PART OF
NANAVATI REPORT
PART-IV
ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION
|
|
|
|
1.
GENERAL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.
HIGHER
UPS |
|
|
A. GENERAL
As
the evidence consisting of affidavits and depositions of witnesses revealed
involvement of some Congress (I) leaders and workers and also of some local
persons, the Commission thought it proper to issue notices to such persons
under Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. On consideration of the
evidence of witnesses and also other material consisting of police records,
reports etc. it also appeared to the Commission that conduct of certain police
officers and policemen was also required to be inquired into. Therefore,
notices under Section 8B were gien to them also. They were all given an
opportunity of being heard and to produce evidence in their defence. To the
extent it was possible, they were also supplied with copies of the evidence
against them. They were also informed, as and when they appeared before the
Commission, that they were permitted to inspect the record for preparing their
defence.
B. NEW DELHI
DISTRICT
On
scrutiny of the evidence relating to the Gurdwara Rakab Ganj in New Delhi District
it appeared to the Commission that though policemen were posted there, they did
nothing to prevent an attack on the Gurdwara or to disperse the mobs which had
gathered near the Gurdwara. The evidence of S/Shri Mukhtiar Singh, Ajit Singh,
Satnam Singh and Monish Sanjay Suri disclosed that the policemen posted there
had remained completely passive and had failed to perform their duty. Their
statements show the presence of Sub Inspector Hoshiar Singh and range in charge
Shri Gautam Kaul at the time of incident. Therefore, notices were issued to Sub
Inspector Hoshiar Singh and Shri Gautam Kaul. As the evidence of those
witnesses also disclosed presence of Shri Kamal Nath and Shri Vasant Sathe in
the mob and some participation by them, notices were also issued to them.
Shri
Vasant Sathe has denied his present at the place of incident. Shri Monish
Sanjay Suri, a Journalist and Shri Ajit Singh have not spoken about presence of
Shri Vasant Sathe in the mob. He is involved by Shri Mukhtiar Singh for the
first time after a lapse of about 16 years. Shri Vasant Sathe in his reply has
stated that on 1-11-84 at around 11 a.m. he was present at Teen Murti Bhawan
where the body of Smt. Indira Gandhi was kept. While he was there he was
interviewed by T.V. crew of Delhi Doorshan in which he had appealed to the
people to remain calm and not to indulge in any kind of anti social activities.
He had also stated that the Sikh community is very patriotic and they have made
a lot of sacrifices in attaining independence and and in the freedom movement
and for the mistake of two persons of the community the whole community should
not be blamed or condemned. He has denied to have gone near Gurudwara Rakab
Ganj on that day at any time. Shri Mukhtiar Singh’s version is that Shri Vasant
Sathe and Shri Kamal Nath were together when Shri Kamal Nath was instigating
the mob. On consideration of the other material which does not support the
version of Shri Mukhtiar Singh and the reply of Shri Sathe, it appears that
Shri Mukhtiar Singh had a wrong impression about the presence of Shri Vasant
Sathe.
Shri
Kamal Nath, in his affidavit, has stated that in the afternoon of 1-11-84, on
receiving information that some violence was taking place in and around
Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Sahib, he as a senior and responsible leader of the
Congress Party decided to go there. When he reached there, he found that lots
of people were standing outside the Gurudwara and para military personnel were
also present. He tried to find out from various persons in the mob as to why
they had gathered there and why they were agitated. He was told that some Hindu
men and women were kept inside the Gurudwara forcibly and that was the main
reason why they were agitated. By that time the Commissioner of Police came
there. He felt satisfied that police would be able to control the situation, so
he left that place. He has further stated that while he was near the Gurudwara
he had tried to persuade the crowd to disperse and not to take law into their
hands. He had also told the crowd that since the police had arrived, it was
their job to ensure safety of the Hindus, if any, inside the Gurudwara and that
the police would be able to control the situation. He has denied that he gave
instructions to any one to resort to firing. He has also denied that he had
either led that mob or had any control over the mob.
Reply
filed by Shri Kamal Nath is vague. He has not clearly stated at what time he
went there and how long he remained there. The situation at the Gurudwara had
become very grave at about 11.30 a.m. and continued to remain grave till about
3.30 p.m. The evidence discloses that Shri Kamal Nath was seen in the mob at
about 2 p.m. The Police Commissioner had reached that place at about 3.30
p.m. So he was there for quite a long
time. He has not stated whether he went to the Gurudwara alone or with some
other persons and how he went there. He has not stated that he looked for the
police or tried to contact the policemen who were posted there for ensuring
that the situation remained under control. He left that place after the
Commissioner of Police arrived. He has not stated that he met him. He was a
senior political leader and feeling concerned about the law and order situation
went to the Gurudwara and therefore it appears little strange that he left that
place abruptly without even contacting the police officers who had come there.
At the same time it is also required to be considered that he was called upon
to give an explanation after about 20 years and probably for that reason he was
not able to give more details as regards when and how he went there and what he
did. Shri Suri has said that Shri Kamal Nath and tried to persuade the mob to
disperse and the mob had retreated for some time. Therefore, it would not be
proper to come to the conclusion that Shri Kamal Nath had in any manner
instigated the mob. Shri Mukhtiar Singh, Shri Ajit Singh were quite far away
from the place where Shri Kamal Nath stood amongst the mob and they could not
have heard anything that Shri Kamal Nath told to the persons in the mob. What
Shri Mukhtiar Singh and Ajit Singh have stated about what Shri Kamal Nath did
is by way of an inference drawn by them from the gestures that were made by
Shri Kamal Nath while talking to the persons in the mob. In absence of better
evidence it is not possible for the Commission to say that he had in any manner
instigated the mob or that he was involved in the attack on the Gurudwara.
Shri
Gautam Kaul, who was the Additional Commissioner of New Delhi Range, has stated
in his explanation that on 1-11-84 he was assigned specifically the charge of
looking after law and order arrangement at Teen Murti House and to handle VIP
visits. He had also to look after the security of newly appointed Prime
Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi. While he was in the premises of Teen Murti House,
at about 12.30 p.m., a wireless message was picked up by his wireless operator
informing that an agitated crowd was moving towards Gurudwara Rakab Ganj and
there was a request for force. After some time another message was heard on
wireless that the Commissioner of Police himself was going with an armed force
to deal with the crowd. Till about 3.30 p.m. he was busy controlling the crowd
at Teen Murti House. After making proper arrangements there he decided to move out
for local tour. While driving past Gurudwara Rakab Ganj, he found a group of 40
persons still roaming on the main road. Seeing a police car a section of this
group ran away but a small defiant group did not react to his presence. Inspite
of his telling them that prohibitory orders against assembling were in force
they did not move away so he threatened them that he would return with armed
party and deal with them in an appropriate manner and tried to create an
impression that he was going with a view to come back with more police force.
Thereupon that small group had also withdrawn from that place. He has further
stated that at about 4 p.m. he had returned to Teen Murti House. He was further
stated that he was near the Gurudwara for about 10 to 12 minutes and it is
wrong to say that a mob had tried to enter the Gurudwara in his presence.
What
he was stated is not consistent with the other evidence. The situation near the
Gurudwara was very tense till about 3.30 p.m. i.e. till the Police Commissioner
reached there with a big force. Even thereafter for some time the situation
there was not normal. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that he went near
the Gurudwara some time between 3.30 p.m. and 4 p.m. and at that time only a
small crowd was near it. Shri Monish Sanjay Suri has spoken about presence of
Shri Gautam Kaul while there was a big mob outside the Gurudwara and it was
making an attempt to enter the Gurudwara. Though there does not appear to be
any reason for Shri Monish Suri to falsely say something against Shri Kaul, in
view of the discrepancy in his evidence as regards the time when he reached
there, the Commission is not inclined to record a finding against him that he
failed to perform his duty as alleged against him. The evidence of Shri Mukhtiar
Singh and Shri Suri is also not
consistent on the point.
Shri
Hoshiar Singh, in his reply, has stated that large number of persons returning
from Teen Murti House had come near the Gurudwara as there was a bus stand
nearby. As they were not able to get buses immediately, they remained near the
Gurudwara. They were raising anti-Sikh slogans. Sewadars of the Gurudwara were
roaming in the Gurudwara premises with open Kirpans and ‘Bhallas’. Some of them
rebuked those persons who were raising anti-Sikh slogans. That had proved the
mob and the situation had become tense. So he had informed the Station House
Officer Shri T.S. Bhalla about the situation. He alongwith other officers had
gone inside the Gurudwara at about 9 a.m. and met Shri Gian Singh who was the
Jathedar and advised the persons there to remain inside and to refrain from
making provocating gestures. The police had then taken effective steps to
disperse the mob and he himself had fired three rounds in the air from his
revolver. He denied that two Sikhs were burnt in presence of the police. He has
denied that he had given his revolver to a person in the mob and told him to
fire at the Gurudwara. According to him what had happened was that someone in
the mob had snatched the revolver of Shri Satpal Singh, a Member of Parliament.
That was recovered and subsequently deposited in the Malkhana. According to him
because of the effective steps taken by him and the other policemen, no person
in the Gurudwara was injured. He has stated that right from the 7’O clock on
that day he was near the Gurudwara with 5 other policemen. At about 1 p.m., 12
home guards were made available to him.
Thus
according to Sub Inspector Shri Hoshiar Singh he had effectively controlled the
situation at the Gurudwara. If he is right then it is difficult to understand
why the Police Commissioner was required to rush to that place with a big
police force at about 3.30 p.m. A huge crowd had remained near the Gurudwara
from about 11.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. Damage was caused to the Gurudwara and there
was great tension. His explanation is not only vague but evasive also. He has
nothing to say about how damage was cause to the Gurudwara without the mob
going inside the Gurudwara and how the two Sikhs were burnt alive there and why
there was firing from inside the Gurudwara. It appears to the Commission that
Hoshiar Singh and his men did not take effective steps to protect the Gurudwara
and to disperse the mob which had gathered there. Not a single person from the
mob which had entered the Gurudwara or was trying to enter the Gurudwara was
apprehended by him or by his team. No force appears to have been used by them
to check the riotous crowd. The fact that the mob was big cannot justify
inaction on his part and the other policemen. It is a clear case of dereliction
of duty on the part of Shri Hoshiar Singh and the policemen who were posted
there and therefore the Commission recommends that the Government should
initiate appropriate action against him and those policemen who were with him.
The
evidence of Shri Ram Bilas Paswan (W-135) and the statement of Shri Inder Mohan
clearly disclose involvement of Congress (I) workers in the incidents referred
to by them. On the basis of the evidence of Shri Khushwant Singh (Witness-7),
Ms. Jaya Jaitly (Witness-5), Shri Ashok Jaitly (Witness-24) and other
witnesses, the Commission is also of the view that the policemen posted at some
places in this area watched the violent incidents as spectators and did not
perform their duty of preventing the mobs from doing so.
C. CENTRAL
DISTRICT
From
the material with respect to the incidents which happened in the Central
District, it appeared to the Commission that Congress (I) Leaders S/Shri Dharam
Dass Shastri, Tek Chand Sharma, Rajinder Sharma, Hem Chander and Shri Mahesh
Yadav were the persons who instigated the mobs or took part in the violent
attacks. It also appeared to the Commission that SI Om Prakash and ASI
Rameshwar were negligent in performance of their duty when a riotous mob had
attacked Marina Store. It also appeared to the Commission that DCP Shri Amodh
Kanth and Station House Officer Shri S.S. Manan had not performed their duty
properly during the incident which happened on 5-11-84 near the house of Shri
Trilok Singh. Therefore, notices u/s 8B were issued to all those persons.
