CRL.L.P./75/2025 of STATE Vs RATTAN LAL & ORS.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.L.P. 75/2025&CRL.M.A. 3301/2025

STATE

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP withMr. Lalit Luthra & Ms. Divya Yadav,Advs.SI Anil, PS Seemapuri.

versus

RATTAN LAL & ORS......RespondentsThrough:None.

CORAM:JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEEO R R

25.02.2025

1.This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2.The present leave petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Statechallenging the impugned judgment dated 22[nd]February, 1995, passed byASJ Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi in the FIR No.511/1984 underSections 147/148/149/302 IPC, by which the Respondents have beenacquitted by the Trial Court, by giving them benefit of doubt.

3.The ld. Trial Judge came to the conclusion after perusing the evidencein the present case that the Respondents were not properly identified by thematerial witnesses. Relevant portions of the Trial Court judgment are set outbelow:

“7.In this case, material witnesses are PW1, PW5, PW 6, PW 7, and PW 8. Out of which PW 1, 6 and 8have not deposed anything incriminating against theaccused persons and stated that they did not identify

any culprits out of the mob which was responsible forthe incident on 1.11.1984. So testimony of other PW 5and 7 remain to be scrutinised. P.W.5 deposed that on1.11.1984 she concealed herself and she did not see oridentify the rioters on 1.11.1984 and saw her husbandTara Singh and her son Joginder Singh in injuredcondition this day at about 6 p.m. According to her,accused persons gave beating to her husband TaraSingh with danda and saria. His son was strippednaked before they gave beating to him. This witnesswas cross-examined by the S.P.P. Suggestion put to thewitness that her husband and her son were burnt on1.11.1984 and not on 3.11.1984 as stated by herexamination in chief, by the learned S.P.P. wasspecifically denied. In this case, according to theprosecution, there is no charge against the accused forkilling Tara Singh and Joginder Singh on 3. 11.1984.She did not say anything about the killing of herhusband and son on 1.11.1984. She deposed about theincident of killing of her husband Tara Singh andJoginder Singh her son on 3. 11.1984 by the mobconsistingoftheaccusedpersonsandhasnetwhispered her lips to say anything about the incident of1.11.1984. Therefore, her testimony cannot be takennotice of and deserves to be screened off from theconsideration.

8. P.W.7 is the only material witness in this case. Shetoo has not been relied upon by the prosecution andhas been cross-examined by the ld. S.P.P. The perusalof that statement shows that he deposed that theincident has taken place on 1[st], 2[nd]and 3[rd]November,1984. In his examination-in-chief, he says that he didnot identify themselves of the mob which indulged inlooting the house situated in block on 1.11.1984. Hestated that on 2.11.1984 Jamna Devi and Dr. Vermapointed out the houses of Sikhs and Accused KashmiriLal and Kamal, Trilok Chand, Prabhu Dayal and Nand

Kishore were also present in the mob which indulgedin beating the Sikhs and looting their houses on3.11.1984. He does not say anything more about theincident as she was forced to leave the locality.During cross-examination by the ld. S.P.P. he admittedto be corrected to have stated in his affidavit about theincident of 1.11.1984 that Dr. Verma, Jamna Devi, hersons Rattan, Prabhu, Rajinder and Purshotam and hergrand sonpappu were the members of the mob.Hestated that Prabhu, Rajinder and Pappu were membersof mob which indulged in burning and killing.Hefurther stated that Than Singh and his son Pappu werealso killed. He further in cross-examination by the ld.S.P.P. stated that the above said persons whom heidentified above, had exhorted the members of the mobto kill Than Singh and his son Pappu.Similarly hefurther stated that Gurdial Singh, Jaswant Singh andJeet Singh were killed in his presence, after they havebeen taken out of their house and dragged in Gali.The above said accused persons had also pointed outthe houses of Gurdial Singh, Jaswant Singh and JeetSingh to the mob. He admitted it to be correct that hehas mentioned in his affidavit that on 3.11.1984 themob killed 30 to 35 sons and kaushlya wife of ThanSingh rebuked the assailans on which she was beatenand striped naked and was taken to community toiletwhere she was raped and killed by the members of themob.He also stated that his father Tara Singh andbrother Joginder Singh were overpowered and killedby the above said persons when they came out of theSher-e-Punjab Hotel and he mentioned in his affidavitthat Bhola, Surrender and Khera were also themembers of the mob which killed his brother andfather, and identified them correctly.He also statedthat when he had come to his locality on 6.11.1984,Jamna Devi and Dr. Verma called and collected therioteers , which consisted of accused Rajinder, Vinod,Sarup Singh and Fauzi who were present, were the

members of the mob and attacked him.He deposedthat on 1.11.1984 upto3.p.m. 30/35 persons were alsokilled.During cross-examination by the ld. defencecounsel, he had admitted it to be correct that he hadran away from the spot out of fear and he did notwitness the incident.In re-examination by the ld.S.P.P. he stated that he was greatly upset and he wasunable to tell which of the two statements i.e., onedated 20.1.1995 that he had witnessed the incident andother statement dated 3.2.1995 that he had notwitnessed the incident is correct. The testimony of thiswitness shows that he is upset and confused. He hasblown hot and cold through the same breath. First inexamination-in-chief he stated that he did not identifythe members of the mob which came to the locality on1.11.1984 and indulged in looting their blocks. Thenduring cross-examination by the ld. S.P.P. he namedsome of the accused persons as members of the mobwhich indulged in looting the houses and beatingSikhs.Again during cross-examination by the ld.defence counsel, he stated that his statement that he didnot see the incident and that he ran away from the spotout of fear is correct.The testimony of this witnessdoes not advanced the case of the prosecution in anywhere and no reliance can be placed on the testimonyof this witness also.9. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion,that the prosecution has not succeeded to prove itscaseagainsttheaccusedpersonsbeyondallreasonable doubt. They, therefore, are entitled to thebenefit of doubt. Hence, they are acquitted givingbenefit of doubt. They are on bail. Their bail bondsare cancelled, and sureties are discharged.File beconsigned to the record room.”

