http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: DELHI ADMINISTRATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TRIBHUVAN NATH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/04/1996

BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) VENKATASWAMI K. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   417        1996 SCALE  (3)622

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delhi had  seen a  carnage about  a  decade  back.  The country had  then lost its Prime Minister at the hands of an assassin. Delhi thereafter lost thousands of innocent humans and what  is more  shocking is  that the victims belonged to one  community,   namely,  Sikh.  The  wrath  fell  on  that community because  the assassin  of the  Prime Minister  was supposed to  be a  Sikh. The  materials on  record portray a hair raising  scenario of  Delhi starting from Ist November, 1984 -  the assassination of the Prime Minister having taken place on 31st October, 1984. 2.   It seems  that from Ist November, 1984 onwards, mob had taken control  of the  city for  a few  days  and  Sikhs  of different localities  subjected to  all sorts  of acrocities They were  murdered, thrown into drains or set ablaze. Their properties were  looted and  their houses  were  burnt.  The three respondents are among those who were subsequently upto on trial  for such  offences. The  trial court  found all of them guilty  under various sections of law, to wit, 302/149, 436/149,  395,147   and  148  of  the  Penal  Code.  Various sentences were  awarded on  the respondents.  We may mention about the  one under  section 302/149 which was imprisonment for  life.   All  the   sentences  were   ordered   to   run concurrently. 3.   On appeal  being preferred  by the  convicts, the  High Court of  Delhi  by  the  impugned  judgment  has,  however, acquitted them  of all the charges. Hence this appeal by the Delhi Administration. 4.   We have  heard Shri  Lalit for  the appellant  and Shri Khanna for  the respondents.  Both the  learned counsel have taken us  through all the relevant material on record, which includes the  testimonies of  PW.1 -  Mohan  Singh,  PW.2  - Satnam Kaur, PW.4 - Rukki Kaur, PW.6 - Desh Singh and PW.8 - Harvinder Singh.  We have also been referred to the relevant portion of  the judgment  of the  High Court  by Shri Khanna wherein reasons  for disbelieving  the witnesses,  have been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

set out. 5.   If the  evidence of  aforesaid PWs  is read as a whole, which has  to be,  what we  found is  on 1.11.1984, at first around 11  a.m., a mob of about 200 people came to Block No. P-1, Sultan Puri, which then had 30 to 35 jhudgies. Deceased Himmat Singh and Wazir Singh used to live in those jhudgies. The mob  which came  around 11  a.m. was  said to  have been armed with iron rods and sticks; but then it was not causing any damage.  Rather, it  was being  advised by this mob that the persons staying in jhudgis should get their hairs cut if they wanted  to save  their lives. But then another mob came which, according  to PW.1,  consisted of  200-1200  by  PW.2 According to PW.4 the mob consisted of 100 persons. PW.8 did not give  the number.  We are  really not concerned with the number as  such. Suffice  it to  say that  the mob was a big one. This  mob caused  havoc and the members of this mob too were armed  with iron rods and sticks. It is at the hands of this mob  that, according to the aforesaid PWs, Himmat Singh and Wazir  Singh lost their lives. Not only this, to believe PW.4, her  son Wazir  Singh was burnt to death and thrown to adjoining  nullah.  PW.2  also  had  stated  about  the  mob throwing  the  murdered  persons  in  adjoining  nullah.  As thousands of  persons have  been so  dealt with, it would be too much  to expect  production of  corpus delicti.  We have mentioned about this aspect at this stage itself because one of the  reasons which  led the  High  Court  to  acquit  the respondents is  non-production of  corpus  delicti.  We  are afraid the High Court mis-read the situation; mis-judged the trauma caused. 6.   The important question is whether the three respondents were part  of the mob which had caused death of Himmat Singh and Wazir  Singh and  indulged in other criminal activities. Shri Khanna  has taken  pains  to  persuade  us  that  these persons were  not the  members of  the second mob, which had indulged in  murder, arson,  loot etc.,  because PWs 1 and 2 have stated  that they  were among  the first  mob  who  had advised the jhuggi dwellers to cut their hairs to save their lives. It  is asked  and to some extent rightly, whether the saviours could have been the murderers? Shri Khanna contends that, at  best, the respondents were present when the second mob was perpetrating the barbarous acts. That this was so is said to be brought home by reading that part of the evidence of PW.2 - the widow of deceased Himmat Singh - where she had stated that  "at the  time my  husband was assaulted all the three  accused   persons  were   standing  there".   It  is, therefore, urged  that they  were mere  spectators and might have found themselves helpless to save their neighbors, whom they had  earlier advised  to save  lives by  cutting  their hairs. 7.   We have  given our  very careful  consideration to this submission. We  have, however,  to understand  the aforesaid statement of  PW.2 in  the light of her entire evidence. Not only this,  we have  to bear  in mind  the evidence  led  by others as  well and  to see  whether there  are materials to show clinchingly  and convincingly that the respondents were part of  the mob  which had  murdered Himmat Singh and Wazir Singh and had done other illegal acts. Shri Lalit urged that if the  evidence of  the aforesaid  witness is read in toto, there will  be nothing  to doubt  that the  respondents were part of the mob, even if it may be that they were not armed, as is the evidence of PW.8. 8.   Let it  be seen  whether the aforesaid statement of Mr. Lalit merits  acceptance. We  may  state  that  PW.1,  after having stated  that the three respondents who were among the mob had  advised the  inmates of  the jhuggies  to cut their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