Notices to Sub Inspector Om Prakash and Assistant Sub Inspector Rameshwar could
not be issued as their addresses did not become available inspite of efforts
made in that behalf. Notices were served upon S/Shri Dharam Dass Shastri, Tek
Chand Sharma, Rajinder Prasad Sharma, Hem Chander and Shri Mahesh Yadav. Shri
Amod Kanth and Shri S.S. Manan were also served with the notices. Shri Tek
Chand Sharma and Shri Rajinder Sharma did not file any reply but appeared
through their advocate Shri Vinod Khanna who after perusing the record
submitted that the allegations made against them are not true. S/Shri Dharam
Dass Shastri, Mahesh Yadav and Hem Chander have replied to the notices. Shri
Amod Kanth and Shri S.S. Manan have also filed their explanations.
There
was an attack on the house of Shri Avtar Singh on 1-11-84. The affidavits of
Shri Avtar singh and Shri Chuni Lal and the evidence given by Shri Daljinder
Singh indicate that at the instance of Shri Dharam Dass Shastri, who was a
Congress (I) MP at the relevant time, Shri Tek Chand Sharma and Shri Rajinder
Singh alongwith other persons attacked the house of Shri Avtar Singh. Shri
Dharam Dass Shastri, is stated to have gone to the house of Shri Tek Chand on
the previous night and instigated him and others who were present there to kill
Sikhs and that Shri Tek Chand and two or three other persons who were with Shri
Dharam Dass Shastri at the house of Shri Tek chand were seen in the mob which
had attacked the house of Shri Avtar Singh on the following morning. The attack
had continued for quite a long time and as Shri Tek Chand and those two or
three named persons were from the same locality, the witnesses were able to
recognize them. Even though a written complaint was given on 1-11-84 to the
police for this incident, no offence was registered till 28-11-84. Inspite of
the fact that these persons were named in the complaint and an offence was also
registered, no further action was taken against them by the police. Shri Dharam
Dass Shastri has in his reply denied the allegations made against him. But when
a written complaint was made to the police with specific allegations against
those persons it was the duty of the police to properly investigate that
offence and file a chargesheet against the accused found to be involved. There
is further evidence suggesting that Shri Dharam Dass Shastri was actively
involved in the riots in this area. There is also evidence of Shri Bua Singh,
Amrik Singh and Shri Harvinder Singh indicating involvement of Shri Dharam Dass
Shastri in the riots in this area. Bua Singh has stated that Shri Dharam Dass
Shastri and Shri Rajinder had come near his house and at that time Shri Dharam
Shastri had told Shri Rjainder to get more persons and kill Sikhs. Shri Amrik
Singh has stated that while his shop was looted, Shri Rajinder and Shri Dharam
Dass Shastri were leading that mob. Shri Dharam Dass Shastri was also telling
the mob to burn houses of Sikhs. Shri Harvinder Singh has also stated that Shri
Dharam Dass Shastri was telling the persons in the mob to kill sikhs and loot
them. It has also come in evidence that on 5-11-84, he alongwith some Municipal
Councilors and about 3000 persons had gone to the Karol Bagh Police Station as
stated by witnesses S/Shri Pritipal Singh, Ranbir Singh and Monish Sanjay Suri.
Shri
Dharam Dass Shastri had requested for cross examination of the persons who have
filed affidavits against him and also for permission to produce three police
officers as defence witnesses. On his request Shri Amod Kanth who was the DCP
at the relevatn time was called for cross-examination. Other request was not
pursued. What has been taken out in the cross-examination of Shri Amod Kanth is
that Shri H.C. Jatav had not used harsh words against him. Shri H.C. Jatav has,
however, reiterated that there was disagreement between him and Shri H.C.
Jatav. He admitted that he had issued a clarification in a newspaper and had
denied therein that the Station House Officer was manhandled by the Member of
Parliament or any other elected representative. The evidence of Shri Amod Kanth
and the report made by him to his superior officers on 7-11-84 support to some
extent the evidence of these witnesses. The version of the witnesses and Shri
Amod Kanth deserves to be believed in absence of a better explanation from Shri
Dharam Dass Shastri as to why he had gone to the Police Station. He had gone
there with other local leaders for release of persons who were arrested for
looting or being in possession of looted goods. Shri Dharam Dass Shastri had
condemned the police for arresting the rioters by stating that they could not
have been treated as criminals. The report further shows that the police
officers were threatened with dire consequences if they took any action against
those persons for being in possession of looted property. The Commission,
therefore, is of the view that there is credible evidence against Shri Dharam
Dass Shastri who was a Congress (I) leader of the locality, that he had
instigated his men Shri Tek Chand Sharma and Shri Rajinder Singh to organize
attack on Sikhs. The Commission recommends to the Government that it should
examine the relevant material and direct investigation or further investigation
as may be found necessary with respect to the aforesaid allegations.
Two
witnesses speak about the involvement of Shri Hem Chander and Shri Mahesh
Yadav, both Congress (I) workers, in the incidents which happened in Inderpuri
on 1-11-84. gurcharan Singh has stated that a mob, which had looted his truck
at about 11 a.m., was led by Shri Hem Chander and that Shri Mahesh Yadav had
come near his house in a jeep and distributed petrol cans to the mob which had
thereafter attacked his house and burnt his father alive. Shri Kripal Singh
Chawla has also spoken about the role played by Shri Mahesh Yadav and Shri Hem
Chander at about 10 a.m. when he was attacked and partly burnt. In their
replies to the notices issued to them they have denied those allegations by
stating that they had not committed such acts. Shri Hem Chander has also produced
a copy of the judgement delivered in Sessions No.73 of 1995 to show that he was
acquitted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in that case. A
perusal of that judgement shows that the allegations made against Shri Hem
Chander and his son was in respect of burning Jagat Singh alive and also for
causing damage to his house. In that case Gurcharan Singh was cited as an
eyewitness but he could not be examined by the prosecution because he had gone
to USA and died there on 20-01-2000. His brother Sukhbir Singh had given
evidence regarding the attack and stated that he did not identify anyone from
the crowd as he had hidden himself on the second flor of the house alongwith
other family members. It was for that reason that the Court of the Additional
Sessions Judge, Delhi had acquitted Shri Hem Chander and his son. Therefore, it
cannot be concluded from the said judgement that what Shri Gurucharan has said
in his affidavit is not true. What Shri Kirpal Singh Chawla has said in his
affidavit also remains unshaken. The evidence of these two witnesses
establishes that Shri Hem Chander and Shri Mahesh Yadav, who were Congress (I)
workers of Rajinder Nagar locality, had taken part in the attacks on Sikhs by
instigating the mobs as alleged against them. However, in view of their
acquittal by the Court, no further action is recommended against them.
Shri
Trilok Singh has made serious allegations against the police, particularly,
against DCP Amodh Kanth and Station House Officer Shri S.S. Manan. He alongwith
his father and other family members were residing on the second floor of house
No.2176 situated in Gali No.1, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj. His uncle’s family was
occupying the first floor of the house. There were two shops on the ground
floor. Their house was earlier attacked on 3-11-84 and therefore, their family
and his uncle’s family had taken shelter in the Pahar Ganj Police Station. On
being told by the police on 5-11-84 that the situation in their area was
peaceful, they returned to their homes. As stated by Shri Trilok Singh, at
about 6.30 p.m. he and his father noticed a crowd near their house. His uncle
who has a telephone at his house informed the police for help whereupon ASI Dev
Raj with some constables came to their house. ASI Dev Raj left at about 7 p.m.
telling them that he was posting some constables and home guards outside their
house and therefore they should not worry. After some time he went down to
serve tea to the policemen but he found that they were not there. So his father
went out of the house to find out if they were there or had gone away.
Immediately thereafter he heard shouts “kill the Sikhs”. The mob then started
throwing stones at their house. His uncle opened fire to keep the mob away. As
a result thereof the mob did retreat. Within a short time more policemen and
army men arrived. So his uncle stopped firing. Inspite of that there was firing
from outside by the military and the police. The police and the army stopped
firing after sometime and then made all their family members to come out of the
house and sit on the road. One of them fired a shot at Narinder Singh who was
his uncle’s relatives. The policemen beat them with lathis. Thereafter they
were made to sit in a truck and taken to Daryaganj Police Station. They were
kept in a lock up throughout the night. They were not given any food. They were
all sent to jail on the next day at about 8 p.m. They remained in jail till
14-11-84. It is also the grievance of the witness that a false case was
registered against them by the police for resorting to firing and killing
Mangal and Kishan Bahadur Gurang, though as a matter of fact, they were killed
in cross firing between police and the army. His further grievance is though
Central Forensic Science Laboratory’s (CFSL) report dated 26-2-85 was received
by the police on 30-4-85 clearly indicating that Kishan Bahadur Gurang had not
died as a result of any bullet fired from the weapons seized from their house,
the government continued to pursue the case for three more years and that no action
was taken against the policemen. While giving evidence before this Commission
Trilok Singh has further stated that he had withdrawn his affidavit filed
earlier because of threats given by the police. In his further affidavit and
while giving evidence before this Commission he has repeated the allegations
made against the police.
In
his written explanation, Shri Amodh Kanth has denied the allegations made
against him and the other policemen. Shri S.S. Manan has also submitted written
explanation and denied those allegations. Shri S.S. Manan was also examined as
a witness (Witness No.79). They have not stated why those allegations have been
made against them but they have stated that the full version given by those
witnesses is not correct. According to their version Shri S.S. Manan received
information regarding firing by some Sikhs in Chuna Mandi area at about 8 p.m.
while he was patrolling some other area. So he rushed to that place. He saw
that some Sikhs were firing and throwing brick-bats from the roof top of house
No.2176 and as a result thereof people were running here and there in the
nearby lanes. One person was found lying dead on the road. Shri S.S. Manan,
therefore, appealed to those Sikhs to stop firing and surrender. It did not
have any effect and the Sikhs inside the house kept on firing indiscriminately.
He, therefore, in self-defence fired some shots from his revolver. He also
flashed a message for immediate help. Within a short time DCP Amodh Kanth
alongwith some army jawans reached that place. They also told the Sikhs to stop
firing and surrender. But the Sikhs continued to fire shots. Kishan Bahadur
Gurang of the army was hit by a bullet fired by the Sikhs. Only after the
inmates of house No.2176 were surrounded from all the sides that they
surrendered before the police. As Narinder Singh had sustained a bullet injury,
he was rushed to JPN Hospital. Thereafter a joint search party consisting of
police and army searched that house and recovered 4 fire arms and three swords.
They also recovered 198 cartridges / blank empties of different bores. They
have further explained that the subsequent report of the CFSL dated 10-4-85 did
suggest that the bullets which had caused death of Mangal Singh could have come
from the case of .3006 bullet, shotgun pallet or .32 revolver bullet. They have
also explained that relying upon this subsequent report the District and
Sessions Court had framed charges in that case and therefore it is not correct
to say that the criminal case against those Sikhs was continued unjustifiably
for three years. The said case was withdrawn for some other reasons and in
larger public interest and not because the CFSL report did not support the
prosecution.
