News APP

NewsApp (Free)

Read news as it happens
Download NewsApp

Available on  gplay

This article was first published 11 years ago  » News » Delhi Police tried to shield 1984 riots accused: CBI

Delhi Police tried to shield 1984 riots accused: CBI

Source: PTI
March 15, 2013 19:29 IST
Get Rediff News in your Inbox:

The Central Bureau of Investigation on Friday alleged that the Delhi Police had failed to act against the main culprits and had tried to shield the accused in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case in which Congress leader Sajjan Kumar along with others is facing trial in a court in the national capital.

Continuing the final arguments, senior advocate R S Cheema, who appeared for the CBI, told District Judge J R Aryan that the two Delhi Police officials who had deposed as defence witnesses in the case were not "reliable".

"Whatever action was taken by the Delhi Police was taken against the people who helped the Sikhs. Police did not take action against the main culprits. No policeman was recording complaint during the riots. They were not helping the victims. They were trying to shield the accused," he said.

Sajjan Kumar is facing trial along with five others -- Balwan Khokkar, Kishan Khokkar, Mahender Yadav, Girdhari Lal and Captain Bhagmal -- for allegedly inciting a mob against the Sikh community in Delhi Cantonment area.

The case relates to anti-Sikh riots that had broken out after the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984.

"Even the police officials, who were defence witnesses in the case, had said in their statements that they had not seen anything during the riots," Cheema argued.

He said that this showed the police was only interested in "discrediting" the statement of eyewitness and complainant Jagdish Kaur and to give "clean chit" to Sajjan Kumar.

"They (police) were not ready to investigate the incident as per law," Cheema, who is likely to conclude arguments on March 18, said.

He referred to the statement of defence witness Chajju Ram, a police constable, in which he had deposed that he was on duty during those tumultuous days and did not come across any report of any killing or rioting in the Raj Nagar area.

Cheema argued, "The witness (Chajju) had said that he did not come across any violent activity in the area on November 1, 2 and 3, 1984. No incident of violence is mentioned between November 1 and 5. He had also stated that Sajjan Kumar had not come to the police post in his presence on November 2, 1984. On the other hand, according to GT Nanavati Commission report, the official casualty figures shows that during the riots 341 persons were killed, while 385 houses, 110 shops and 45 vehicles were burnt."

The CBI counsel also referred to the statement of another defence witness Delhi Police inspector Sunil Vashisht, who was earlier the investigating officer in the case, saying he neither went to the riot affected area nor took the statements of victims and witnesses.

"Vashisht was the investigating officer for 2-3 years and he says in his deposition that he never went to the area after the riots," he said.

CBI had earlier told the court there was a conspiracy of "terrifying proportion" between Kumar and the police during the riots. It had said the police had kept its "eyes closed" to the wide-spread violence.

The counsel for the accused had earlier contended that there were several contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. They had questioned the "conduct" of Jagdish Kaur.

The case against Kumar was registered in 2005 on a recommendation by Justice GT Nanavati Commission. The CBI had filed two chargesheets against him and others in January 2010.   The trial court had in May, 2010, framed charges against Kumar and five others under Sections 302 (murder), 395 (dacoity), 427 (mischief to cause damage to property), 153A (promoting enmity between different communities) and other provisions of the IPC.

Get Rediff News in your Inbox:
Source: PTI© Copyright 2024 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of PTI content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent.