies they do not indicate that the accused Karam Singh is the son of Milk vendor to whom the witnesses are referring or that his father owns a milk dairy. This fact has never came into their knowledge during the investigations. On the contrary the prosecution witness ASI Harpal (PW16) has proved that he was known to Constable Kaptan Singh who was employed in Delhi Police and had retired in the year 1987. He has also proved that he also knew Karam Singh the accused before this Court being the son of this Constable Kaptan Singh. Further, Ct. Tej Singh (DW8) has proved the service record of Ct. Kaptan Singh St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 232 of 268 father of accused Karam Singh which is Ex.DW8/A according to which record Ct. Kaptan Singh joined the services of Delhi Police on 09.04.1954 as Constable and was retired as such on 31.08.1987. This clearly establishes that the accused Karam Singh S/o Kaptan Singh is the son of a police officer i.e. Constable Kaptan Singh who had retired from Delhi Police in the year 1987 (after 1984 riots). How then can he be the son of the Milk Vendor to whom Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh were referring to. (255) Sixthly DCP Rajeev Ranjan (DW26) has in his cross examination admitted that HC Karam Singh was posted with the Traffic Lines at the time of the incident and does not state that during investigations it came to his knowledge that Karam Singh is the son of the Milk Vendor who has been so indicated by Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2).

(256) Lastly HC Sohan Singh (PW7) has produced the record relating to HC Karam Singh according to which HC Karam Singh son of Sh. Kaptan Singh remained posted in Traffic Unit, Delhi police from 01.02.1982 to 31.12.1989 which defeats the case put forth by the prosecution that HC Karam Singh was posted at Police Station Nangloi at the relevant point of time and this fact finds due confirmation from the explanation given by Inspector R.P.S. Rana in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that at no point of time HC Karam Singh was posted at Police Station Nangloi nor he was present in the area for any duty on 31.10.1984 or 1.11.1984 as claimed by the prosecution witnesses.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 233 of 268 (257) In view of my aforesaid discussion, I may observe that in so far as the Dock Identification of accused Karam Singh by witness Gurbachan Singh (PW1) on 2.9.2004 and by Kuldeep Singh (PW2) on 20.8.2005 after almost Twenty years of the incident is concerned, it certainly appears to be Doubtful. Rather, in so far as Kuldeep Singh is concerned his testimony regarding the identification of Karam Singh is totally inadmissible in evidence particularly because he does not name or identify Karam Singh initially and it was only in the crossexamination by the Public Prosecutor that he reluctantly admits as correct that Karam Singh was also exhorting the public in the same manner.

(258) Further, as per the allegations made by Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) at the time of the incident there was a crowd of about 500700 persons involved in rioting. How then was it possible that in such a huge mob of 500700 persons they were able to identify accused Karam Singh (Constable in Delhi Police) who according to them at that point of time was in Civil Dress? Rather, on the contrary ASI Joginder (DW3) and HC Daljeet Singh (DW4) who were both posted at Traffic Police Lines at Teen Murti, Chanakya Puri have proved that on the date of the incident they along with HC Karam Singh had remained in serve duty till normalization of the situation. Also, in so far as the Sanction Order Ex.PW22/A on which the prosecution is placing its reliance is concerned it mentions that HC Karam Singh was posted at Police Station Nangloi during the relevant period, an aspect which is factually incorrect. DCP Sh. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 234 of 268 Rajeev Ranjan (PW26) and ACP Sh. Amarjeet Singh (PW25) in their testimonies conceded that the said fact was not correct and he was in fact posted at Traffic Police and the crossexamination of these Investigating Officers namely Inspector K.P. Sharma (PW21), ACP Amarjeet Singh (PW25) and DCP Rajeev Ranjan (PW26) established that they have never verified the posting details of HC Karam Singh during the period of riots, thereby destroying the basis of the sanction so given to prosecute HC Karam Singh which appears to have been given without application of mind in a Routine Manner.

(259) Hence in view of the evidence which has come on record the following aspects emerge and stand established:

➢ That accused Karam Singh is not the son of Milk Vendor being referred to by Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh.

➢ That father of accused Karam Singh namely Kaptan Singh was a Constable in Delhi Police from 9.4.1954 to 31.8.1987 and he retired after the 1984 Riots (i.e. in the year 1987) and was not running a milk dairy which was threefour streets away from the house of witness Gurbachan Singh as claimed by him.

➢ That on 31.10.1984 and 1.11.1984 HC Karam Singh was not posted at Police Station Nangloi at the relevant point of time during the period of riots and was on duty at Traffic Police Lines as Teen Murti, Chanakya Puri and was in the Traffic Lines till 5.11.1984 due to the emergent situation which arose because of the assassination of Smt. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 235 of 268 Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India.

(260) In view of my abovesaid discussion, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused HC Karam Singh beyond reasonable doubt and hence he is Acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 r/w 149, 396 r/w 149, 436 r/w 149, 217 and 221 Indian Penal Code.