What
emerges from this and other documentary evidence on record is that the
policemen who were posted near their house disappeared after some time. On
seeing a big crowd pelting stones towards their house, they got frightened and
started indiscriminate firing at the crowd. When ASI Dev Raj reached there he
found one person lying on the road and that would suggest that he had died as a
result of firing from within that house as there was no firing by any one else
by that time. The version of Shri Trilok Singh and Avtar Singh that Kishan
Bahadur Gurang had died as a result of cross firing between the police and the
army does not appear to be correct. There was no reason for the police and the
army to indulge in such cross firing. If the situation had become quiet by the
time Shri Amodh Kanth and the army reached there, there was no necessity for
them to resort to firing. The facts and the circumstances relating to this
incident do show that firing had continued from that house and to neutralize it
the police and the army had to fire towards that house. What Shri Amod Kanth
has stated in this behalf appears to be more probable as the second CFSL report
dated 10-04-85 does not rule out the possibility of the bullet which hit Kishan
Bahadur Gurang having come from one of the fire arms ceased from that house.
Large number of empties found from that house also indicate that firing from
within that house was quite intensive. For all these reasons the allegations
made against Shri Amod Kanth that he did not take effective steps to disperse
the rioting mob but was strict with the persons who were defending themselves
does not appear to be correct. The material on record further shows that Shri
Amod Kanth had even opposed his superior officer Shri H.C. Jatav when the
latter wanted to treat the persons who had looted articles belonging to Sikhs
to be released and treated liberally. The Commission does not find any reliable
material on the basis of which it can be said that DCP Shri Amod Kanth and
Inspector S.S. Manan had either failed to perform their duties properly or that
they had anti-Sikh attitude and therefore misused their position in treating
the families of Shri Trilok Singh and his uncle.
The
incidents of attack on the house of Camptain Manmohan Singh and the shop of
Sahni Paints do disclose that no immediate help was given by the police to
those who needed it. Shri Manmohan Singh, Shri Kripal Singh Chawla and Shri
Trilok Singh’s evidence disclose that they were required to use their fire arms
to defend themselves as no protection was made available to them in time by the
police against the attacks on them by violent mobs.
D. NORTH
DISTRICT
On
the basis of the evidence relating to the incidents which happened in this
District it appeared to the Commission that the ACP Shri R.S. Malik, SI Ram
Singh, ASI Amar Nath, ASI Mange Ram, ASI Raja Ram, Police Inspector Jai Bhagwan
Malik, Police Inspector Durga Prasad and SI Sat Prakash had not performed their
duty property. Accordingly, notices u/s 8B of Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952
were issued to them. Out of them ASI Raja Ram could not be served with the
notice as he had already expired earlier. Others were served and they have
filed their replies. It also appeared to the Commission that S/Shri Jagdish
Tytler, Ram Lal, Kaka Bali, Ram Chander Nagoria and Tarvinder Singh Bedi, who
were all Congress (I) Leaders or workers, were in some way involved in the
attacks on Sikhs or their properties in this area. Notice issued to Shri
Tarvinder Singh could not be served as it was reported that he has died. Notice
was not issued to Kaka Bali also as he had expired earlier. S/Shri Jagdish
Tytler, Ram Chander Nagoria and Ram Lal have sent their replies.
Shri
Surinder Sigh (Witness No.147), who was the Head Granthy of Gurudwara
Pulbangash, situated near Azad Market while describing the attack on the Gurudwara
on 1-11-84 at about 9 a.m., has stated that the mob which attacked the
Gurudwara was led by Shri Jagdish Tytler who was then Congress (I) MP of the
area. He has stated that Shri Jagdish Tytler had incited the mob to burn the
Gurudwara and kill the Sikhs. According to his evidence the mob had thereafter
attacked the Gurudwara and burnt it. One Badal Singh was also burnt alive. He
has also stated that he was contacted by Shri Jagdish Tytler on 10-11-84 and
asked to sign on two sheets of paper. In reply to this allegation Shri Jagdish
Tytler has referred to the subsequent affidavit dated 5-8-2002 filed by this
witness, wherein he has stated that he does not know what was written in his
earlier statement as he cannot read or write English. He has further stated
therein that he had not seen Shri Jagdish Tytler in the mob that had attacked
the Gurudwara. Shri Jagdish Tytler has also stated that at the relevant time on
1.11.84 he was present at 1 Safdarjang Road where the body of Late Smt. Indira
Gandhi was lying in state and that at no point of time on that day he had gone
near that Gurudwara. Witness Shri Surinder Singh, during his cross examination,
admitted that he had not filed any affidavit earlier either before Justice
Mishra Commission or any other authority regarding what he had stated now. It
would appear that by itself cannot be a good ground for not beliving him. He
has given evidence before this Commission and therefore what he has stated in
his subsequent affidavit referred to by Shri Jagdish Tytler is not of much
value. What appears from all this is that the subsequent affidavit was probably
obtained by persuasion or under pressure. If this witness had really not seen
Shri Jagdish Tytler in the mob or if he was not approached by Shri Tytler then
he would not have come before the Commission to give evidence or would have
told the Commission that the attack did not take place in that manner. For
speaking the truth it was not necessary for him to wait till 5-2-2002 and file
an additional affidavit. He was not called for cross examination by Shri
Tytler.
As
stated by Shri Gurbachan Singh (Witness-137) involvement of Shri Jagdish Tytler
was also disclosed by the affected persons to the ‘Citizen Commission’ during
the inquiry, which it had made within a short time after the riots. That
inquiry was made by eminent persons of unquestionable integrity. Shri Govind
Narain (Witness – 150) who had assisted the Citizens Committee, whose Chairman
was Mr. Justice Sikri, has also stated that witnesses had told the Committee
about participation by S/Shri H.K.L. Bhagat, Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler in
the anti-Sikh riots. Relying upon all this material, the Commission considers
it safe to record a finding that there is credible evidence against Shri
Jagdish Tytler to the effect that very probably he had a hand in organizing
attacks on Sikhs. The Commission, therefore, recommends to the Government to
look into this aspect and take further action as may be found necessary.
On
1-11-84 at about 2.45 p.m. 20 taxis were burnt and two persons were killed at
the Inter State Bus Terminus (ISBT). Shri Smitu Kothari, who had witnessed that
incident, has stated that six constables were present near that place when the
incident had happened but they merely kept on watching it and did not prevent
the mob from committing such acts or make any attempt to apprehend anyone from
that mob. The record establishes that SI Ram Singh and ASI Amar Nath were
present at the ISBT. If what Shri Kothari has stated is correct then obviously
a finding deserves to be recorded against those policemen that they had failed
to perform their duty. SI Ram Singh, in his reply affidavit, has pointed out
that he and ASI Amar Nath were posted in the departure block of I.S.B.T. and
the taxi stand where the incident took place was at some distance from the
departure block. Their attention was drawn to the incident because of the noise
after the taxi stand was put on fire. What he has stated appears to be true
because by the time he reached that place with some constables he received a
copy of DD No.20 through police constable Kahaniya Lal with respect to this
incident. That would got to show that he was not present when the mob had set
the taxi stand and taxis on fire. The documentary evidence on record thus supports
the version of Ram Singh. Ram Singh has also pointed out that in the
departmental inquiry against him and ASI Amar Nath Sardar Laxman Singh,
President of the ISBT Taxi Stand Union and Sardar Jhanda Singh one of the taxi
drivers whose taxi was burnt had given evidence to the effect that a mob of
about 2000 persons had suddenly come near the taxi stand and started burning
taxis. After some time Ram Singh and ASI Amar Nath alongwith the staff had come
to that place, resorted to lathi charge and dispersed the mob. SI Ram Singh
then removed the injured persons to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital and also rescued
about 50 to 60 Sikhs residing there and sent them to the police post for their
safety. On the basis of this material he was exonerated in the departmental inquiry.
In view of the fact that Shri Ram Singh’s version is supported by the
contemporary documentary the version given by Shri Smitu Kothari does not
appear to be correct.
Three
persons, namely, S/Shri Inder Singh, Maan Singh and Mahesh Sharma have spoken
about the looting and burning of houses of Sikhs in Nimri Colony on 1-11-84 at
about 9 a.m. Their allegation is that Sub Inspector Mange Ram and his assistant
were present when the attacks took place but they did not stop the mob from
committing such acts even though they were armed.
Shri
Mange Ram in his reply to the notice has stated that on the basis of this
allegation he was tried in the court of Additional and District Sessions Judge,
New Delhi in Sessions No.32 of 2001 and was acquitted in that case. It appears
from that judgement that these witnesses had stated before the court that they
were not able to identify any person in that mob. They had not identified Mange
Ram. However, in view of the statements of these witnesses, departmental
inquiry ought to have been initiated against him to find out whether there was
any dereliction of duty on his part. The Commission, therefore, recommends that
the Government should direct a inquiry to beheld against him.
These
three witnesses have also stated in their affidavits that the said mob was led
by S/Shri Kaka Bali, Ram Chander Nagoria (Vice President of Youth Congress), Om
Prakash alias Omi, (brother-in-law of Deep Chand Bandhu, a Municipal Councilor
belonging to Congress (I)), son of Deep Chand Bandhu, Lovely and Ram Lal. On
the basis of their statements an offence was registered and the police after
investigation filed a chargesheet against Shri Ram Chander Nagoria, Lovely and
others. No chargesheet was filed against Shri Om Prakash or the son of Shri
Deep Chand Bandhu. In his reply Shri Nagoria has stated that in the trial
before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi these three
witnesses had stated that they were not able to identify any person in the mob,
and so all of them were acquitted.
It
is not difficult to understand why these witnesses had gone back upon their
statements made before Justice Mishra Commission and or before the police
during investigation. Though in view of their acquittal for the reasons stated
in the judgement in their case the Commission does not recommend initiation of
any action against them now, it considers it proper to record a finding that
these Congress leaders / workers did participate in the anti-Sikh riots.
Ten
sikhs were killed in Kabir Basti area falling within the Sabzi Mandi Police
Station. It has been alleged by Smt. Pritam Kaur, Smt. Inderjit Kaur, Smt.
Jasvinder Kaur and Smt. Lajwanti Kaur that this incident happened in the presence
of ACP Shri R.S. Malik and Station House Officer Shri J.B. Malik. They had also
alleged that those two officers were telling the mob not to spare any Sikh and
not to leave any evidence. Both these witnesses have responded to the notice
and produced all the relevant material relating to that incident and also
copies of the record of the departmental inquiry held against them. During the
departmental inquiry all these witnesses had stated that their affidavits were
obtained by Advocate Bajrang Singh, who had represented to them that they were
prepared by him for claiming compensation. They have further stated that the
allegations made therein are not correct. None of those witnesses has again
reiterated before this Commission the allegations made by them in their
affidavits. On an overall consideration of the evidence, the allegations
against these officers do not appear to be correct and therefore no action is
recommended against them.
Shri
N.S. Bawa, an Advocate and a Teacher has stated in his affidavit that during
the night between 31-10-84 and 1-11-84 he and his neighbours had apprehended 6
persons out of the mob that was looting nearby shops. He has also stated when
Shri H.C. Jatav, who was the Additional Commissioner of Police, came there he
had handed over those 6 persons to him. Shri H.C. Jatav allowed them to run
away after some time.
Police
Inspector Durga Prasad and SI Sat Parkash, according to the affidavit of Piara
Singh, had instigated the mob which attacked his factory situated at Mori Gate.
