Supreme Court acquits seven accused in 1984 anti-Sikh Riots [Read Order]

The Supreme Court has acquitted seven persons who had been convicted by the trial court and Delhi High Court for their alleged involvement in the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots..89 persons including the seven appellants were convicted under Section 147, 188, and 436 of the IPC by the Trial Court by its judgment dated August 27, 1996. 23 appeals were filed against the same in Delhi High Court. The High Court had dismissed the appeals and had sentenced the appellants to Rigorous imprisonment for five years..The order acquitting the appellants was passed by a Bench of Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna..Senior Counsel R Basanth appeared on behalf of the Accused Ganesan. Advocate Shikhil Suri appeared on behalf of three of the accused Ved Prakash, Tara Chand, and Surinder Singh. Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand represented the Delhi government..In the appeal, the Supreme Court was required to consider the evidence of Rijju Singh (PW-2), Pat Ram (PW-5), Shoorvir Singh Tyagi (PW-7) and Manphool Singh (PW-8) on whose testimonies the prosecution placed reliance to prove the charges levelled against the accused-appellants..The Court proceeded to conclude the following with regard to the testimonies of the above witnesses..PW-2.PW-2, who was examined by the prosecution as an independent eyewitness, did not recognize or identify any of the accused-appellants, though he claimed to be a resident of the area and also a victim of the arson, rioting, etc. that had taken place..PW-5.PW-5, a Head Constable, was patrolling the area with PW-8, another police official. His evidence was that he had taken the rukka to the police station for registration of the FIR. PW-5 testimony that prior to the preparation of rukka, 107 persons had been arrested allegedly for rioting cannot be treated as evidence to establish that those arrested had indulged in any rioting or were members of the unlawful assembly. He was not a witness who had seen the unlawful assembly indulging in violence and rioting etc..PW-7.PW-7, S.H.O. of the jurisdictional police station as per his own admission, had not left the police station and had not seen the accused-appellants committing any offence being a member of the unlawful assembly. PW-7 was placed under suspension on the night of 2nd and 3rd November, 1984 on the accusation of complicity in offences under Sections 217 and 211 IPC in FIR No.425 of 1984. PW-7 was not an eyewitness and had not deposed about having seen any of the accused-appellants being a part of the unlawful assembly..PW-8.PW-8 who was with PW-5 on the date of the incident had deposed that initially, sufficient force was not available to control the situation. PW-8 claimed that he had reached Block No.32 around 6:30 p.m. by which time the Police Control Room Van had already arrived at that spot. He did not see any violence actually taking place and was not an eyewitness to the members of the unlawful assembly participating and indulging in rioting, arson, etc..Reliance by State on “Mechanical Test”.The Court also turned down the submission of the State that the principle of “mechanical test” as laid down by the Supreme Court in Masalti vs. State of UP [(1964) 8 SCR 133] would apply in the instant case..Hence, it acquitted the accused holding that the present case is one of “no evidence”..“Having considered the matter, we unhesitatingly take the view that what can be said to be established by the prosecution against the accused-appellants at the utmost and at best is that they were arrested, but that by itself will not make the accused-appellants liable for the offences alleged. The present one really is a case of no evidence and, therefore, we will have no good ground to sustain the order of the High Court which is hereby set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them and will be set at liberty forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other case.”.[Read Order]