Allegations against the accused Dalel Singh:

(261) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Dalel Singh (the then Sub Inspector in Delhi Police) was posted at Police Station Nangloi and was present in the area on the fateful day when the riots took place on 1.11.1984 and was a part of the unlawful assembly along with other accused. It is alleged that on 1.11.1984 between 10:00 AM to 2:30 PM at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi all the accused namely Dalel Singh (the then Sub Inspector), Karam Singh (the then Constable), Ram Pal Singh Rana (the then SHO Police Station Nangloi), Satpal Gupta and one Prem Chand Jain (now deceased) along with five hundred to seven hundred unknown persons (not arrested) were member of an unlawful assembly with the common object to kill the members of the Sikh community and in prosecution of the common object of the same committed Rioting duly armed with deadly weapon which weapons the rioters had used for the offence and was likely to cause death. It is also alleged that all the accused being members of unlawful assembly instigated the rioters to kill members of Sikh community namely St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 236 of 268 Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh which they knew likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. Further, as per allegations pursuant to the said instigation Sat Singh, Darshan Singh both sons of Channa Singh who were members of the Sikh community were murdered. Also, as per the allegations all the accused persons including SI Dalel Singh being members of unlawful assembly, committed dacoity by looting the household properties of Gurbachan Singh situated at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi and while doing so they killed Sat Singh and Darshan Singh. It has also been alleged that the accused persons including SI Dalel Singh were the members of unlawful assembly with the prosecution of the common object to commit mischief and burnt the dwelling house of Gurbachan Singh situated at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi.

(262) Further as per the allegations the accused Dalel Singh (the then Sub Inspector), Karam Singh (the then Constable) and Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana (the then SHO of Police Station Nangloi), being public servants knowingly disobeyed the directions of law, did not protect the life and property of the members of Sikh community. It has been alleged that the above accused including SI Dalel Singh being public servants were legally bound to apprehend the offenders who were charged and liable to be apprehended for offence under Section 147/ 148/ 149/ 302/ 436/ 396 Indian Penal Code punishable with death and life imprisonment, omitted to apprehend such person or intentionally allowed to escape or intentionally St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 237 of 268 aided them in escaping.

(263) It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the affidavits filed by Gurbachan Singh before the Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission of Inquiry in September 1995 does not mention the name or number or even the description of SI Dalel Singh. He has pointed out that the accused Dalel Singh was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 28.7.1993 by Sh. S.S. Bal, the then ASJ, New Delhi wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the Investigating Officer had submitted before the Court that the accused was not required under Section 302 IPC. The case of the defence is that SI Dalel Singh was posted at Police Station Nangloi at the relevant point of time but he was on Casual Leave from 27.10.1984 to 5.11.1984 and was not performing any duty but was staying at his residence at village Qutabgarh and in this regard they are placing their reliance on the roznamcha dated 27.10.1984 showing the departure entry of SI Dalel Singh vide DD No. 27 which is Ex.PW9/DA. The defence is also placing its reliance on the Chithha Duty Roaster of Police Station Nangloi from 31.10.1984 to 4.11.1984 proving that SI Dalel Singh was on Casual Leaves copies of which Duty Roaster are Ex.PW9/DB, Ex.PW9/DC, Ex.PW9/DD, Ex.PW9/DE and Ex.PW9/DF.

(264) I have gone through the rival contentions and the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses. At the very Outset I may observe that the only evidence against the accused Dalel Singh is the oral testimonies of Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and his brother Kuldeep Singh (PW2) who have St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 238 of 268 implicated him much later and identified him as a part of the unlawful assembly. None of the other witnesses including Gurmeet Singh (PW4) & Amarjeet Singh (PW6) both real brothers of Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh; Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3) the sister of Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh and Smt. Krishna (PW10) the mother of deceased Trilochan Singh and mother in law of deceased Amrik Singh (brother in law of complainant Gurbachan Singh) have either named the accused Dalel Singh or identified him and what is important is the fact that all these witnesses are related to Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh being their real brother, sister and relatives. I am sure that had SI Dalel been a part of the mob or involved in rioting and killings as claimed by Gurbachan Singh, the other family members who are also eye witnesses to the incident, they would have certainly named him.

(265) Secondly ACP Amarjeet Singh (PW25) when crossexamined has admitted that during investigations none of the witnesses examined by him had ever disclosed that any of the accused persons including Dalel Singh had put kerosene oil on any person and set them on fire on 1.11.1984 i.e. during the Riots which took place pursuant to the assassination of the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi. The allegations made by Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) are too general and vague and in the Court for the first time Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) had made allegations against the accused Dalel Singh of having exhorted the crowd.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 239 of 268 (266) Thirdly it is evident from the affidavits of Gurbachan Singh (Ex.PX and Ex.PY) that he did not make any allegations of the involvement of any police officials of the area including SI Dalel Singh and has only mentioned in para 12 of his affidavit that he had been lifted by the local police and confined in lockup and threatened. The relevant portions of the affidavits are as under:

"...... 12. After about one month, I and my brother Amarjit Singh went to bring ration from the fair price shop in YBlock. We were caught by the Police headed by Dalel Singh SubInspector and were taken to Police Station there we were detained, beaten and threatened and kept under wrongful confinement from 11 AM to 7 PM. Our photographs were taken by them and addresses of our relatives were taken. We were told by Dalel Singh SI that in case we tried to name any murderer of our father and other relatives we will be done to death...."

(267) I am sure that in case of SI Dalel Singh was involved in the incident as is being now alleged, the witnesses Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh would have stated so at the first instance which they have not done.

(268) Fourthly the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused SI Dalel Singh has been deliberately and falsely implicated by Gurbachan Singh being aggrieved of the fact that soon after the 1984 Anti Sikh Riots Gurbarchan Singh was picked up as a suspect and questioned in the case of Bomb Blasts which took place in Delhi killing 49 persons St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 240 of 268 wherein he was questioned by Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana and SI Dalel Singh of local police along with officials of IB and Special Cell and is also reflected in para 17 and 18 of his affidavit Ex.PY relevant portion of which I reproduce as under:

".... 17. It looks very strange that thousands of Sikhs were killed intentionally and maliciously in this carnage but no murder case is either registered or investigated. But curiously enough in subsequent Bomb Blast in Delhi, about 49 persons were killed and the investigations are made in the matter as if the entire Sikh community is to be hanged. Where this law had gone out of the statue in November 1984.

