Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. As per the aforementioned first challan, household goods which were found thrown on the streets or in public places had been taken in police possession by proceedings recorded under Section 102 Cr. PC. As many as 108 dead bodies had been found and gathered and subjected to autopsy, some of them having been identified. Lists of the persons who had died and lists of the properties which had been damaged were added as Annexures „A‟ and „B‟ respectively. The charge-sheet concluded with the submission that curfew had been proclaimed in Delhi under Section 144 Cr. PC and that the riots had taken place in breach of the said curfew restrictions, in the course of which the aforesaid offences including of murder had been committed, it thus seeking prosecution for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 436, 427, 188, 452, 380, 356, and 323 IPC to be held.

73. PW-7 corroborated the statement of PW-8 about 107 rioters apprehended during the above mentioned action by the latter (PW-8) and other police personnel had been brought to the place in his presence. He was unable to indicate the exact time when curfew was promulgated in the area under his control stating that the message received from Commissioner of Police had been duly recorded and the entire staff had been briefed on the subject though he was not able to clearly state if any written instructions were issued. He had passed on the instructions by contacting police personnel at their respective duty points in the area at the time of patrolling. He was unable to orally tell the place of duty of different police personnel under his control. He conceded that it had not been possible to enforce the curfew orders explaining that he did not have sufficient police force available to him for such purposes. He confirmed that armed forces had joined in bringing the disturbed conditions under control including by a march in the area of Trilok Puri undertaken during the afternoon (around 2/ 2.30 p.m.) of 02.11.1984

74. PW-7 was not able to specify as to which of the arrestees were picked up from which particular place of block no.32 or the area around. He was also not able to narrate the sequence of the arrests or the number of persons who were apprehended first followed by subsequent arrests. He corroborated the word of PW-8 about all arrests having been made by 10 / 10.30 p.m. Crucially, under cross- examination, the witness stated that riots had subsided in the wake of arrests of 107 persons. The arrested persons were removed to the police station sometime around midnight, the list in their regard having been prepared after the rukka had been sent. He denied the suggestions about he not having seen the riot affected areas or curfew not having been proclaimed insisting that the announcement of imposition of curfew had been made in the entire area through loudspeakers. He also denied the suggestions that the persons arrested had been picked up from the houses or apprehended from "the public way".

82. But then, inclusion of such extraneous material in the trial court‟s judgment, cannot by itself, lead to the conclusion that the decision is wholly unfounded. It is the duty and obligation of this Court - the final Court on facts - to subject the evidence that was adduced on record to another scrutiny and examine if the conviction has been properly returned.

83. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in general, leaves no room for doubt that riots had broken out in various blocks of Trilok Puri, particularly affecting, very badly, Block no.32 right from the afternoon of 31.10.1984, such conditions having continued till 03.11.1984 and, consequently, riotous mobs prevalent in the afternoon of 02.11.1984 in Block no.32 to which the present case relates. The evidence also clearly brings out that the civil authorities had found the situation to be going out of control and, therefore, prohibitory orders had been promulgated by the then Commissioner of Police on 31.10.1984 followed by curfew order issued and promulgated on 01.11.1984, copies of the said prohibitory order (Ex. PW1/B) and curfew order (Ex. PW1/A) having been proved by PW-1 (as indeed by PW-3 qua Pyare Lal). There is abundant evidence available on record that the said orders were duly published for information of people at large in various localities including the areas where the crimes alleged in the present case were committed. By virtue of these orders, any unauthorized presence or assembly of persons, particularly an assembly of persons of five or more with the common object to commit an offence, would be unlawful and liable to be treated as disobedience to the order to such effect duly promulgated by a public servant within the mischief of the penal clause contained in Section 188 IPC.