He has also stated that Inspector Durga Prasad did not help him in recovering
the goods looted from his house even though he had informed Police Inspector
Durga Prasad that they were lying in the nearby jhuggis. Shri Durga Prasad in
his written explanation has stated that on the basis of these allegations a
departmental inquiry was held against him and by an order dated 4-1-2002 he has
been reduced in rank by way of punishment. He has further stated that his
challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal has failed but he has
filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court against that order and the same
is still pending for final disposal. He has further pointed out that soon after
the riots he was able to recover the properties worth Rs.6 lacs. He has also
stated that Piara Singh on coming to know that a departmental inquiry was
initiated against him voluntarily made a further affidavit stating that the
allegations made in the earlier affidavits were not correct. It appears to the
Commission that the subsequent affidavit of witness Piara Singh was obtained by
Durga Prasad to save himself. Piara Singh’s allegation deserves to be believed
as he had no reason to make any false allegation against Durga Prasad,
particularly, when Durga Prasad himself has stated in his reply that he has
good relations with Piara Singh. Departmental inquiry was thus rightly held
against him and he appears to have been adequately punished. So far as SI Sat
Parkash is concerned departmental inquiry was held against him also. In view of
the weak nature of evidence against him he was exonerated. Shri Sat Prakash has
produced all that material alongwith his reply. In view of the affidavit of
Shri Piara Singh a separate offence ought to have been registered and the role
played by these two policemen ought to have been investigated by an independent
investigating officer. But in view of the result of the departmental inquiry
against them the Commission does not recommend any further action now.
In
this area also at some places like Chandni Chowk, Sarai Rohilla and Adarsh
Nagar, the policemen posted there had remained passive and failed to perform
their duty of protecting innocent citizens. Further, violent attacks in Chandni
Chowk were prevented by timely action taken by ACP Shri Parera and Station
House Officer Shri Tiwari. Thus if timely action was taken by the police
against the persons indulging in riots probably many lives could have been
saved.
E. SOUTH
DISTRICT
On the basis of the material on record with respect
to the incidents which happened in this District, it appeared to the Commission
that Dr. Chander Prakash who was the DCP of the Area, Shri O.P. Yadav, Station
House Officer of Police Station Sriniwaspuri, Shri Rohtash Singh, Station House
Officer of Police Station Delhi Cantt., Shri Ram Phal, Station House Officer of
Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin, SI Ved Prakash of Police Station
Sriniwaspuri, SI Ishwar Singh of Police Station Srinivaspuri, Head Constable
Shakti Singh of Jangpura Police Post and Head Constable Mahinder Singh of
Police Station Srinivaspuri had not performed their duties properly and
therefore, notices under Section 8B were issued to them. As involvement of
S/Shri Hari Chand Saini, Vijay Chaudhary, Himmat Rao, Vijay Kumar Anand, Ajay
Satsangi, Yogesh Sharma, Naresh Jain, Suresh Jain, Kalu Ram, Balwan Khokar,
Pratap Singh, Sajjan Kumar, Maha Singh and Mohinder Singh was also disclosed,
notices under Section 8B were issued to them also. Notices were not issued to
S/Shri Naresh Sharma, V.P. Rana, Dinesh Tiwari, Jagdish Mittar and Dharam Vir
Solanki as they had expired earlier. Out of these persons, Shri Vijay Kumar
Anand and Shri Maha Singh have not filed any reply.
In
reply to the notice issued to him, Dr. Chander Prakash has stated that this
Commission has no jurisdiction to record any finding against him as in a
full-fledged inquiry held against him he has been exonerated by the Inquiry
Officer. Against disagreement of the government with the findings recorded by
the Inquiry Officer he has filed Civil Writ Petition No.641/1998 in the High
Court of Delhi and the same is pending. The Commission is of the view that
pendency of the Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court is no bar for this
Commission to inquire about his conduct during the riots and in making an appropriate
recommendation against him to the Government. Similarly, Shri O.P. Yadav, who
was Station House Officer of Police Station Srinivaspuri, has submitted that
holding of an inquiry by the Commission against him would be an utter violation
of his fundamental right as he has been exonerated in the departmental inquiry
held against him. The contentions raised by both these officers are without any
substance. The object nature and scope of inquiry under the Commissions of
Inquiry Act is quite different. It has a much wider scope than a departmental
inquiry or a criminal trial. The bar or violation which they have spoken about
may arise at a stage when any action is taken against them on the basis of any
recommendation made by the Commission. The Commission is, therefore, of the
view that it can look into their conduct also while making the inquiry which
has been entrusted to it. SI Ved Prakash has also stated that he has also been
exonerated in the departmental inquiry held against him. Sub Inspector Ishwar
Singh has also filed a similar reply. Head Constable Mohinder Singh has stated
that during his trial before the Court no witness had made any allegation
against him. Sikhs were killed and their properties were looted and destroyed
on a very large scale in the areas under them. Except pleading inadequacy of
the police force, no better explanation is given by any one of them as to why
they were not able to prevent such a colossal loss. If all the relevant
material is taken into consideration there can be no doubt in the mind of any
reasonable person that they and other police officers and policemen in charge
of areas where these incidents had happened were negligent in performance of
their duties. The Commission recommends that the Government should consider
even now if any action can be taken against them. As regards the positive acts
of involvement alleged against them, criminal cases as recommended by the
Committees appointed earlier by the Government were registered and they were
tried by the Courts. Therefore, no further action against them is recommended
by the Commission with respect to those allegations.
Narinder
Singh, Balbir Singh and Kishan Singh have stated in their affidavits that
Yogesh Sharma, Naresh Sharma, Naresh Jain and Suresh Jain had instigated mobs
in looting and burning shops of Sikhs. On the basis of their statements they
were chargesheeted by the police and were tried by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Delhi and were acquitted. An appeal filed against their
acquittal has also been dismissed by the High Court of Delhi. In view of the
nature of evidence against them and their acquittal the Commission does not
recommend any further action against them. So also the evidence against Shri
Hari Chand Saini and Vijay Chaudhary is not sufficient and reliable enough to
persuade the Commission to record any finding against them.
Shri
Ajay Satsangi, in his reply, has stated that he was not a Youth Congress (I)
leader He was not even a member of any political party. He has been falsely implicated
by Shri Mukhinder Singh. If he was a leader of the locality other witnesses
would not have failed to name him. Mukhinder Singh’s complaint was recorded and
investigated. Therefore, no action is recommended against Shri Satsangi.
Shri
Himmat Rai has stated in his reply that on the basis of the complaint filed by
Shri Gurcharan Singh he was tried by the Court alongwith Shri Vijay Kumar Anand
and three others and was acquitted. Nobody had deposed in the Court that he was
a member of the unruly mob which had caused damage to the Gurudwara. From the
copy of the judgement produced by him it appears that all the eyewitnesses were
declared hostile as they had resiled from their police statements. Shri Himmat
Rai was a Congress (I) leader of Lajpat Nagar locality. There is material on
record to show that influential political leaders had obtained large number of
affidavits from affected and other witnesses declaring that they were not so
involved. Therefore, it is not difficult to understand why the witnesses in
that case has resiled from their police statements. Though no legal action can
now be recommended against him, the Commission does come to the conclusion that
he had participated in the attack on the Gurudwara.
Many
witnesses have stated about the involvement of S/Shri Sajjan Kumar, Balwan
Khokar, Pratap Singh, Maha Singh and Mohinder Singh. Jagdish Kaur, Sudershan
Singh and many persons from Raj Nagar, Palam Colony have spoken about the
participation of S/Shri Sajjan Kumar and Balwan Khokhar in the riots in their
area. They have stated that the mobs indulging in riots were led by Shri Balwan
Khokhar and other Congress leaders. Sudershan Singh has specifically stated
that Shri Sajjan Kumar was giving directions to Shri Balwan Khokhar during such
attacks. Amarjit Kaur of Chand Nagar has specifically stated that Shri Sajjan
Kumar had led the mob which killed her husband Capt. Nazar Singh Mangat. Surjit
Kaur of Tilak Vihar has stated that Shri Sajjan Kumar had brought a truck load
of hooligans who had attacked her house. Jagdish Kaur of Raj Nagar had stated
that she had heard Shri Sajjan Kumar telling the persons who had gathered near
Mandir Mangla Puri, “SARDAR SALA KOI NAHI BACHNA CHAHIDA.” Jasbir Singh of Raj
Nagar has also spoken about the involvement of Shri Sajjan Kumar and Shri
Balwan Khokhar and further stated that even though he had gone with a written
complaint naming the assailants the police did not take down its complaint and
Shri Sajjan Kumar was not put up for trial. Shri Kishandev Singh has also
stated that he had seen Shri Sajjan Kumar in the mob which had attacked his
house. He has also stated that he had named four persons but only two of them
were prosecuted. Similarly, large number of witnesses including some of the
above named witnesses have stated that Shri Balwan Khokhar had led the mobs
which killed large number of Sikhs. Joginder singh of Raj Nagar, Sampuran Kaur,
Jagdish Kaur r/o RZI-129, Raj Nagar-I and Jagdish Kaur r/o WA-58, Raj Nagar
have also specifically named him as the leader of the mob which had attacked
their houses. Other Congress leaders named by the witnesses are Balram, a Yough
Congress (I) worker, Mann Singh Chand, Capt. Bgah Mal, Mahinder Singh and
Pratap Singh, who was the Pradhan of their colony as stated by Sardar Prabcharan
Singh of Sangroor. Baljinder Singh of Sadh Nagar has stated that Harkesh Vats,
Radhey Shyam and other local Congress (I) leaders had attacked the houses and
shops in their locality and also killed some Sikhs. Other local persons who
have been named by the witnesses as the persons who had taken a leading part in
the attacks on Sikhs are Rohtas, Ram Kumar and Ved Prakash. Gajinder Singh,
Jagdish Kaur and Smt. Nirmal Kaur of Sagarpur have stated that their complaints
were not recorded by the police. Gajinder Singh’s complaint was recorded only
with respect to the loss caused to him. The complaints which Jagdish Kaur and
Nirmal Kaur wanted to give were not recorded by the police.
In
reply to the notice issued to him Shri Sajjan Kumar has filed a detailed
affidavit and produced copies of judgements delivered in 8 cases. He has stated
that the persons who had given affidavits before Justice Mishra Commission were
examined by the police or courts where either they had not named him or they
were disbelieved. He has further stated that in all the criminal cases filed
against him he has been acquitted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Delhi. He has also stated that Shri Balwan Khokhar was tried with him and he
also has been acquitted by the Court in all the cases. He has pointed out that
witnesses Kher Singh, Raj Kumar and Sudershan Singh had not named him while
deposing before the Court and therefore he was acquitted. In those cases they
were cited as witnesses. With respect to six witnesses, copies of whose
statements were supplied to him alongwith Section 8B notice, he has stated that
Jasbir Singh had not stated anything against him in the Court. With respect to
Santokh Singh (Witness-133) he has stated that before the Court the witness had
only stated that Shri Sajjan Kumar had come in a white jeep in the locality. As
regards Jagdish Kaur (Witness-136) he has stated that she had not named him in
her statement recorded with the police during the investigation in FIR
No.416/84. As regards Kishandev (Witness –144) he has stated while giving
evidence before the Court in the case arising out of FIR No.414/84 this witness
had not named him. There is ample material to show that no proper investigation
was done by the police even in those cases which were registered by them. In
fact the complaint of many witnesses is that their complaints or statements
were not taken by the police and on the basis of thereof separate offences were
not registered against the assailants whom they had named. Even while taking their
statements the police had told them not to mention names of the assailants and
only speak about losses caused to them. There is also material to show that the
police did not note down the names of some of the assailants who were
influential persons. One witness has specifically stated that he had named Shri
Sajjan Kumar as one of the assailants yet his name was not noted in his
statement by the police. In view of these facts and circumstances and
considering the fact that Shri Sajjan Kumar and Shri Balwan Khokhar were
influential persons in this area, their acquittal in criminal cases cannot be
given much importance and certainly it cannot come in the way of the Commission
in recording a finding on the basis of the material place before the
Commission. They were the leaders of the locality and therefore, there is no
question of their mistaken identity. Why so many persons had named him and
attributed acts like addressing meetings and inciting people to kill Sikhs and
to loot and destroy their properties remains unexplained by Shri Sajjan Kumar.