18. That unless these hundred criminal in Police Force and Congress (I) Party are not hanged for murders there does not seems to be any point for us to gain confidence in this partial government. This conspiracy was hatched out by the ruling party and the NonSikh members of the police force...."

(269) Also, in para no. 11 of the affidavit filed by Gurbachan Singh in Gurmukhi which is Ex.PX he has stated as under:

"...... 11. On 7th or 8th November 1984 the SHO of Nangloi Police Station Mr. Rana came with to us at Gurdwara Tilak Nagar BBlock and enquired about the name of the rioters. I named Prem Chand Jain and some others. They did not take any action against the guilty persons and on the contrary they lodged a complaint of Prem Chand Jain against us. About one month thereafter (on 15.12.1984) when I along with my brother, went to Nangloi to collect our ration, Prem Chand Jain sent for St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 241 of 268 Police who took us to the Police Station. They made us to sit in the police station uptill night. In the meantime at about 3:00 PM some Special Staff came to the Police Station. They inquired about our past history and took our photographs and inquired the addresses of our relatives and let us off at 8'O Clock...."

(270) This confirms the admission made by Gurbachan Singh of his joint questioning by Special Cell, I.B. and local police after he and his brother was lifted in connection with Bomb Blast in Delhi as suspects and the Extreme Sense of hatred which Gurbachan Singh entertained not only for the then Ruling Party i.e. Congress (I) but also for Non - Sikh members of the police force (as mentioned in Ex.PY the affidavit of Gurbachan Singh) and hence the possibility of a strong motive to implicate the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana and Dalel Singh (i.e. both Non - Sikh members of the Police force who were directly involved into questioning of Gurbachan Singh).

(271) Fifthly Inspector Raj Singh (PW9) who is a witness of prosecution has placed on record the Daily Diary and the Duty Roaster for the period 27.10.1984 and from 31.10.1984 to 4.11.1984 relating to SI Dalel Singh which conclusively establishes that he was on Casual Leave from 27.10.1984 to 5.11.1984 i.e. six days plus two holidays and this fact has been independently confirmed by DCP Sh. Rajiv Ranjan (PW26). (272) Sixthly Attar Singh S/o late Sh. Prabhu Dayal a resident of the same village as that of Dalel Singh i.e. village Qutubgarh, Delhi who has St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 242 of 268 been examined by the defence as DW2 has established the presence of accused Dalel Singh in the village being on leave from 27.10.1984 to 5.11.1984 and the fact that he remained in the village in connection with family function.

(273) Lastly in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused Dalel Singh has stated that he was on official leave from 27.10.1984 to 5.11.1984 after the leaves were sanctioned from DCP (West). He has explained that he along with Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana had lifted Gurbachan Singh as a suspected terrorist who was interrogated by a special team including IB, Crime Branch and also the SHO Ram Pal Singh Rana at Police Station Nangloi in the month of December 1984, on account of which being inimical to them he has been falsely implicated by Gurbachan Singh and his brother Kuldeep Singh. I may observe that as already discussed herein above the above fact has been admitted by the witness Gurbachan Singh in his affidavits Ex.PX and Ex.PY and the contents of the said affidavits establishes the extreme sense of hatred which he had developed for the then Ruling Party and the nonSikh members of the police force. Previously the witness Gurbachan Singh had never made any allegations against Dalel Singh and hence, the possibility of his having now made the allegations against these Police Officers on tutoring or for the reason of taking revenge from them as a Counter Blast, particularly in the light of what he has stated in his affidavits, cannot be ruled out. St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 243 of 268 (274) In view of my above discussion I hereby hold that the evidence on record establishes that the the accused Dalel Singh was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Nangloi at the relevant point of time but was on Casual Leaves from 27.10.1984 to 5.11.1984 after having got the same sanctioned from the DCP (West) and the departmental record i.e. Duty Roaster Ex.PW9/DB, Ex.PW9/DC, Ex.PW9/DD, Ex.PW9/DE and Ex.PW9/DF and also the relevant Roznamcha indicating the entry bearing DD No. 37 which is Ex.PW9/DA which finds independent confirmation from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses i.e. Inspector Raj Singh (PW9) and DCP Rajiv Ranjan (PW26) which aspect has been confirmed by the independent witness Attar Singh (DW2) who too has similarly confirmed the presence of accused Dalel Singh in his village Qutubgarh, Delhi at the relevant point of time and hence the presence of accused Dalel Singh at the spot of incident at the time of incident does not stand established.

(275) In view of my abovesaid discussion, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Dalel Singh beyond reasonable doubt and hence he is Acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 r/w 149, 396 r/w 149, 436 r/w 149, 217 and 221 Indian Penal Code.

Allegations against the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana:

(276) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Ram Pal Singh St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 244 of 268 Rana was the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Nangloi during the period of riots. As per allegations on 1.11.1984 between 10:00 AM to 2:30 PM at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi all the accused namely Dalel Singh (the then Sub Inspector), Karam Singh (the then Constable), Ram Pal Singh Rana (the then SHO Police Station Nangloi), Satpal Gupta and one Prem Chand Jain (now deceased) along with five hundred to seven hundred unknown persons (not arrested) were member of an unlawful assembly with the common object to kill the members of the Sikh community and in prosecution of the common object of the same committed Rioting duly armed with deadly weapon which weapons the rioters had used for the offence and was likely to cause death. It is also alleged that all the accused being members of unlawful assembly instigated the rioters to kill members of Sikh community namely Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh which they knew likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. Further, as per allegations pursuant to the said instigation Sat Singh, Darshan Singh both sons of Channa Singh who were members of the Sikh community were murdered.