4.On merits, ld. APP submits that the ld. Trial Court has given thebenefit of doubt to the accused primarily on the following grounds:

(i) Delay in lodging of the FIR;

(ii) Identification of the accused and;

(iii)That there were contradictions and improvements in the testimony

of the witnesses;

(iv) No Test Identification Parade was conducted;

(v) No Public Witnesses;

(vi) No site plan was prepared in presence of the eye witnesses;

(vii) No recovery of any incriminating articles.

5.The Court has perused the matter. This case arises out of the 1984riots. As per the prosecution-State, filing of this petition has been delayedprimarily due to the Justice S.N. Dhingra’s Committee which wasconstituted on 14th December, 2018 and submitted the report on 15th April,2019. It is after the above stated report was submitted that the internalreviews were conducted and the matter was processed for filing of this leavepetition. In effect, condonation of delay is sought for 10873 days in filingthe present leave petition.

6.In CRL.L.P.134/2023titled State v.Hari Lal &Ors., on 10[th]July,2023, Coordinate Bench of this Court had observed as under:

“4.The Two Member Commission submitted its Reportdated 15.04.2019 in which recommendation wasmade that the appeal may be filed against the Order ofacquittal dated 28.03.1995 in FIR No.457/1991. Dueto Covid-19 Pandemic the appeal could not befinalized as the file had to pass various channels,which resulted in further delay.Hence, the presentLeave to Appeal has been filed along with theapplication for Condonation of Delay of 27 years and335 days.

5.It is not in dispute that the accused were acquitted as

the witnesses produced during the evidence by theprosecutionwerenotfoundbelievable.Iftheprosecution or the complainant were aggrieved by thejudgmentofacquittal,therewasnothingwhichprevented them from filing the appeal. The reason nowbeen given for filing the appeal is the opinion given bySIT in its Report, that the Trial Court could not havetaken view of weakness of the case merely due todelay in recording of FIR or delay in recording thestatements of the witnesses. The delay in recording ofFIR was obvious as the State was not interestedinrecording the FIRs. During the riots more than 3000Sikhs were killed and only few cases were registered inrespect of these gruesome murders, large scale burningand looting.The witnesses had deposed that theircomplaints were not being recorded by the police.Hence, an appeal may be preferred against acquittal inFIR No.457/1991.

6.It was not disputed on behalf of the State that nofurther investigations have been carried out by theInvestigating Agencies and no fresh material in respectof the alleged offences has been placed on record.There is no explanation as to why the State or thecomplainant did not file the appeal on the grounds thatwere available even at the time of acquittal.Thereason now been given is the findings by the SIT, butthe SIT has also observed that the reason fordisbelieving the witnesses on account of the delay ofFIR was not correct. It is evident that the grounds ofappeal which are now been agitated are purely on themerits of the case which existed even at the time of trialand consequent acquittal.

7.No reason whatsoever has been given for explainingthe delay of about 28 years.Pertinently, the Reportwas given by SIT on 15.04.2019 but even thereafterthere is delay of about four years for which no cogentexplanation has been given. This Court has recently

dismissed three Criminal Leave Appeals bearing Nos.Crl.L.P.322/2023,Crl.L.P.323/2023andCrl.L.P.325/2023, where the delay was less than 1000days.

8.In the present case, the delay is 27 years and335days and there is no explanation for thisinordinate delay. Moreover, the grounds taken by theState are not justifiable. Therefore, we find no merit inthe present application, and the same is herebydismissed.”

7.In the present case, the delay would be more than 29 years. TheCoordinate Bench of this Court in the above case vide order dated 10th July,2023, had dealt with similar issues such as 28 years of delay in FIRNo.251/1990 and the contradictions in the witnesses’ testimony, whiledismissing the petition.

8.The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Courtunder Article 136 and vide order dated 6[th]May, 2024, the SLP(Crl.) No.6549/2024 was dismissed.

9.Following the above orders, this Court has already dismissed thefollowing leave petitions/ appeals:

i.CRL. L.P. 242/2024 titled The State (GNCT of Delhi) v.

Purushotam&Ors.

ii.CRL. L.P. 245/2024 titled The State (GNCT of Delhi) v.

Purushotam&Ors.

iii.CRL.L.P. 246/2024 titled The State (GNCT of Delhi) v.Purushotam&Ors.Purushotam&Ors.

iv.CRL. L.P. 275/2024 titled State v. Om Prakash& Ors.

10.While this Court is conscious of the large-scale loss of human lives

and property during the 1984 riots, after having seen the quantum of delayand the discussion in the impugned judgment, following the similar ordersalready passed the delay is not liable to be condoned and leave is not liableto be granted.

11.Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. All pending applications, ifany, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

FEBRUARY 25, 2025dj/ks

SAURABH BANERJEE, J.