A technical defence taken by him that these witnesses had not named him before
the police or in the Courts is not a good explanation for disbelieving those
witnesses. Other local leaders to whom notices were given have also not given
any better explanation. As stated earlier Shri Maha Singh and Mohinder Singh
Yadav have not filed any reply. So far as Shri Sajjan Kumar is concerned, there
is also evidence of Shri Gurbachan Singh (Witness-137) and Shri Govind Narain (Witness-150)
who have stated that in the inquiry which were conducted within a short time
after the riots, affected persons had named him as one of the persons who had
instigated attacks on Sikhs. Shri Sajjan Kumar’s involvement is also disclosed
by the witnesses who have spoken about the incidents in Mangolpuri and
Sultanpuri areas also. The Commission is, therefore, inclined to take the view
that there is credible material against Shri Sajjan Kumar and Shri Balwan
Khokhar for recording a finding that he and Shri Balwan Khokhar were probably
involved as alleged by the witnesses. The DSGPC and CJC have also drawn the
attention of the Commission to some cases where Shri Sajjan Kumar though names
was not chargesheeted or they were closed as untraced. No useful purpose can
now be served by directing registration of those cases where the witnesses
complaining about the same were examined before the courts and yet the other
accused were acquitted by the Courts. The Commission therefore recommends to
the Government to examine only those cases where the witnesses have accused
Shri Sajjan Kumar specifically and yet no chargesheets were filed against him
and the cases were terminated as untraced and if there is justification for the
same take further action as is permitted by law. Those cases which were closed
as untraced and which still deserve to be re-examined are those which would
arise from FIR Nos.250/84, 307/94 and 347/91 of police station Sultanpuri, FIR
Nos.325/93, 178/84 of police station Mangolpuri and FIR No.416/94 of police
station Delhi Cantt. They deserve to be re-examined in view of the evidence of
(1) Smt. Prem Kaur who has spoken about the incident of 1-11-84 near B-2 Park,
(2) Anek Kaur who has spoken what happened on 1-11-84 near E-6 Block when she had
approached Shri Sajjan Kumar, (3) Jatan Kaur who has spoken about the incident
of 1-11-84 near B-2 Park and (4) Joginder Kaur who had stated about the
incident of 1-11-84 and on the basis of whose complaint FIR No.347 was
registered on 13-12-91. These are all incidents, which had happened in the area
of police station Sultanpuri. FIR 329/93 of Mangolpuri was registered on the
basis of statement of Shri Jagjit Singh and that incident also deserves to be
re-examined. Didar Singh has spoken about Shri Sajjan Kumar having called a
meeting of Congress (I) workers belonging to Patiala and Nawada villages. This
incident was covered by FIR 325/93 of police station Mangolpuri. No chargesheet
was filed against Shri Sajjan Kumar. Shri Satnam Singh has also referred to
this incident. Jasbir Singh was examined as a witness by this Commission and he
has stated that even though he had given a statement implicating Shri Sajjan
Kumar and Shri Balwan Khokhar during the investigation of FIR 416/84, no
chargesheet was filed against Shri Sajjan Kumar. Similarly, Jagdish Kaur has
filed an affidavit and also given evidence stating that Shri Sajjan Kumar had
incited a mob on 2-11-84. She had also given statement to the police and FIR
416 was registered on that basis. Yet her grievance is that no chargesheet was
filed against Shri Sajjan Kumar.
There is enough evidence to show that the
policemen posted in some of the localities of Delhi Cantt., R.K. Puram,
Naraina, Hauz Khas, Mehrauli, Lajpat Nagar, Srinivaspuri, Lodhi Colony and Nizamuddin
had either remained passive and watched the incidents as spectators or that
they had actively instigated or helped the mobs in attacking Sikhs. There is
also sufficient evidence to show that the policemen of Delhi Cantt.,
Srinivaspuri and Nizamuddin had compelled Sikhs who were collectively defending
themselves to go back to their houses and their Kirpans and means of defence
were taken away so as to render themselves helpless against the attacks. There
is also evidence to show that some police officers had remained with the mobs
while they were attacking Sikhs. Jagdish Kaur of Delhi Cantt. Has stated that
she had heard Station House Officer of the Delhi Cantt. Police Station
inquiring from the mob as to how many ‘MURGAS’ (Sikhs) were killed. Malkiat
Singh, Secretary to Shri Guru Singh Sabha situated in Naraina Vihar has stated
that when he had gone to the police to report about the attack on Gurudwara he
was tld by the police that, “Theek Hi To Ho Raha Hai. Intejar Kariye, Apko Bhi
Dia Jalaya Jayega.” (right thing is happening, wait you also be burnt). In the
Delhi Cantt. Area alone, as found by Ahuja Committee, 341 Sikhs were killed.
385 houses were damaged or burnt. About 150 complaints were filed with respect
to those incidents later on by the persons affected. No separate cases were
registered on the basis of those complaints. Only five FIRs were recorded by
the police. The police had not resorted to firing either on 1-11-84 or on
2-11-84 on which days most of the incidents had taken place. Sub Inspector Shri
Ramesh Singh Rana who was in charge of Badarpur area has stated that even when
he had reported that the situation in his area was grave and was out of
control, he was told by Shri Chander Prakash, DCP of the area, to keep
restraint and not to use fire arms. When he had asked for additional staff to
control the situation he was told that he was a Jat and that he was more than
enough in the area. He has stated that he had also reported 77 deaths in
Sagarpur Division alone but he was told by his superior officer not to disclose
such a high number of deaths and was also threatened that he would have to face
dire consequences if he did so. He has also stated that even though the DCP had
wrongly reported to the Headquarters that there were only 20 deaths, later on
he was suspended on the ground that he had reported less number of deaths. On
consideration of the entire material, the Commission is of the view that these
aforesaid police officers did not perform their duties properly. Action by way
of Departmental Inquiry was initiated against each of them. It would now be
futile to initiated any criminal action against them as the other persons
accused of having committed the actual acts of killing or looting have already
been tried and acquitted in most of the cases.
F. EAST
DISTRICT
The
Material in respect of incidents which had happened in this District disclose
that some Congress leaders and workers had diretly or indirectly taken part in
those incidents. The leaders/workers who have been prominently and repeatedly
named are S/Shri H.K.L. Bhagat, Shyam Singh Tyagi, Bhoop Singh Tyagi, Virender
Sharma, Dr. Ashok, Smt. Jamna Devi and her sons, Rampal Saroj, Kanak Singh,
Duli Chand, Sukhan Lal and Dr. P.D. Verma. Notices were not given to Sukhan
Lal, Dr. P.D. Verma, Jamana Devi, Prabhu s/o Jamna Devi and Ram Pal Saroj as
they had already expired. Notices were issued to others. In this District large
number of local persons had also participated in the attacks on Sikhs. Notices
were, therefore, issued to some of those persons who were specifically named by
the witnesses including Shri Kishori and Haroo Singh were prominent amongst
them. As it appeared that many police officers and the policemen had either
failed to perform their duty by remaining indifferent or had helped the mobs in
their violent activities, notices were given to all of them including DCP Shri
Sewa Dass, ACP Shri R.D. Malhotra, Station House Officer Bhaskar and Shri
Shoorvir Singh Tyagi. As police officers Tuli Dass, Mani Ram, Jagdish Prasad
and Giri Raj had died earlier, notices were not issued to them. Notice sent to
Shri R.C. Thakur who was then the Station House Officer of Police Station Seema
Puri could not be served as he was not available at his known address and
inspite of efforts made by the police his new address could not be ascertained.
Many of the local persons to whom the notices were sent could not be served as
they could not be found. Shri H.K.L. Bhagat did not file any reply as he is not
in a position to do so. His son appeared before the Commission and submitted
medical reports which show that Shri Bhagat is completely bed ridden and he is
seriously affected by the brain disease known as ‘dementia’ and it is at an
advanced stage.
Shri
Sardul Singh has stated some known local persons including Virender Singh,
Ashok and Jagdish were in the mob which had attacked his house and killed 7
members of his family. He has further stated that when he had gone to the
Police Station for giving his complaint Sub Inspector Tulsi Dass instead of
registering it had called the assailants named by him. Virender Singh had come
with a revolver and in his presence SI Tulsi Dass had forced him to write that
he had no grievance against Virender Singh and others who were named by him.
Shri Kishori, Rohtas and others who actually took part in killing Sikhs were
prosecuted and so far as Kishori is concerned he has been convicted in some
cases and is facing death sentence. The material placed before the Commission
does not clearly show how many of the local persons to whom notices were given
were tried in criminal cases and what happened in those cases. Except in
respect of few of them, witnesses had not given full description or other
particulars on the basis of which thepy could have been identified. Some of
those persons have been convicted and most of them have been acquitted. In view
of long lapse of time, it would be difficult to locate them now. Under the
circumstances, the Commission does not recommend any further action against
those persons to whom the notices were given and also against other persons who
have been named by the witnesses, as the assailants.
Shri
Sajjan Singh r/o Trilokpuri has stated that Shri H.K.L. Bhagat was present when
15 persons had come alongwith him had killed Sikhs near his house. Shri Inder
Singh has stated that in the month of November, 1984 Shri Bhagat had called him
at him residence. He was taken there by Shri Gulati, a Councilor of the area.
Five other Sikhs from Farsh Bazar were also there. Shri Bhagat had told them
that he was making efforts for providing houses to the residents of Block-32 of
Trilokpuri and no one should name him. Shri Bhagat had also sought their
affidavits to the effect that he was not involved in the riots. He has stated
that again on 27.8.85 Shri Gulati had called him at his residence. At that time
Shri Makhan Singh, a Congress worker and President of Congress unit was also
there. They had demanded affidavits of Sikhs for producing them in Courts to
show that no Congress worker had participated in the anti-Sikhs riots. Ms.
Kamlesh has stated that on 31-10-84 she had seen Shri Bhagat addressing a crowd
of persons and inciting it to kill Sikhs and as a result thereof on the next
day her house and other houses in the locality were attacked by a riotous mob.
Shri Bhagat has also been named by Shri Nanki Devi. Smt. Balbir Kaur has stated
that on 31-10-84 she had seen Shri Bhagat inciting a mob of about 5000 persons.
Some witnesses have stated that they had seen persons who were close to Shri
Bhagat leading mobs in their localities. Large number of witnesses have also
stated about involvement of Shri Rampal Saroj and Dr. Ashok. Parsa Singh has
stated that in the middle of August, 1985 he was called at Kalyanpuri Police
Station by Station House Officer Shri Tyagi. He was told by Shri Tyagi that
whatever had happened was done at the instance of S/Shri H.C. Jatav, H.K.L.