Also, as per the allegations all the accused persons including Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana being members of unlawful assembly, committed dacoity by looting the household properties of Gurbachan Singh situated at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi and while doing so they killed Sat Singh and Darshan Singh. It has also been alleged that the accused persons including Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana were the members of unlawful assembly with St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 245 of 268 the prosecution of the common object to commit mischief and burnt the dwelling house of Gurbachan Singh situated at Y Block, JJ Colony, Nangloi. (277) Further as per the allegations the accused Dalel Singh (the then Sub Inspector), Karam Singh (the then Constable) and Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana (the then SHO of Police Station Nangloi), being public servants knowingly disobeyed the directions of law, did not protect the life and property of the members of Sikh community. It has been alleged that the above accused including Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana being public servants were legally bound to apprehend the offenders who were charged and liable to be apprehended for offence under Section 147/ 148/ 149/ 302/ 436/ 396 Indian Penal Code punishable with death and life imprisonment, omitted to apprehend such person or intentionally allowed to escape or intentionally aided them in escaping.

(278) In this regard the prosecution is placed its reliance on the testimonies of Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) who I may observe have not been held to be reliable witnesses. Reliance is also placed on the official documents and affidavits filed by the public witnesses/ victims.

(279) The arguments of the defence is that the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana has been falsely implicated in the case. In the carnage which followed after the demise of Smt. Indira Gandhi there was a total break down of law and order and the entire police force was put on emergency and was busy in trying to control the rioters to the best of their ability. It is St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 246 of 268 alleged that the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana has been falsely implicated by the accused Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh since after the riots which had taken place there was a bomb blast which took place in Delhi in which 49 people were expired and many suspects were rounded up and questioned by the police which included Gurbachan Singh who was questioned/ interrogated at Police Station Nangloi in the present of Inspector R.P.S. Rana and SI Dalel Singh by the members of Special Cell, Crime Branch and I.B. and being agitated by the same, as a counter blast he has for the first time named the accused R.P.S. Rana in the affidavit filed by him and thereafter in the Court.

(280) I have considered the rival contentions and at the very Outset I may observe that the only evidence on record against the accused R.P.S. Rana is the oral testimonies of Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) whereas all other public witnesses which include his real brothers and sister and other relatives have neither corroborated nor stood by the version given by him. Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3) who is the real sister of Gurbachan Singh (PW1) has in the Court specifically stated that none of the accused had participated in the riots on 31.10.1984 of 1.11.1984. She has named the accused Prem Chand Jain (since expired) as the person who was amongst the mob but does not name any other person despite being known to accused Ram Pal Singh Rana. She stated that on 01.11.1984 at about 1010:30 AM about 700800 persons had come and started throwing stones on them and they climbed on the roof of their after which the mob put their St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 247 of 268 house on fire while her brothers faced the situation with swords in their hands whereas they took shelter in the house of Patwari whose house was in front of their house. She has made allegations that it was Prem Chand Jain who was close to her father came in the evening and after using deceitful means he took her father outside her house and about 50100 persons came on 01.11.1984 in evening time when her father was taken out after which her father was killed by that mob despite their pleadings. She has also stated that Amreek Singh and Trilochan Singh were also killed on that day after which she and her sister in law were called in Police Station and her brothers also came there when Inspector Rampal Rana advised them to cut their hair so as to save them on which they all got their hair cut. She has not identified any of the accused i.e. Satpal Gupta, Karam Singh, Dalel Singh and Ram Pal Singh Rana in the Court as the persons who were present in the mob and the only person she name was the accused Prem Chand Jain (since expired) and does not support or confirm the version given by her brothers Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh. Further, Gurmeet Singh (PW4) the brother of Gurbachan Singh (PW1) has also not supported the prosecution version and has stated that he is unable to identify any one from the mob and despite the crossexamination by the Ld. Public Prosecutor has stated that none of the accused persons were present in the mob. Gurmeet Singh has denied having made a statement to the police on 08.10.1991 wherein he had stated that on that day Sajjan Kumar, St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 248 of 268 SHO Rampal Rana, Prem Chand Jain, elder son of Dr. Chanderbhan Gupta, a Khal Merchant known as Tunda and a milk vendor's son who was in Traffic police inciting the mob. He has also denied having made any statements Mark P4/1 and Mark P4/2. Again, Amarjeet Singh (PW6) the other brother of Gurbachan Singh has similarly in his examination in chief confirmed the incident but despite crossexamination by the Ld. Public Prosecutor has stated that none of the accused persons in the Court were present amongst the rioters who had attacked their house on 1.11.1984. Similarly Smt. Krishna (PW10) who is the mother of the deceased Trilochan Singh and mother in law of deceased Amrik Singh (brother in law of Gurbachan Singh) has made no allegations against Ram Pal Singh Rana or any of the accused and has stated that she had not seen any of the accused on the date of incident. I may observe that Smt. Krishna in her testimony has stated that on 31.10.1984 she she had gone to Nangloi to the house of her son in law Amrik Singh where all the family members including Swaroop Singh, her son in law Amrik Singh and Gurbachan Singh i.e. brother in law of Amrik Singh were present. She has further stated that on the same day evening she started for her house by bus and reached general store, Punjabi Bagh but there was traffic jam on account of riots and hence she again went back to Nangloi to the house of her son in law. She has specifically stated that on the same night her son Trilochan Singh, her son in law Amrik Singh and several other persons were killed but she does not know how they were killed or who killed them.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 249 of 268 (281) Secondly Inspector Raj Singh (PW9) who was the Division Officer of Camp No. 1, JJ Colony, Nangloi at the relevant point of time, has proved the various Daily Diary Entries and wireless messages and has proved that he had not seen Inspector R.P.S. Rana at Camp No.1, JJ Colony on 1.11.1984 between 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM (spot of the incident). (282) Thirdly HC Harpal Singh (PW16) who was the driver attached to Inspector R.P.S. Rana at the relevant point of time and was present with him throughout the period during the riots, has similarly proved that Inspector R.P.S. Rana remained busy in attending the calls in other area which aspect stands established from Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW26/D1 showing the receipt of various wireless messages and movement of Inspector R.P.S. Rana during the incident which record of WT messages does not confirm the version given by the witnesses Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh either regarding the presence of Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana in the area and where the incident had taken place at the time as claimed by them nor regarding any incident of killing as alleged by them having taken place at that time.