hairs, also  deposed that they mere to be seen in the second mob. Of  course, he  had not named respondent-Wazir Singh to be among  the second  mob; but  he is  categoric  about  the presence of  two other respondents, namely, Tribhuvan Nath @ Raju and  Sita Ram.  He had  categorically stated that these two respondents  were in  the mob  which  had  murdered  his brother-Himmat Singh.  The evidence  of PW.2  is also to the same effect. She deposed about the presence of not only Raju and Sita  Ram, but  of all  the three as a member of the mob which had  murdered her  husband and  had thrown  him in the adjoining nullah. 9.   Though PW.8  is not  an eye-witness to the murdering of Himmat Singh  and Wazir  Singh, he was also living in one of the jhuggies  in Block  P-1, Sulta  Puri,  and  deposed,  in general, about  what the  mob had  done.  According  to  his evidence, the  three respondents were present in the mob. At this stage,  we may  say something about the identity of the three respondents.  Though on  T.I.P.  (Test  Identification Parade) was  held, that  is not material in the present case inasmuch as, admittedly, the three respondents were Pradhans of the Block and, as such, were well known to the witnesses, which assertion of the PWs had not been challenged in cross- examination. 10.  We are  left with the evidence of PW.4 - Rukki, on whom the  High   Court  came   down  heavily;  according  to  us, unjustifiably. Rukki  is the  mother of  Wazir Singh and she started her  evidence by  staying that  at the relevant time her husband,  whose name  was Sunder Singh, was missing. She further stated  that her  husband was  missing even when she deposed in  the Court,  which was on 28.10.1987. On the face of such a clear evidence by Rukki, we fail to understand how the High Court could say that Rukki had stated about killing of Sunder  Singh also  by the  mob. We  are afraid  the High Court committed  patent error  of law in attributing this to PW.4 because  of something which she had purportedly said on her police  statement. The  law is  well settled that what a witness had  said during  investigation, cannot  be used  to discredit him/her  unless that statement had been put to the witness while  deposing in  the Court.  The evidence of PW.4 clearly shows that she had not been asked anything about her police statement  regarding killing  of Sunder  Singh by the mob. The  High Court  used another  police statement of this witness according  to which  the mob  had not killed her sow Wazir Singh,  who was  then around  17, but  her younger son aged about  12. This  police statement also had not been put to PW.4  when she  was  in  witness  box.  The  High  Court, according to  us, was  not justified  in stating  that there were "glaring  absurdities" in  the evidence of PW.4. As for us, we say PW.4 is reliable, far from having made any absurd statement(s). We are sorry to state that the High Court went wrong not  only in  law  but  also  on  facts  in  not  only criticizing PW.4,  but in  throwing  out  the  case  of  the prosecution, which,  according to us, has been proved to the hilt. 11.  We, therefore,  set aside  the impugned judgment of the High Court  and restore  the judgment  of the trial court by which it  had convicted  the three  respondents, inter alia, under section 302/149 and for which the sentence awarded was imprisonment for  life. Having  come to  this conclusion, we have not  fell called upon to decide whether the respondents were guilty under sections 395 and 436 also, though they had apparently committed  the offences  under sections  147  and 148. We  do not  propose to award any separate sentences for these offences. 12.  The result  is that the appeal is allowed and the three

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

respondents are convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid. Their bail bonds  are cancelled  and they would surrender to serve out their sentence. 13.  Before parting,  we would  state that  Shri Khanna, who appeared for  the respondents,  did plead  very well to show their innocence.  It is  a different matter that we have not been able to agree with him.