Bhagat and Dr. Ashok and that he should not blame him. A couple of days later
he was again called at the Police Station. At that time Shri Shoba Singh, Sahib
Singh, Lachman Singh and Anoop Singh were present there. At that time also
former Station House Officer Tyagi was present and he had told him to help him
by not implicating him. They have also been described as right hand persons of
Shri Bhagat. From the evidence of these witnesses it appears that S/Shri
Bhagat, Rampal Saroj and Dr. Ashok, who were local Congress (I) leaders, had
taken active part in this anti-Sikh riots in this area. All other Congress (I)
leaders and workers have denied the allegations made against them. Dr. Ashok
has stated in his reply that he was prosecuted in cases arising out of FIR
No.426/84 of Police Station Kalyanpuri and was acquitted by the Court in all
those cases. Dr. Ashok and Ram Pal Saroj were acquitted because the witnesses
did not involve them while deposing before the Court. The reply given by Shri
Shyam Singh Tyagi is vague. Shri Bhoop Singh, Duli Chand and Kanak Singh have
stated that they have been acquitted in the criminal cases filed against them. On
an overall consideration of the material the Commission is of the view that
there is credible material against these Congress leaders and workers on the
basis of which it can be said that very probably they were also involved in the
anti-Sikh riots as alleged against them; but, as they have been acquitted in
the criminal cases filed against them, the Commission does not recommend any
further action against them, including Mr. Bhagat in view of his physical and
mental condition.
So
far as the police officers of this area are concerned, many witnesses have
stated that DCP Shri Sewa Dass, Station House Officer Shri Tyagi and SI Kapoor
had even encouraged the mobs while they were attacking Sikhs. Shri Sewa Dass,
in his reply has stated that an inquiry was held against him and he has been
completely exonerated in the departmental inquiry. He has also stated that
there was no personal lapse on his part. He has stated that most of the persons
who have filed affidavits against him were called for giving evidence in the
departmental inquiry but they did not turn up and those who gave evidence did
not say anything against him. As departmental inquiry was held against him and
he has been exonerated, the Commission does not recommend any action against
him. Station House Officer Shri Bhaskar, in his reply, has stated that he has
filed a Civil Writ Petition No.5241/2004 and 6854/2004 in the High Court of
Delhi challenging the inquiry which is being made by the Commission after
issuing notice under Section 8B. He has also obtained stay of the operation of
the notice. As the matter is sub judice, the Commission does not record any
finding as regards his involvement. Station House Officer Shri Tyagi has stated
that he was falsely implicated by his seniors and in both the criminal cases
that were filed against him he has been discharged. The revision petitions
filed against the orders of discharge have been dismissed by the Delhi High
Court. In view of his acquittal now, no action is recommended against him.
There is scanty evidence against ACP Shri R.D. Malhotra and therefore the
Commission does not recommend any action against him also.
G. WEST
DISTRICT
The
evidence relating to the incidents which happened in this District disclosed
that Shri Sajjan Kumar and Shri Brahmanand Gupta, the two Congress (I) leaders
and Nathu Pradhan had taken part in some of those incidents. Therefore, Section
8B notices were issued to Shri Sajjan Kumar and Shri Brahmanand Gupta. Notice
was not issued to Nathu Pradhan as he had died earlier. As the witnesses have
made allegations against DCP Shri U.K. Katna, Station House Officer R.S.
Dhayia, Station House Officer Rampal singh Rana, Station House Officer Sheodeen
Singh, Station House Officer Shri H.R. Bhatti, SI Iqbal Singh and Head
Constable Jai Chand, notices were issued to these police officers also.
Shri
Sajjan Kumar has denied the allegations made against him by Shri Kehar Singh.
This witness has stated that on 1-11-84 when he was going to his shop in the
morning and when he was near D-Block of Mangolpuri he had seen Shri Sajjan
Kumar addressing a crowd near the Congress (I) Office and heard him telling
them that sikhs had killed their Maata and therefore no Sikh of the area should
be spared. At that time Shri Ishwar Singh and Hardwari Lal were present.
Pursuant to this incitement a crowd had then attacked the Gurudwara in the
locality and three persons, namely, Dr. Iqbal Singh Chadha, Shri Resham Singh
and Shri Ajit Singh were burnt alive. He has further stated that when he had
gone to the Police Station and told the police that he had seen the murders of
those three persons, he was told by the police that no case was registered in
respect thereof it was not possible to record his statement. It appears that in
respect of death of Iqbal Singh Chadha FIR No178/84 and the case was then filed
as untraced. Kehar Singh had specifically stated that he was the eye witness to
the murder of Dr. Iqbal Singh Chadha yet his statement was not recorded with
result that he was not even cited as a witness. Thus even though eye witness
was available, the police did not investigated the case properly and closed it
as untraced. The Commission therefore does not recommend any further action
against him pursuant to the evidence of this witness. Shri Sajjan Kumar has
denied his involvement and stated that Kehar Singh was examined as a witness in
the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The witness had not said
anything against him and other accused were acquitted by the Court. So far as
the police officers are concerned, departmental inquiries were held against
them except Shri Bhati and they have been exonerated. Therefore no further
action is recommended against them. Shir Bhati’s explanation that the area
under his charge was very large and the force was highly inadequate is not a
good explanation but in view of long lapse of time and weak evidence against
him, no action is recommended against him also.
H. HIGHER UPS
The
Commission had issued notice to Shri S.C. Tandon who was the Commissioner of
Police Delhi during the relevant period. In reply thereto he has produced a
copy of the statement submitted by him before Justice Mishra Commission with a
request to treat the said statement as his deposition before this Commission.
In his statement he has explained that as and when he came to know about
worsening of the situation in Delhi he gave necessary instructions to his
subordinate officers and issued orders for proper maintenance of law and order.
He has stated that the police force in the city was highly inadequate and on
30-11-84 itself he had requested the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide him
para military force. He had also requested the government to get as much police
force from outside as possible. He also pointed out that on receiving messages regarding
some serious events he had personally gone to those places to see that proper
steps were taken for maintenance of law and order. He has also explained how he
had remained busy for the purpose of making arrangements at Teen Murti Bhawan
where the dead body of Smt. Indira Gandhi was kept and where large number of
VIPs and other persons were likely to go to pay their homage. He had also to
make arrangements for the cremation of Smt. Indira Gandhi. He was able to get
17 companies of Central Police Force on 30-11-84. He has further stated that
the strength of outside force increased to 51 companies by the morning of
01-11-84. He distributed the force in different areas in accordance with their
immediate demands. He met the Lt. Governor on 1-11-84 and informed him about
the necessity of requisitioning services of the Army. He also passed orders for
imposing of curfew in the areas where the situation of law and order had become
serious. He has further stated that there was a meeting between the Lt. Governor
himself and Major Gen. Jamwal, GOC Delhi area, in the afternoon. Major Gen.
Jamwal had informed him that he did not have enough units and he would be able
to cover only two continuous districts i.e. districts adjacent to his
Headquarter Delhi Cantt. On his suggestion Mr. Jamwal agreed to deploy one in
Central District and one in South District. He has also referred to the attack
on Gurudwara Rakabganj and his having gone there. He has stated that when he
reached there firing from inside the Gurudwara was continuing so he had jumped
into Gurudwara ground and prevailed upon the Granthi to request the persons on
the terrace of the Gurudwara not to fire any more. He has also stated that he
had brought out from the Gurudwara three Hindu servants with their wives and
this had the desired effect of satisfying the mob outside that no harm was done
to them. he has also referred to the presence of Shri Kamal Nath and stated
that he was helping the police in persuading the crowds to disperse. He has
stated that at that time Additional CP/Range New Delhi had also arrived there
and he alongwith the DCP of the area had kept the crowd under check. He has
referred to his various meetings with Lt. Governor and a meeting with the Home
Minister in the evening of 1-11-84.
He
has stated that on 2-11-84 he had taken a tour of the East District. The army
had moved in to cover all the districts by the late afternoon on that day. He
had come to know about the massacre in Trilokpuri at about 6 p.m. and had
directed Addl.CP/Range Delhi to proceed to that place and make necessary
arrangements. He has stated that as the Station House Officer of that Police
Station was found negligent in portecting the Sikhs he was arrested and
suspended immediately. He had thereafter personally gone to Trilokpuri and
given necessary instructions for protection of the remaining persons and their
safety. He has stated that the situation had eased considerably from 4-11-84
onwards. According to him he had not received any instruction from the Home
Minister either on 31-10-84 or till the evening of 1-11-84. He has stated that
on 31-10-84 he had not received any intelligence report regarding any plan to
attack the Sikh community or their properties. Nothing unusual was brought to
his notice by the Addl.CP, CID on 31-10-84 or on 1-11-84. Till then he had not
received any report about the serious violence that was going on in East
District and West District. He has categorically stated that he was not
informed about what had happened in Palam in South District and in Sultanpuri,
Mangolpuri and Trilokpuri on 1-11-84. He has stated that he came to know about
these incidents in Sultanpuri, Mangolpuri and Trilokpuri on 2-11-84. As many
incidents had taken place inspite of his orders he believed that tere was some
lapse on the part of some individuals to take effective steps and to feed
information to the higher officers.
Shri P.G. Gavai was the Lt. Governor of Delhi till
2-11-84. In his explanation Shri Gavai has stated that at about 9.30 a.m. on
31-10-84 he got a cryptic message that there was firing at the Prime Minister’s
house. He met Shri Fotedar and Shri Tripathi and then they went to the Prime
Minister’s house. Dr. P.C. Alexander was in Bombay and therefore he sent a
message to him to come back to Delhi urgently. He had also sent a similar
message to Shri Krishnaswamy Roasaheb who was the Cabinet Secretary. The Prime
Minister’s death was officially announced at 5.00 p.m. So he went to All India
Institute of Medical Sciences and from there went to Prime Minister’s house. At
about 9.00 p.m. he met Shri Rajiv Gandhi. After making necessary arrangements
for the body of Smt. Indira Gandhi he left at about 10.00 p.m. At about 11.00
p.m. he received a message that that there was arson in South Extension area.
He personally went to that place and arranged for fire fighters. After the
things became quiet he went back to his home at about 2.00 p.m.
On 1-11-84 at about 7.30 a.m., he went to the Prime
Minister’s house. There he met the Commissioner of Police and told him that army
will have to be called. The Police Commissioner confirmed that he took that
suggestion as the order of the Lt. Governor to call the army. While he was till
in the compound of Prime Minister’s house a mob of about 40 persons was seen
coming towards the Prime Minister’s house. It was shouting slogans like “Khoon
Ka Badla Khoon”. He, therefore, told the Commissioner that trouble had already
started and that it was likely to ignite in a major way and that he should
immediately take action in deploying the police in sufficient number at
apprehended trouble spots. He went back at about 10.00 a.m. Thereafter he
contacted the Cabinet Secretary and the Home Secretary and discussed with them
the urgent need of deployment of more police on a high alert basis and to get
the police force augmented as the Delhi Police force was not adequate. He also
told those two officers that amry should be called. They also agreed with him.
At 11 O’clock he went to the office of Dr. P.C. Alexander to attend an urgent
meeting. Dr. P.C. Alexander presided over the meeting. Besides himself, it was
attended by the Home Minister Shri Rao, Home Secretary, General Vaidya and some
other officers. In that meeting also he said that the Delhi Police force was
understaffed and it was required to be reinforced by urgent augmentation and
also about the need for calling the army without waiting even for a moment.
Everyone present in the meeting agreed with him. Dr. P. Alexander suggested
that the Police Commissioner and the Army authorities should meet in the Police
Commissioner’s Office at 5.00 p.m. He returned home at about 12.30 p.m. By
about 2.00 p.m. he received a call from Maj. Gen. Jamwal saying that he wanted
to see him immediately. He had told him that he should start acting rather than
wasting precious time by driving to his house. Maj. Gen. Jamwal insisted that
the matter was very urgent and he wanted to meet him. Shri Jamwal informed him
that he would not like to meet the Police Commissioner. He also said that he
did not have sufficient force but could arrange a flag march only in the
adjacent area of Connaught Place. When he told Mr. Jamwal that the flag march
must take place in troubled areas he went away little dejected. He attended the
meeting with the Prime Minister at 6 p.m. Shri Rajiv Gandhi, Mr. Tandon, and
Mr. Fotedar were present. The meeting was in respect of malfunctioning of
Telephone No.100. Shri Rajiv Gandhi was very disturbed. The Director of
Telephone was, therefore, instructed to attend to Telephone No.100 at once.