(283) Fourthly both ACP Amarjeet Singh (PW25) and DCP Rajiv Ranjan (PW26) have in their crossexamination admitted that they checked the records of the police station, wireless book, log books etc. (placed on record by the prosecution) but there was no call of any riots received from Camp No.1, JJ Colony, Nangloi on 1.11.1984.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 250 of 268 (284) Fifthly when the incriminating material was put to the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the same and gave the details of his duty and locations in the area including at the boarders and has specifically explained that on 1.11.1984 he had not visited JJ Colony Camp No.1, Nangloi as he had not received any such call on wireless on his government vehicle. He has relied upon the details of the wireless message for 1.11.1984 recorded in DD No. 18A of the same day the relevant portion being marked at point A6 [seized by ACP Amarjeet Singh along with other documents vide memo Ex.PW12/A and also proved by Ct. Bale Ram (DW1)] which confirms the same.

(285) Sixthly the defence evidence lead by accused R.P.S. Rana in the form of communication of GNCT of Delhi vide Ex.DW6A and Ex.DW6/B establishes that the Departmental Inquiry initiated against the accused R.P.S. Rana had been dropped/ closed. The witness Gopal Ram (DW5) has proved the report of the inquiry held by Justice Nanavati Commission which is Ex.PW5/A (page 168, 196) showing that the Commission had not recommended any action against the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana as he was reported to have been exonerated in the departmental inquiry.

(286) Seventhly it is evident from the affidavits of Gurbachan Singh (Ex.PX and Ex.PY) that he did not make any allegations of the involvement of any police officials of the area including Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 251 of 268 and has only mentioned in para 12 of his affidavit that he had been lifted by the local police and confined in lockup and threatened. The relevant portions of the affidavits are as under:

"...... 12. After about one month, I and my brother Amarjit Singh went to bring ration from the fair price shop in YBlock. We were caught by the Police headed by Dalel Singh SubInspector and were taken to Police Station there we were detained, beaten and threatened and kept under wrongful confinement from 11 AM to 7 PM. Our photographs were taken by them and addresses of our relatives were taken. We were told by Dalel Singh SI that in case we tried to name any murderer of our father and other relatives we will be done to death...."

(287) I am sure that in case of Inspector Ram Pal Singh Singh was involved in the incident as is being now alleged by the witnesses Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh, then they would have certainly stated so at the first instance which they have not done.

(288) Eighthly the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel is that the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana has been deliberately and falsely implicated by Gurbachan Singh being aggrieved of the fact that soon after the 1984 Anti Sikh Riots Gurbarchan Singh was picked up as a suspect and questioned in the case of Bomb Blasts which took place in Delhi killing 49 persons wherein he was questioned by accused Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana and SI Dalel Singh of local police along with officials of IB and Special Cell and is also reflected in para 17 and 18 of his affidavit Ex.PY relevant portion of St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 252 of 268 which I again reproduce (at the cost of repetition being relevant) as under:

".... 17. It looks very strange that thousands of Sikhs were killed intentionally and maliciously in this carnage but no murder case is either registered or investigated. But curiously enough in subsequent Bomb Blast in Delhi, about 49 persons were killed and the investigations are made in the matter as if the entire Sikh community is to be hanged. Where this law had gone out of the statue in November 1984.

18. That unless these hundred criminal in Police Force and Congress (I) Party are not hanged for murders there does not seems to be any point for us to gain confidence in this partial government. This conspiracy was hatched out by the ruling party and the NonSikh members of the police force...."

(289) Also, in para no. 11 of the affidavit filed by Gurbachan Singh in Gurmukhi which is Ex.PX he has stated as under:

"...... 11. On 7th or 8th November 1984 the SHO of Nangloi Police Station Mr. Rana came with to us at Gurdwara Tilak Nagar BBlock and enquired about the name of the rioters. I named Prem Chand Jain and some others. They did not take any action against the guilty persons and on the contrary they lodged a complaint of Prem Chand Jain against us. About one month thereafter (on 15.12.1984) when I along with my brother, went to Nangloi to collect our ration, Prem Chand Jain sent for Police who took us to the Police Station. They made us to sit in the police station uptill night. In the meantime at about 3:00 PM some Special Staff came to the Police Station. They inquired about our past history and took St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 253 of 268 our photographs and inquired the addresses of our relatives and let us off at 8'O Clock...."

