NEW DELHI: In one of the strongest ever indictments of the Delhi police, the two member committee Comprising Justice J Jain and D.KAggarwal, set up to examine affidavits relating to the Nov.1984 riots, has concluded that the police actively took part in a massive cover up of widespread looting and murder of Sikhs.
The 206page report was submitted to Governor P.K Dave on Aug.6. Official figures put the toll at 2,733 people during the first three days of the November 84 riots meaning one every 100 seconds, The Committee has recommended severe action against 298 “dishonest” police officials for burking of crime.
In his covering letter given with the report to Mr. Dave, Justice Jain said: “It appeared the Investigating officers lacked adequate knowledge of law and procedure. In some cases, violation of law and the presented procedures appeared to be motivated by dishonest intentions, the failure of the Police to take notice of the victims” written reports have been vividly brought out by various deponents in their affidavits.”
The report illustrates its arguments with specific instances of riots, looting and killings of Sikhs in the presence of police officers. It quotes many cases registered in the nine worst affected police stations Sriniwaspuri, Nizamuddin, Laipat Nagar, Delh Cantt, Mangolpuri, Nangloi, KalyanpuriTrilokpuri, Alipur and Adarsh Nagar.
The report also states that apart from no registration of FIRs in riot affected police stations, the investigation itself was ““absolutely casual, perfunctory and faulty.” In most Cases investigations officers while recording statements were sketchy and cryptic with just three or four lines, barely covering the narration of the incident.
The report says the police ignored a well-known fact that nearly all the killing sand arson happened during daytime and between Oct.31 and Nov.4. “It should have been possible for the local police to correlate the various incidents and find out corroborative evidence, but nothing of the kind was done. And the solitary witness to the crime even when the charge sheet was filed in court would by and large be the complainant alone irrespective of whether he or she had witnessed the occurrence.
“Instead, the whole investigation was done in such a casual and mechanical manner that no attempt was made even to find out the witnesses present during the occurrence, if any, much less corroborative evidence in any shape or form.
Article extracted from this publication >> August 20, 1993