During the night he had received a call from the Home Minister for some urgent
help to someone in distress. He had taken necessary action.
On 2-11-84 he issued a peace appeal in the morning
and then went on a tour of the affected areas, like Trilokpuri, Nandnagri,
Magolpuri and Shahdara. He was accompanied by Shri H.K.L. Bhagat. He toured the
affected areas for about two and a half hours and gave certain spot
instructions. He also spoke to Gen. Vaidya about some sluggishness of the armed
forces in getting out of their vehicles. While he was still in the midst of his
tour, he got a message to reach the Prime Minister’s house. There, besides the
Prime Minister, Shri Jagdish Tytler and Shri Daram Dass Shastri were present.
On his suggestion, the Prime Minister requested the others to go out and then
he had a talk with the Prime Minister for about 20 minutes. He was given hint
that he was no more required to function as Lt. Governor. Inspite of that after
returning home he arranged a meeting of the political parties. While the
meeting was going on he received a telephone call from Dr. P.C. Alexander
asking him to go on leave. He was also told that he would be offered the post
of Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission, on resumption. He told Dr.
Alexander that a Lt. Governor in this situation would not go on leave “either
he functions or he resigns.” On 3-11-84 he left Delhi.
He has denied that he had failed to anticipate
violence and delayed calling the Army. He has also denied that there was delay
in issuing shoot at sight orders and that he was a party to the grand design to
teach a lesson to Sikhs. He has also stated that he had told Justice Mishra
Commission all that he has stated in his explanation. He has also stated that
he has been quoted out of the context or misquoted in the report of the Justice
Mishra Commission and a number of items of information given by him like the
important meeting with Dr. Alexander are not even referred to in the report. He
has denied that he had told Justice Mishra Commission that he had asked for
Prime Minister’s interview and that he had said something to justify violence.
He has further stated that he resigned owning moral responsibility.
In reply to the queries raised by the Commission, Dr.
P.C. Alexander has sent a note on the explanation given by Shri P.G. Gavai.
Therein he has stated that he had not called any meeting in his office on
31-10-84. He had not received any proposal from the Lt. Governor about calling
in the Army. If the Lt. Governor whished to call the army to assist the police,
he did not have to take the Prime Minister’s permission or to seek his
intervention. The Lt. Governor could have himself taken action and if there was
any problem he could have taken up the matter with the Home Ministry. He has
also stated that it would have been against the norms and convention of
protocol to call the Home Minister to attend a meeting in his office and for
him to preside over such a meeting. He has also denied that he had ruled that
the Police Commissioner and the Army authorities should meet in Police
Commissioner’s Office at 5.00 p.m. He has stated that on 1-11-84 right from 8
O’clock in the morning till about 1.30 p.m. he was at Teen Murti house. For a
short time at about 1.30 p.m., he had gone to the Prime Minister’s house
alongwith Cabinet Secretary Shri Krishnaswamy Rao Sahib to recommend to him
that army should be called. He has said that at that time they had informed
Shri Rajiv Gandhi about the tense situation within the premises of Teen Murti
House because of the frenzy of huge crowds which had gathered there. They had
also informed him that the Delhi Administration was very ineffective in
handling the riots and therefore army should be called. Shri Rajiv Gandhi had
agreed with their recommendation. As regards removal of Shri P.G. Gavai he has
stated that the said decision was of the Prime Minister himself. He has stated
that he does not recall telephoning Shri Gavai to proceed on leave or assuring
him that he would be offered the post of Chairman, Union Public Service
Commission. He has stated that the Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi was very
unhappy at the way the Delhi Administration was handling the situation of
violence and the riots in the city. In reply to the questions raised by the
Commission, he has stated that the Prime Minister took the decision of calling
in the army at 1.30 p.m. on 1-11-84.
However, the Army Chief was already alerted both by the Prime Minister
and the Cabinet Secretary to keep the army contingents in readiness so that
they could move in quickly. The direction to call in the army was given to
himself and the Cabinet Secretary at 1.30p.m. on 1-11-84. The army contingent
which was assigned the task of dealing with law and order situation at the Teen
Murti premises reached there at about 3.00 p.m. on 1-11-84. He had no knowledge
about the exact time when other contingents reached the affected areas in East
and West Delhi. He has stated that probably they had reached there more or less
at the same time.
Shri Nikhil Kumar was the Additional Commissioner of
Police till 8-10-84. He was on joining time-cum-leave to join his duties at
Mizoram. He had come to Delhi from Patna to pay homage to the late Prime
Minister. The Commissioner of Police on coming to know about his presence in
Delhi and requested him to assist him in attending to the telephones in the
office of the Commissioner of Police. He had attended to the work from the
afternoon of 2-11-84. he was not posted with the Delhi Police at that time.
Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao
has stated that on 31-10-1984 he was at Hanamkonda in Anadhra Pradesh. After receiving the message that Prime
Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi has been shot, he returned to Delhi at about 4:40
p.m. He went to All India Institute of
Medical Sciences hospital and has a discussion with other leaders. A decision
was taken to swear Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister emerged. Then he went to the
place where the Congress Parliamentary
Board was meeting and completed the necessary formalities for making Rajiv
Gandhi as Prime Minister. From that
place he proceeded to Rashtrapati Bhawan where swearing in took place. Thereafter, the first meeting of the new
Cabinet was held. At that meeting the
Cabinet Secretary, Dr. Alexander, the Home Secretary, Lt. Governor of Delhi, Commissioner of Police and one Army
Officer were present. There was
discussion regarding the date of the funeral and keeping the body at Teen Murti
in state and possible happenings in the wake of assassination of Smt. Indiira
Gandhi. Cabinet gave general clearance
to the steps that would need to be taken including imposition of curfew,
deployment of police personnel and also using army units in whatever manner it
was required. On 01-11-84, he had
issued a public appeal to maintain peace.
On that day he remained in touch with the Home Secretary, Lt. Governor
and Commissioner of Police. As regards
the steps to be taken urgently, suggestions received from the delegations were
accepted and sent to the Commissioner of Police and Lt. Governor. Whenever suggestions were received from the
delegation, they were duly sent tot the Commissioner with the necessary
instructions. Shri Rajiv Gandhi had
taken a round of the affected areas on the night of 01-11-98. He had also visited relief camps where the
affected persons were taken. He had
given on the spot instructions for providing various facilities in the
camp. He has denied that at any point
of time he was indifferent or that there was any callousness on his part. He has stated that he had remained in touch
with the authorities continuously. He
has further stated that Minister of External Affairs was absent and therefore
he had to help in receiving foreign dignitaries at Teen Murti House.
In this further reply dated 27-08-2004 he has stated that the allegations made against him in the written submissions of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee are baseless and there is no iota of truth therein. He has denied the allegations that he was spending much of his time in making arrangements for foreign dignitaries rather than ensuring the maintenance of law and order. He has stated that whenever some suggestions were received he had immediately given necessary instructions to the Home Secretary and the other persons in authority. He has stated that Shri Patwant Singh and others had met him. As regards the allegation that Shri Patwant Singh and others did not find any hustle and bustle in his residence. He has stated that the entire staff was busy in tackling maintenance of law and order and that he did not want the officers to waste their time at his residence. He had told Shri Patwant Singh and his delegation that he was well informed about the happenings in Delhi and that army was to be deployed by that evening. He denied that he was not aware of the details that he had spent much time in receiving foreign dignitaries. He has described Shri Ram Jethmalani’s impression that he was indifferent to all the suggestions made by him as wrong. He has stated that as he was concerned with the law and order situation he had spent time with them and listened to them. Shri Ram Jethmalani had not noticed any officer there because they were busy in their own work entrusted by him for maintenance of law and order. He says that he was feeling concerned about what was happening. He had told Shri Ram Jethmalani that he would take adequate steps. He has further stated that at that stage there was no time to while away in making tall talks and exhibiting his reactions. When he was contacted by Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Shri L.K. Advani, he had told them that he was looking into the matter. He denied that the Chief of the Army Staff on his own took the initiative to keep the troops available and called brigades from Meerut and the Home Ministry did not make any effort at all or make any arrangements to protect the life of the citizens. He has further stated that the Home Minister was not competent to call the troops. From where the troops should be called is a decisions within the exclusive domain of the Chief of the Army Staff under the Ministry of Defence. He has denied the allegation that he did not take any steps either to apprehend the culprits or to talk to the President of India and that the inaction of the part of Home Ministry to nab the culprits was a part of the conspiracy and was done with a view to convey a clear message to the desperados and the Congress workers and criminals that the Government will not take any action if the Sikhs are assassinated and stated that is false and frivolous. He has further stated that unless it is urgently required, the Commissioner of Police does not receive instructions directly from the Home Minister. There are several other persons to take instructions and convey the same to the Commissioner of Police. He has denied the allegation that he was totally not concerned about the killing of innocent citizens and stated that it is false. Dealing what Shri Ramvilas Paswant has said he has stated that he was in fact busy in an important meeting and to say that he was avoiding meeting Shri Paswan is not correct.
He has also stated that as
the incident took place in the year 1984, it was impossible for him in 2004 to
give specific time date and other materials in support of what he has
said. He had visited relief camps and that
was more important than visiting the places where untoward incidents had taken
place. He has also stated that nobody
had earlier made any grievance as regards the role played by him and the
allegations which are now made after 20 years are really by way of an after
thought and made ulterior reasons. As
regards the suggestions made by Shri Ram Jethmalani, he has stated that they
were required to be carried. He had not thought it fit to give instructions
immediately for the purpose of showing or exhibiting his concern. He has stated that he believes in work and
not in hustle and bustle and meetings which are non-productive and do not yield
any result. He has denied the
allegation that his approach was casual and it was not only gross negligence on
his part but a connivance with perpetrators of this heinous crime and stated
that it is false. He has also denied
the allegations that the law was not allowed to take its own course. He has
also denied that he had told that Shri Gujral and Shri Patwant Singh that he
was required to spend much time in receiving foreign dignitaries and making
arrangements for them. He has stated
that in presence of Shri Gujral and Shri Madhu Dandawave he had given
instructions to carry relief measures to the victims. He has denied that he had avoided meeting Shri Paswan. He has denied the allegations made by Major
J.S. Jamwal (Retd.). He has stated that
he was fully concerned with the situations and he had taken all positive steps
to curb the violence, restore peace and to help the victims affected due to
riots. He further stated that if Shri
Aurora’s statement is true then he would not have remained silent till the year
2002. In his last reply dated
23.11.2004, he has stated that he had remained in constant touch with all
persons in charge of law and order and given instructions to them as and when
that had become necessary. He has
stated that he had given instructions to deploy police force and to deploy army
to curb any kind of violence.
On consideration of
their explanations, the Commission is of the view that there was no delay or
indifference at the level of the Home Minister. Though some prominent members who had met him during those days
carried an impression that the Home Ministers was not that much responsive and
sensitive as demanded by the situation, it appears that they carried that
impression because of the style of functioning of the Home Minister. He appears to have kept himself informed
about the developments in Delhi and had taken appropriate decisions and given
necessary instructions in time. So far
as the Lieutenant Governor Shri P.G. Gaval is concerned, it has to be stated
that the explanation given by him is not satisfactory and does not convince the
Commission is recording the finding that there was not lapse at his level. Though he does not appear to have delayed
taking-of required actions, it does appear to the Commission that he did not
give as much importance to the law and order situation in Delhi as the
situation demanded. He was the person
responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Delhi and therefore, he
cannot escape the responsibility for its failure. Mr. S.C. Tandon was the Commissioner of Police and was directly
responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Delhi. It is no explanation to say that he was not
properly informed by his subordinates.
