Two steps forward…

Through barricade and blockade, more than two decades after the anti-Sikh massacres of 1984 the search for justice continues

Twenty–three years after the largest massacre in the history of independent India we are still at the most nascent stage of initiating criminal proceedings – debating whether or not to register cases and file charge sheets against the accused. In 1984, 2,733 innocent citizens were ruthlessly massacred in the heart of the country, the Mecca of secularism, and that too in broad daylight, in full public glare, for all to see. Even so, and what makes this the biggest slur on the rule of law and the justice delivery system in the country, only half a dozen murder cases have resulted in conviction, of about a dozen accused.

The non-registration of cases; and where cases were registered, the ominous omission of any details in the first information reports (FIRs); the bundling together of hundreds of incidents of murder that occurred at different places and at different times in a single FIR; defective investigations; the non-production of witnesses; the lack of interest displayed by prosecutors; and, to top it all, the laxity of judges, were common factors in the 1984 cases. Every possible flaw and irregularity, which could be critical in a criminal case, occurred in cases relating to the 1984 carnage. I am reminded of the words of political scientist Yogendra Yadav at the launch of the book When a Tree Shook Delhi (Manoj Mitta and HS Phoolka, Roli Books, 2007) where he said, very aptly, "Future generations would turn to this archive of the dark side of our democracy to learn lessons for building and sustaining a plural India."

Despite countless hurdles and impediments, the search for truth and hope for justice continues as does the follow-up of the 1984 cases. In recent weeks, a case that has sparked considerable interest is one that involves Congress MP and former union minister Jagdish Tytler. On November 1, 1984 three Sikhs were burnt alive by a mob during attacks on a gurdwara at Pulbangash in Central Delhi. Tytler was accused of leading the mob. How the cover-up by our law enforcement agencies still continues 23 years later is clear from a closer study of the case.

On the basis of evidence concerning Tytler’s presence during the incident and his instigating the mob, which was placed before the Justice GT Nanavati Commission of Inquiry (set up to inquire into the anti-Sikh riots of 1984), the commission, in its report tabled in parliament in August 2005, recommended registration of cases against Tytler. A few months later, after prolonged drama and much hue and cry in parliament, the government directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a case and investigate it. In September 2007, after nearly two years of investigation, the CBI closed the case against Tytler on the ground that one witness had backed out while the other had gone abroad and was unavailable. But what was even more shocking was that the CBI did not file a formal closure report in court. Instead, the bureau filed a charge sheet against a Suresh Panwala in which it was mentioned that the case against Tytler had been closed. As per procedure, when a charge sheet is filed the court takes cognisance of the charge sheet and issues warrants against the accused. On the other hand, when a closure report is filed the court scrutinises this carefully and issues a notice to the complainant before closing the case. The court is also empowered to reject the closure report. Even if the court does accept the report, the entire process takes a few months. In this case it appears that Tytler did not have a few months to spare nor was he in the mood to take any risks. And for obvious reasons.

The closure report was filed in September 2007, only a couple of months before a cabinet expansion was expected to take place in November. The whole idea, it appears, was to somehow absolve Tytler before November 2007 in order to clear his name so that he could be re-inducted into the cabinet. Reports in some newspapers had already indicated that Tytler’s induction as minister was a near certainty. It was no doubt thought (and hoped!) that the court would take cognisance of the charge sheet against Suresh Panwala and this would amount to an automatic acceptance of the closure of the case against Tytler. It appears that this was the reason why, instead of bothering to follow due legal procedure, the CBI proceeded to clear Tytler’s name in a charge sheet filed against another person.

Sadly, attempts to prevent the case from being tried in accordance with the law did not stop at that. When the charge sheet came up before the courts for the first time, the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (DSGMC) sought to file a petition protesting the closure. In the event that a prosecuting agency files a closure report in a particular case, the complainant has the right to file a protest petition against such a move. The CBI took objection to the DSGMC filing a protest petition on the technical ground that since Ranvir Singh was the complainant in the present case, the DSGMC had no locus standi to file a protest petition. The court then issued a notice to Ranvir Singh.

Inspector Ranvir Singh, the then assistant subinspector who was stated to be the complainant in FIR No. 316/84 which recorded this incident, informed the court of the metropolitan magistrate on November 29, 2007 that he was present at the spot where the incident occurred and that he did not even see Tytler at the spot or near it. The extent of the cover-up becomes absolutely clear from a scrutiny of Ranvir Singh’s conduct in the case. All the surviving Sikh victims had stated to police authorities and before the court that the burning of the gurdwara and the killings took place in the morning, during the pre-noon hours. Ranvir Singh recorded in the FIR that he reached the spot at the time the gurdwara was being attacked. The mischief lies in the fact that according to him this took place at 8 p.m. that night! Any doubts that one may have had regarding Ranvir Singh’s intentions are confirmed when one sees that the FIR does not contain even a whisper about the burning and killing of Sikhs.

Furthermore, although Ranvir Singh arrests 31 persons on the spot for indulging in violence, he only books them under Section 107 read with Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code, sections that only deal with breach of peace. To make matters worse, although Ranvir Singh mentions damage to property and burning of the gurdwara and other property in the FIR, he does not book these persons under Sections 295, 436, 452, etc of the Indian Penal Code, which are rightly applicable in the case.

By recording a defective FIR, Ranvir Singh had done great service to the accused. During the subsequent shoddy investigation and filing of the charge sheet, the discrepancy with regard to the time the incident occurred was never reconciled. The court of the then additional sessions judge, JB Goel (who ultimately retired as judge of the Delhi high court) had, while ruling on the case, noted these discrepancies and had even passed severe strictures against Ranvir Singh, stating that he had acted with a clear view to aiding the accused. The court also observed that it was obvious that Ranvir Singh was not present at the time the incident took place, in the morning.

Despite these strictures, Ranvir Singh was twice promoted and is currently the station house officer of an important police station. It is rather appalling and shameful that a person who went to great lengths to ruin the case earlier and to shield the guilty, a person, moreover, against whom strictures were passed by the court, has once again attempted to undo our efforts of 23 years to bring the culprits to book. What is even more unfortunate is that such an individual is a protector of law and order whose utmost duty is to uphold the law and aid in unearthing the truth.

However, they say that when one door closes, two more open. Little did we know that these words would apply quite literally in our case! In December 2007 the witness Jasbir Singh, who the CBI said was unavailable, filed an application before the court of the additional chief metropolitan magistrate, informing the court that he was both available and willing to depose against Jagdish Tytler. It is rather surprising that a witness who was declared "unavailable" by the CBI was, in fact, easily available to anyone who wished to get in touch with him. Fortunately, on the basis of Jasbir Singh’s application, the additional chief metropolitan magistrate directed that further investigations should be conducted into the matter. Meanwhile, in February 2008 another witness in the case, Giani Surinder Singh who, according to the CBI, had backed out, also came forward and stated that if he was given protection he too was prepared to depose against Tytler. Following this, the CBI has now recorded a detailed statement from Giani Surinder Singh.

The matter is still being investigated by the CBI. This is a constant struggle between those who have gone to great lengths to cover up the truth and those who have done everything possible to uncover it. The fight for justice continues. Apart from the plight of the many hapless victims and the injustice done to them, the driving force behind this fight is also the unwavering resolve that Delhi, Bombay, Gujarat, shall never be repeated.

Archived from Communalism Combat,  April 2008 Year 14    No.130, Update
 

Trending

IN FOCUS

Newsletter

Related Articles

Related VIDEOS

ALL STORIES