(290) This confirms the admission made by Gurbachan Singh of his joint questioning by Special Cell, I.B. and local police after he and his brother was lifted in connection with Bomb Blast in Delhi as suspects and the Extreme Sense of hatred which Gurbachan Singh entertained not only for the then Ruling Party i.e. Congress (I) but also for Non - Sikh members of the police force (as mentioned in Ex.PY the affidavit of Gurbachan Singh) and hence the possibility of a strong motive to implicate the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana and Dalel Singh (i.e. both Non - Sikh members of the Police force who were directly involved into questioning of Gurbachan Singh after the riots).

(291) Ninethly in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana has explained that he along with SI Dalel Singh had lifted Gurbachan Singh as a suspected terrorist who was interrogated by a special team including IB, Crime Branch and also by the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana who was the SHO of Police Station Nangloi in the month of December 1984, on account of which being inimical to them he has been falsely implicated by Gurbachan Singh and his brother Kuldeep Singh. I may observe that the above fact has been admitted by the witness Gurbachan Singh in his affidavits Ex.PX and Ex.PY and the contents of the said affidavits establishes the extreme sense of hatred which he had developed for the then Ruling Party and the nonSikh members of the police St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 254 of 268 force. Previously the witness Gurbachan Singh had never made any allegations against Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana and hence, the possibility of his having now made the allegations against these Police Officers on tutoring or for the reason of taking revenge from them as a Counter Blast, particularly in the light of what he has stated in his affidavits, cannot be ruled out.

(292) Lastly it has been alleged by Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) that on 3.11.1984 they were taken to the Police Station Nangloi where the SHO Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana called a Barber and got their hair forcibly cut with an intent to hurt their religious sentiments. In this regard I may observe that the basis of this application is demolished when their own real sister Smt. Devender Kaur (PW3) has submitted to the Court that she and her sister in law were called in the Police Station and her brother also went there and Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana advised them to cut their hair so as to save them on which they got their hair cut. The relevant portion of her deposition is reproduced as under:

"...... I and my sister in law were called in police station. My brother also came there Inspector Ram Pal Rana was in Police Station and he advised us to cut our hairs so as to save us and we got our hairs cut......"

(293) No evidence has been brought on record to establish that hair of Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh were got forcibly cut with an intent to hurt their religious sentiments. I may observe that it was a Desperate St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 255 of 268 Situation which required Desperate Measures and as explained by Devender Kaur (PW3) it was Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana SHO who in order to save the lives of members of Sikh Community suggested cutting of hair. Not even a single person whose hair were got forcibly cut has been produced in the Court. In so far as Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) are concerned they have been held to be unreliable witnesses and their depositions do not find any independent corroboration from any other source. Even otherwise the allegations made by Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh in this regard are non specific and vague and do not find any confirmation from any other source.

(294) In view of my aforesaid discussion, I hereby hold it stands established that at the relevant time of the incident the accused Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana was posted as SHO Police Station Nangloi. The only evidence against him is the oral ocular count given by the witness Gurbachan Singh (PW1) who has already been held to be a non reliable witness having changed his version at very stage of investigation and trial. The conduct as reflected from the record is that initially he implicated the political leaders of the area belonging to Congress (I) but later he exonerated them and then after five and a half years did not identify any public person and only named the police officers of the area, wipe out the testimony which he has made in the court by again trying to rope the said person (Sajjan Kumar) which was not permitted by the Ld. Predecessor Court which order has now attained finality. He has materially improved upon his statement as St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 256 of 268 regards the burning of two members of Sikh Community by pouring kerosene oil/ petrol and this he did much after he was lifted as a suspect not only by the local police including Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana and SI Dalel Singh but also by the Special Cell and IB and interrogated as regards the Bomb Blasts in Delhi killing 49 persons.

(295) In so far as Kuldeep Singh (PW2) is concerned, he has also been held to be nonreliable witness. He has contradicted to his brother Gurbachan Singh on material particulars as regards the time, place of incident and the role which they are now attributing to the accused. His testimony is grossly vague and non specific and there are glaring discrepancies, embellishments and improvements to the same. (296) All other material eye witnesses including their real brothers i.e. Gurmeet Singh (PW4) and Amarjeet Singh (PW6) and their sister Smt. Devender Kaur (PW6) and relative i.e. Smt. Krishna (PW10) have not supported the version so given by Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh. There is no independent, reliable and authentic corroboration and confirmation to the version put forth by them so much so that both Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh have also contradicted each other on material particulars as regards the incident, time and role which they are now attributing to the accused.

(297) In the carnage which followed the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi the then Prime Minister of India there was a total breakdown of the Law and Order in Delhi and Nangloi was one area which was worst hit with St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 257 of 268 the entire police force relentlessly working to control the situation and the rioters to the best of their ability with whatever little resources they had at their disposal. Soon after these riots there were Bomb Blasts which shook Delhi killing 49 persons and Gurbachan Singh (PW1) was one of the suspect who was lifted along with his brother Amarjeet for questioning by the accused Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana and SI Dalel Singh along with the officials of the IB and Special Cell. As discussed herein above, it is only thereafter that Gurbachan Singh for the first time made allegations against Ram Pal Singh Rana and Dalel Singh and the possibility of this being on tutoring or as a Counter Blast, cannot be ruled out. There being no other authentic, reliable evidence against the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana beyond reasonable doubt and hence he is Acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 r/w 149, 396 r/w 149, 436 r/w 149, 217 and 221 Indian Penal Code.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS:

(298) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 258 of 268

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

The circumstances concerned ' must or should' and not 'may be' established;

2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

(299) During the period prior to the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi and soon thereafter the country experienced the worse ever face of communal uprising after the Independence. Killings and retaliations all in the name of faith whether of the members of Sikh community or of the Non Sikh community which lasted for many years shamed the humanity and were a slap on the secular face of democratic fiber of our Nation so established on the BedRock of 'Ahimsa'.

