A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Anu Malhotra observed said “no efforts were made to trace the accused… (that) there was lip service… summons went to the houses which were burnt… if witnesses showed up in trial court, there was no corroboration”. (Representational Image)
Hearing the appeal of ex-MLA Mahender Yadav — against a three-year jail term awarded to him in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case by a trial court in April 2013 — the Delhi High Court observed that there was “prima facie” evidence that the trial court, in its 1986 order, had erred in acquitting the accused. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Anu Malhotra observed said “no efforts were made to trace the accused… (that) there was lip service… summons went to the houses which were burnt… if witnesses showed up in trial court, there was no corroboration”.
The case is regarding the murder of five people — Jagdish Kaur’s husband, her elder son, and three cousins. Yadav’s counsel said Kaur had not named him, and had instead said Congress leader Sajjan Kumar incited the mob. “How can you then open the case as far as I (Yadav) am concerned?” the counsel said. Maintaining that Yadav had already undergone four years imprisonment, the counsel said “prejudice should not be caused”. The bench said, “You are talking of prejudice? All accused in the case are charged with murder. There was rampant violence.”
It added, “See how quickly the trial moves. It started on April 14, 1986, and collection of evidence closes on May 18… Judge should have asked where are the bodies.” Counsel for Yadav said as per rules, a trial court could not have allowed CBI’s plea to “reinvestigate” the case. The bench said police had not registered an FIR.
“Where is 1984 FIR in your case?” The counsel then highlighted a precedent regarding initial investigation, further investigation and reinvestigation, and said only a higher court could have allowed the CBI’s application to reinvestigate. The bench observed that though the trial court would have used the word fresh investigation/reinvestigation, its intent was further investigation. The matter has been listed for next Thursday.
