{"id":591,"date":"2018-01-18T10:14:31","date_gmt":"2018-01-18T10:14:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.wakilsahab.in\/news\/?p=591"},"modified":"2018-01-18T10:14:31","modified_gmt":"2018-01-18T10:14:31","slug":"delhi-high-court-hears-1984-anti-sikh-riots-pleas-if-all-accused-had-been-punished-course-of-history-would-be-different","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wakilsahab.in\/news\/delhi-high-court-hears-1984-anti-sikh-riots-pleas-if-all-accused-had-been-punished-course-of-history-would-be-different\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court hears 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots pleas: If all accused had been punished, course of history would be different"},"content":{"rendered":"

Source – indianexpress.com<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hearing the appeal filed by former councillor Balwan Khokhar against the award of life sentence to him in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, the Delhi High Court said while no witnesses showed up in many places, in others, despite witnesses, there was no corroborating evidence against the accused.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 Even more worrisome is that (all) accused could not be punished. If accused would be punished, history\u2026 as far as as riots are concerned, would be different,\u201d the bench of acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Anu Malhotra said.<\/p>\n

Khokhar was held guilty along with two others \u2014 Captain (retd) Bhagmal and former councillor Girdhari Lal \u2014 in connection with the murder of five members of a family in Delhi Cantonment\u2019s Raj Nagar area on November 1, 1984.<\/p>\n

However, his counsel suggested \u201cirrationality\u201d as a possible reason for naming Khokhar as an accused in the case. \u201cIn large number of cases\u2026 calamity of this nature befalls on people\u2026 they start thinking irrationally\u2026 spinning tales about people whom they have memory of (the incident\u2026,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Earlier, the counsel had said various witnesses in the case had failed to establish Khokhar\u2019s role as an accused. He said a statement made on January 8, 2000, by Jagdish Kaur \u2014 the complainant in the case \u2014 did not make any reference to Khokhar or his alleged his involvement in the violence.<\/p>\n

Kaur had named another person and maintained that she was hiding and did not witness the murders of her husband and son.<\/p>\n

The counsel also said another witness, Ramavtar Sharma, was declared hostile and that Kaur\u2019s cousin, Japsher Singh, had not named Khokhar despite maintaining that he saw Kaur\u2019s husband and son being killed. He added that Nirpreet Kaur, whose father Nirmal Singh was killed, had said she heard her father went with Khokhar on a scooter.<\/p>\n

The counsel also said she suddenly made a statement to the CBI against Khokhar. The bench then asked whether the counsel was \u201cchallenging evidence for her presence\u201d, which the counsel denied.<\/p>\n

He said the daughter had frequently changed her statements. The bench then asked what \u201crole did the daughter prescribe to Khokhar?\u201d, to which he said that her father sat on Khokhar\u2019s scooter. \u201cWhy did he take him away?\u201d asked the bench, to which the counsel said, \u201cIt was for the court to consider\u201d.<\/p>\n

He added, \u201cWe don\u2019t condone it. (the riots). It is the failure of each citizen, including me.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t