(300) These unfortunate happenings with Political and Communal hues have left deep scars on the social psyche with the Government trying to St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 259 of 268 best the remedy the situation to the best of its ability an aspect so recognized even by the Courts abroad and as highlighted by the Ld. Defence Counsels recently in a Law Suit filed by Sikh's For Justice Advocacy Group against Congress (I) for the alleged responsibility of riots/ engulfed in New Delhi following the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the US Courts have condemned the same and refused to act while specifically holding that the Government of India had acted to address the hurt caused by 1984 event and Judge Sweet acknowledged this fact in a footnote observing that "....contrary to SFJ's false assertions... India has acted to address the hurt caused by 1984 event..." This was an era where Reason was lost in a desert of Despair, Rage and Aggression and senseless madness prevailed with least concern for human life. It is in this background that the present case was registered and investigated and now I have dealt with the issues involved on the basis of evidence which has come on record particularly in the light of the oral testimonies of the witnesses who claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses. Bentham has said ".....Witnesses are the eyes and ears of Justice...." but what if the witnesses incapacitate themselves from acting as eyes and ears of Justice. Witnesses who are inconsistent and repeatedly change their stands and statements depending upon the Social and Political environment only cause putrefication and paralysis of the trial. There is little that the Court of Law can do when such witnesses themselves are hesitant. Initially, in the present case on 18.2.1995 the charge sheet was filed after which on 17.2.1998 pursuant to which an application of the St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 260 of 268 Special P.P. Riot Cell an order for splitting and separation of the charge sheet on account of different incident of 1.11.84 at about 11 A.M. and 2.11.84 in the early morning at the house of Ram Dass Patwari being misjoinder of persons, was directed by Sh. M.A. Khan, the then Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi. On 14.2.2002 one separate charge sheet was instituted in Court only against Prem Chand Jain for the riots/ alleged killing of Swaroop Singh, father of Gurbachan Singh and his two relatives Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh on the intervening night of 12.11.1984 at the house of Sh. Ram Dass Patwari; whereas another separate charge sheet was instituted on the same day i.e. 14.2.2002 against the accused namely Prem Chand Jain, Ram Niwas @ Tunda, Satpal Gupta, Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, ASI Dalel Singh and Head Constable Karam Singh for inciting the mob/ unlawfully assembly on 1.11.84 around 10/11 A.M. at Y15, JJ Camp no.1, Nangloi alleging therein regarding the alleged killing of Sant Singh @ Santokh Singh @ Sat Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla S/o Channa Singh R/o JJ Colony Camp no.1, burning/looting by the mob of house of Gurbachan Singh and his family members and accordingly the charges were settled against the accused.

(301) In so far as the charge sheet filed against the accused Prem Chand Jain relating to the alleged killings of Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh is concerned, the proceedings against the accused Prem Chand Jain stood Abated on account of his death.

St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 261 of 268 (302) Further, in so far as the charge sheet filed against the accused Prem Chand Jain, Ram Niwas @ Tunda, Satpal Gupta, Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, ASI Dalel Singh and Head Constable Karam Singh relating to the alleged killing of Sant Singh @ Santokh Singh @ Sat Singh and Darshan Singh @ Babla S/o Channa Singh R/o JJ Colony Camp no.1 and burning/looting of house of Gurbachan Singh by the mob is concerned, no findings have been given as against the accused Prem Chand Jain and Ram Niwas @ Tunda as the proceedings against them stand Abated on account of their death.

(303) As regards the accused Satpal Gupta is concerned, I may observe that charges were framed against the accused Satpal Gupta on the basis of the statements of Gurbachan Singh (PW1), Kuldeep Singh (PW2), Devender Kaur (PW3), Gurmeet Singh (PW4), Amarjeet Singh (PW6) and Smt. Krishna (PW10) but during their depositions in the Court none of these witnesses have identified the accused Satpal Gupta as one of the person who was a member of the Unlawful Assembly and the witnesses Devender Kaur (PW3), Gurmeet Singh (PW4), Amarjeet Singh (PW6) and Smt. Krishna (PW10) have turned totally hostile and have not supported their earlier version at all as regards the manner in which the incident took place and on identity of the accused Satpal Gupta. Further, in so far as the witness Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh are concerned, they have given a new version of the incident and have not identified the accused Satpal Gupta as a part of the unlawful assembly and hence there is no direct ocular evidence St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 262 of 268 against the accused Satpal Gupta and the material eye witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile on his identity and there is no other circumstantial evidence against him.

(304) In respect of the accused HC Karam Singh, it has been established that accused Karam Singh is not the son of Milk Vendor being referred to by Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh (both of whom are unreliable witnesses) and in fact the father of accused Karam Singh namely Kaptan Singh was a Constable in Delhi Police from 9.4.1954 to 31.8.1987 and he retired after the 1984 Riots (i.e. in the year 1987) and was never running a milk dairy which was threefour streets away from the house of witness Gurbachan Singh as claimed by him. Further, it is borne out from the evidence on record that on 31.10.1984 and 1.11.1984 HC Karam Singh was not posted at Police Station Nangloi at the relevant point of time during the period of riots and was on duty at Traffic Police Lines as Teen Murti, Chanakya Puri and was in the Traffic Lines till 5.11.1984 due to the emergent situation which arose because of the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India.