It was his duty and responsibility to remain aware of what was going on
Delhi during those days and to take prompt and effective steps. He should have know that the policemen on
the spot were ineffective and inspite of curfew mobs indulging in violence were
moving freely and were committing acts of looting and killing also freely. He ought to have taken strict action against
the defaulting officers immediately and ought to have given directions to be
more strict with the crowds. There was
a colossal failure of maintenance of law and order and as the head of the
Police Force, he has to be held responsible for the failure. The course of events do disclose that the
attitude of the police force was callous and that he did not remain properly
informed about what was happening in the city.
I. OVERALL CONSIDERATION
The
events leading to the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi show that it was not
an unconnected event. There was
progressive deterioration in the situation in Punjab since 1981. Violent activities of the extremists
elements in Punjab had increased. Many
Hindus were killed by the Sikh Extremists.
Manoeuverings by the political parties during this period to gain
political advantages and exploitation of the tension had led to a smouldering
resentment against the Sikh Community.
Probably, there was a desire on the part of some persons to teach a
lesson to the Sikhs. The assassination
of Smt. Indira Gandhi by her two Sikh security guards appears to have triggered
the massive onslaught on the lives and properties of Sikhs in Delhi.
Smt.
Indira Gandhi was a popular leader. She
was the Prime Minister of India. It
was, therefore, not unusual that on coming to know about her assassination by
her Sikh security men, the people reacted angrily. The first sign of such public resentment resulting in an angry
outburst in Delhi was at about 2:30 p.m. on 31/10/1984, when the public
suspected that Smt. Indira Gandhi had succumbed to her injuries and started
assaulting passersby Sikhs. It was
again noticed at about 5:00 p.m., when the cars in the entourage of President
Giani Zail Singh was stoned at AIIMS.
Soon after the death of Smt. Indira Gandhi was announced on All India
Radio, crowds had gathered in several parts of Delhi and become violent. The Sikhs were beaten and their vehicles
were burnt. Till then, the attacks were
made by persons whon had collected on the roads to know what had happened and
what was happening. They were stray incidents
and the attacks were not at all organized.
The mobs till then were not armed with weapons or inflammable
materials. With whatever that became
handy, they manhandled Sikhs and burnt their vehicles. There were stray incidents of damaging
houses or shops of the Sikhs. From the
morning of 01/11/1984, the nature and intensity of the attacks changed. After about 10:00 a.m., on that day slogans
like “Khoon-Ka-Badla-Khoon Se Lenge” were raised by the mobs. Rumours were circulated which had the effect
of inciting people against the Sikhs and prompt them to take revenge. There is evidence to show that at some
places, the mobs indulging in violent attacks had come in DTC buses or
vehicles. They either came armed with
weapons and inflammable materials like kerosene, petrol and some white powder
or were supplied with such materials soon after they were taken to the
localities where the Sikhs were to be attacked. There is also evidence on record to show that on 31/10/1984,
either meetings were held or the persons who could organize attacks were
contacted and were given instructions to kill Sikhs and loot their houses and
shops. The attacks were made in a
systematic manner and without much fear of the police ; almost suggesting that
they were assured that they would not be harmed while committing those acts and
even thereafter. Male members of the
Sikh Community were taken out of their houses.
They were beaten first and then burnt alive in a systematic manner. In some cases, tyres were put around the necks
and then the were set on fire by pouring kerosene or petrol over them. In some case, white inflammable powder was
thrown on them which immediately caught fire thereafter. This was a common pattern which was followed
by the big mobs which had played havoc in certain areas. The shops were identified, looted and then
burnt. Thus, what had initially
started, as an angry outburst became an organized carnage. The cause for the events which had happened
on 31/10/1984 can be stated to be the spontaneous reaction and anger of the
public because their popular leader and the prime Minister of the Country was
killed. The cause for the attacks on
Sikhs from 01/11/1984 had not remained the same. Taking advantage of the anger of the public, other forces had
moved in to exploit the situation.
Large number of affidavits indicate that local Congress (I) leaders and
workers had either incited or helped the mobs in attacking the Sikhs. But for the backing and help of influential
and resourceful persons, killing of the Sikhs so swiftly and in large numbers
could not have happened. In many
places, the riotous mobs consisted of outsiders, though there is evidence to
show that in certain areas like Sultanpuri, Yamunapuri, where there are large
cluster of Jhuggis and Jhoparis, local persons were also seen in the mobs. Outsiders in large numbers could not have
been brought by ordinary persons from the public. Bringing them from outside required an organized effort. Supplying them with weapons and inflammable
material also required an organized effort.
There is evidence to show that outsiders were shown the houses of the
Sikhs. Obviously, it would have been
difficult for them to find out the houses and shops of Sikhs so quickly and
easily. There is also evidence to show
that in a systematic manner, the Sikhs who were found to have collected wither
at Gurdwara or at some place in their localities for collectively defending
themselves were either persuaded or forced to go inside of their houses. There is enough material on record to show
that at many places, the police had taken away their arms or other articles
with which they could have defended themselves against the attacks by
mobs. After they were persuaded to go
inside their houses on assurances that they would be well-protected, attacks on
them had started. All this could not
have happened if it was merely a spontaneous reaction of the angry public. The systematic manner in which the Sikhs
were thus killed indicate that the attacks on them were organized. It appears that from 01/11/1984, another
‘cause of exploitation of the situation’ had joined the initial ‘cause of
anger’. The exploitation of the
situation was by the anti-social elements.
The poorer section of society who are deprived of enjoyment of better things
in life saw an opportunity of looting such thins without the fear of being
punished for the same. The criminals
got an opportunity to show their might and increase their hold. The exploitation of the situation was also
by the local political leaders for their political and personal gains like
increasing the clout by showing their importance, popularity and hold over the
masses. Lack of the fear of the Police
Force was also one of the causes for the happening of so many incidents within
those 3 or 4 days. If the police had
taken prompt and effective steps, very probably, so many lives would not have
been lost and so many properties would not have been looted, destroyed or
burnt.
As the attacks on Sikhs
appear to the Commission as organized, an attempt was made to see who were
responsible for organizing the same.
Some of the affidavits filed before the Commission generally state that
the Congress Leaders/Workers were behind these riots. In Part-III of this report, the Commission has referred to some
of the incidents wherein some named Congress(I) Leaders/Workers had taken
part. No other person or organization
apart from anti-social elements to some extent, is alleged to have taken part
in those incidents. Smt. Indira Gandhi
was a Congress (I) Leader. The slogans
which were raised during the riots also indicate that some of the persons who
constituted the mobs were Congress (I) workers or sympathizers. It was suggested that Shri Rajiv Gandhi had
told one of his officials that Sikhs should be taught a lesson. The evidence in this behalf is very
vague. It is also not believable that
Shri Rajiv Gandhi would have started so to an official assuming that some
conversation took place between him and that official. It does not become clear that in respect of
which subject the conversation had taken place and in which context Shri Rajiv
Gandhi is stated to have said, “Yes, we must teach them a lesson”. The evidence on the other hand suggest that
Shri Rajiv Gandhi had shoed much concern about what was happening in
Delhi. He had issued an appeal for
remaining calm and maintaining communal harmony. In view of the complaints received by him, that people were not
able to contact the police on Telephone No.-100, he had immediately called some
police officers and told them to take immediate action so that anyone who
wanted to contact the police could so.
He had even visited the affected areas on the night of 01/11/1984. There is absolutely no evidence suggesting
that Shri Rajiv Gandhi or any other high ranking Congress (I) Leader had
suggested or organized attacks on Sikhs.
Whatever acts were done, were done by the local Congress (I) leaders and
workers, and they appear to have done so for their personal political reasons. If they were the acts of individuals only,
them the killing of Sikhs and looting of properties of Sikhs would not have
been on such a large scale. Therefore,
what those local leaders appear to have done is to take help of their followers
and supporters in inciting or committing those acts. However, for the reasons already stated earlier, the Commission
is not in a position to recommend any action against them except to the extent
indicated earlier while assessing the evidence against them.
As regards, the role of
police officers, the Commission examined voluminous evidence consisting of
registers maintained at the Police Stations, Movement Charts of the Station
House Officers and other policemen during the days of riots, the daily diaries
and the First Information Reports. This
exercise has consumed much time of the Commission. However, with the help of the parties and lawyers appearing
before the Commission, it was possible to examine this record closely. After close scrutiny of all these material,
the Commission agrees with the findings recorded earlier by Justice Mishra
Commission and by the Committees, which had looked into their conduct. The Commission has nothing further to add
and therefore, does not think it necessary to burden this report by referring
to the evidence and instances which go to show that either, they were negligent
in performance of their duties or that they had directly or indirectly helped
the mobs in their violent attacks on the Sikhs. As appropriate actions were initiated against them, the
Commission has thought it fit not to recommend any further actions against
them. However, the Commission would
like to emphasize that as a result of not recording separate FIRs, not
recording statements of witnesses as stated by them and not investigating the
cases properly, it has now become difficult for the Commission to make any
recommendation against many of the persons, who have been named by the
witnesses as the persons who had indulged in violent acts against them or their
family members or had facilitated the same.
The Commission also
agrees with the findings recorded by Justice Mishra Commission as regards the
delay in calling the army. Therefore,
in this respect also, the Commission is not inclined to refer to all the
evidence and record its own findings so as not to burden this report
unnecessarily. The Commission also
agrees with the recommendations made by Justice Mishra Commission for
preventing happening of such events again.
The Commission would, however, like to recommend that such riots are
kept under check and control and there should be an independent police force
which is free from the political influence and which is well-equipped to stake
immediate and effective action. It is
also necessary and therefore, the Commission recommends that if riots takes place
on a big scale and if police is not able to register every offence separately
at the time when they are reported, the Government should thereafter at the
earliest take steps to see that all complaints are properly recorded and that,
they are investigated by independent Investigation Officers. Only if such an action is taken by the
Government, people would feel that law is allowed to take its own course and
the guilty would be punished properly.
The Commission also recommends that the government of India and the
State Governments should see that all the affected persons throughout the
Country are paid adequate compensation on an uniform basis. It appears that in come states, the High
Courts have directed payment of higher compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- for the
loss of life to the dependents of persons killed and those states have paid the
compensation accordingly. But in some
states, smaller amounts have been paid.
It has also been brought to the notice of the Commission that as a
result thereof, the dependents have been required to file writ petitions
individually in High Courts to get such relief and those petitions have
remained pending for a longtime. The
Commission, therefore, recommends that the Government of India should take
steps to see that all of them are paid compensation uniformly at an early
date. The Commission also recommends by
way of rehabilitation of badly affected families, that the Government should
consider providing employment to one members of that family if that family has
lost all its earning male members and it has no other sufficient means of
livelihood.
In the end, the
Commission records its appreciation for the assistance rendered by Shri K.K.
Sud – Additional Solicitor General, Shri H.S. Phoolka and Shri S.S. Gandhi – Senior
Advocates, to the Commission in conducting this Inquiry. The Commission also records its appreciation
for the assistance rendered by the Staff.
(G.T.
NANAVATI)
CHAIRMAN
JUSTICE
NANAVATI COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
1984
ANTI-SIKH RIOTS
New Delhi
Dated : 09/02/2005