(305) In so far as the accused Dalel Singh is concerned, the evidence on record establishes that the the accused Dalel Singh was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Nangloi at the relevant point of time but was on Casual Leave from 27.10.1984 to 5.11.1984 after having got the same sanctioned from the DCP (West) and the departmental record i.e. Duty Roaster and also the relevant Roznamcha indicating the entry bearing DD St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 263 of 268 No. 37 which finds independent confirmation from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses i.e. Inspector Raj Singh (PW9) and DCP Rajiv Ranjan (PW26) which aspect has been confirmed by the independent witness Attar Singh (DW2) who too has similarly confirmed the presence of accused Dalel Singh in his village Qutubgarh, Delhi at the relevant point of time and hence the presence of accused Dalel Singh at the spot of incident at the time of incident as claimed by Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh (both unreliable witnesses) does not stand established. (306) Coming next to the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana, it stands established that at the relevant time of the incident the accused Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana was posted as SHO Police Station Nangloi. The only evidence against him is the oral ocular count given by the witnesses Gurbachan Singh (PW1) and Kuldeep Singh (PW2) both of whom have been held to be unreliable witnesses whereas all other material eye witnesses including their real brothers i.e. Gurmeet Singh (PW4) and Amarjeet Singh (PW6) and their sister Smt. Devender Kaur (PW6) and relative i.e. Smt. Krishna (PW10) have not supported the version so given by Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh who themselves have been observed by this Court to be witnesses who are not totally reliable. There is no independent, reliable and authentic corroboration and confirmation to the version put forth by them so much so that both Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh have also contradicted each other on material particulars as already discussed separately. The prosecution has also not been able to prove and St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 264 of 268 establish beyond doubt the allegations against the accused Ram Pal Singh Rana to the effect that he had forcibly got the hair of the members of Sikh community cut and hurt their religious beliefs. In the carnage which followed the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi the then Prime Minister of India there was a total breakdown of the Law and Order in Delhi and Nangloi was one area which was worst hit with the entire police force relentlessly working to control the situation and the rioters to the best of their ability with whatever little resources they had at their disposal. Soon after these riots there were Bomb Blasts which shook Delhi killing 49 persons and Gurbachan Singh (PW1) was one of the suspect who was lifted along with his brother Amarjeet for questioning by the accused Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana and SI Dalel Singh along with the officials of the IB and Special Cell. As discussed herein above, it is only thereafter that Gurbachan Singh for the first time made allegations against Ram Pal Singh Rana and Dalel Singh and the possibility of this being on tutoring or as a Counter Blast, cannot be ruled out.

(307) It has been vehemently argued by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor that the job of the police officials was to protect the victims from the hooligans, on the date of incident, but they have added insult to their plight, by getting their haircut, in the premises of the Police Station Nangloi, hurting their religious beliefs. He has also pointed out that even the previous statements recorded by the Commission/ Committee were not put to the witnesses, during the course of their examination and the case was St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 265 of 268 badly investigated and also badly conducted by the concerned Public Prosecutor, for no fault of the victims. He has argued that the Prosecution case should not be suffered because of tainted/ bias investigation and improper conduct of the case by the State Counsel.

(308) On the other hand the Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that the present case is politically motivated which has been registered at a highly belated stage and there is no presumption with regard to the tainted/ bias investigations since the witnesses of the prosecution themselves have not supported their case and are inconsistent and have been changing their stand and hence it is very unfair for the Prosecution and the Ld. Counsel for the complainant to shift the blame on the accused. (309) I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that no doubt the present case was registered after the recommendations of Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission on the basis of the affidavits and statement made by Gurbachan Singh and Smt. Krishna. It is highly unfair for the Special Public Prosecutor and Ld. Counsel for victims to blame the State and Institutions when the witnesses of the prosecution i.e. alleged victims on the basis of whose assertions the case has been registered, are themselves inconsistent and wavering as regards the incident and do not support their earlier versions. Merely because the case relates to communal frenzy yardstick cannot be different. Whether, it is an ordinary crime or a crime emanating due to communal frenzy and law does not make any distinction either in leading of evidence or in its assessment and the Rule is St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 266 of 268 one and only one namely, if depositions are honest and true and the witness so examined credible then a conviction can be even based on the sole testimony of such a witness. No doubt, the investigations have been seriously lacking and have not been conducted professionally in the manner it ought to have been, yet when these witnesses who are eyes and ears of the Court, having themselves not supported their earlier versions, there is little that the State or the Courts can do and to shift the entire blame on the Prosecution and Investigating Agency would be highly unfair. (310) Therefore, in this background I hereby hold that in so far as the accused Satpal Gupta, Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, SI Dalel Singh and HC Karam Singh are concerned, the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of these accused. The chain of evidence and circumstances are not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused persons. The material brought on record by the prosecution is insufficient so as to hold that each of the accused i.e. Satpal Gupta, Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, SI Dalel Singh and HC Karam Singh are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not established a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused namely Satpal Gupta, Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, SI Dalel Singh and HC Karam Singh. Crucially, the material and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi Page No. 267 of 268 court to record a finding of guilt of an accused, particularly in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Satpal Gupta who is hereby acquitted. In so far as the accused Inspector Ram Pal Singh Rana, SI Dalel Singh and HC Karam Singh are concerned, the prosecution has not been able to establish the charges against them beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to them and they are hereby acquitted of the charges framed against them. Sureties are discharged. The provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. are directed to be complied with.

(311) File be consigned to Record Room thereafter.

Announced in the open court                                  (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 20.9.2014                                             ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI




St. Vs. Satpal Gupta & Ors., FIR No. 418/91, PS Nangloi                   Page No. 268 of 268

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs . (1) Prem Chand Jain on 20 September, 2014