1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Case | Delhi HC Flags ‘Perfunctory’ Probe, Slams Failures In Murder Trial Of 3 Sikh Men, Orders Reconstruction Of Records
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar has ordered the reconstruction of records in three 1986 Sessions cases arising from the 1984 incidents in the Raj Nagar area of Delhi and recalled an earlier order that had reserved judgment in the criminal revision petitions. The Bench directed the jurisdictional Trial Court to endeavour reconstruction of the records of Sessions Case 10/86, Sessions Case 31/86, and Sessions Case 32/86 from any and all available sources. It recorded that only the composite chargesheet and final trial court judgments are presently available and that the absence of essential documents prevents further consideration of the matters under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court further noted potential repositories of the missing records and outlined steps to secure them, including recourse to agencies and individuals connected with the original proceedings. The order requires best‑effort collection and assembly of the trial records to enable adjudication of the pending revision petitions. It accordingly recalled the order of 28 May 2025 by which judgment had been reserved in these matters.
The matters arise from incidents following the assassination of the then Prime Minister on 31 October 1984 and relate to the Raj Nagar area. The record reflects that several complaints were received alleging murders and destruction of property; a composite police report under Section 173 CrPC dated 25 March 1985 was filed in multiple Sessions cases, including Sessions Case 10/86, 11/86, 31/86, 32/86 and 33/86. The three Sessions cases presently dealt with are 10/86, 31/86 and 32/86.
In the complaint dated 18 November 1984 by Sampuran Kaur, it was alleged that her husband Nirmal Singh was taken away and set ablaze after the Raj Nagar Gurudwara was attacked. This complaint led to Sessions Case 32/86
In another complaint dated 15 November 1984 by Jagir Kaur, it was stated that a mob attacked her house and her husband was beaten and burnt. This resulted in Sessions Case 31/86.
A third complaint dated 12 November 1984 by Daljit Kaur described the killing of her husband and son after the Gurudwara was set on fire; this complaint formed the basis of Sessions Case 10/86.
The trial court judgments in these three Sessions cases were delivered in 1986, resulting in acquittals. The judgments were dated 17 May 1986 (Sessions Case 32/86), 29 April 1986 (Sessions Case 31/86), and 15 July 1986 (Sessions Case 10/86).
Subsequently, various Commissions and Committees examined the wider events of 1984, including the Marwah Commission (1984), Justice Ranganath Misra Commission (1985), Dhillon Committee (1985), Ahuja Committee (1985), Kapur Mittal Committee (1987), Jain Banerjee Committee (1987), Potti Rosha Committee (1990), Jain Aggarwal Committee (1990) and Narula Committee (1993). A Commission of Inquiry (Nanavati Commission) was later appointed on 8 May 2000, reporting on 9 February 2005.
In 2010, after investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) following the Nanavati Commission, a chargesheet was filed in Sessions Case 26/2010 implicating several persons for incidents in Raj Nagar; the trial in that case resulted in convictions of some accused and an acquittal of one accused, leading to multiple appeals. The CBI case, however, did not pertain to the offences forming the subject‑matter of Sessions Cases 10/86, 31/86 and 32/86.
During appeals in the CBI matter, counsel referred to the earlier 1986 acquittal judgments, prompting directions by the High Court to trace out records. Orders dated 8 February 2017, 21 February 2017, 16 March 2017 and 22 March 2017 reflect the attempt to locate trial records and indicate that several files had been weeded out or destroyed as per practice. The Court recorded that only the composite chargesheet and the final judgments in the relevant cases were available.
The Court initiated the present criminal revision proceedings under Section 401 CrPC in 2017 and issued directions in each of the three matters, including notices to show cause why the acquittal judgments should not be set aside and why fresh or further investigation should not be ordered. The orders also provided for service of the complainants and appointed amici curiae.
One of these 2017 orders (in Crl.Rev.P. 246/2017) was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 3928/2017. The Bench recorded that no order staying the present proceedings was passed, that the matter remained pending before the Supreme Court, and that the petitioner in the SLP subsequently passed away. In that backdrop, the Court proceeded to hear parties and the amicus curiae in the present revision petitions.
The Bench noted the status of the accused: in Crl.Rev.P. 245/2017, only one accused remained alive; in Crl.Rev.P. 246/2017, only one of three accused remained alive; and in Crl.Rev.P. 249/2017, the sole accused remained alive.
On the state of the records, the Court recorded that the records of Sessions Cases 10/86, 31/86 and 32/86 had been destroyed or weeded out, and that only the composite chargesheet and the final judgments were available before the Court.
The material on record also indicated concerns regarding the conduct of investigation and the steps taken during trial to secure crucial witnesses. Extracts of the 1986 judgments were reproduced, including observations that key eyewitnesses had not been produced and that reports treated them as untraceable
The amicus curiae and counsel addressed the Court on the scope of revisional jurisdiction and appellate powers where records are missing. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions concerning reconstruction of records and the course open when reconstruction is impossible, including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Abhai Raj Singh and subsequent authorities.
The Bench recorded the absence of essential records and the limitation this imposes on adjudication under Section 401 CrPC: “the records have been weeded out/destroyed, and are presently not available before this Court to enable it to exercise its powers under Section 401 of the CrPC. The only material available at present is in the form of the composite challan as also the final Judgments passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judges.”
Referring to the quality of investigation and the conduct of trials, the Bench stated: “Material on record further prima facie reveals several lacunae in the investigation as also the conduct of trials. A prima facie reading of the Judgment passed by the Trial Court indicates that the Judgments are not well considered, as already noted by this Court in its Orders dated 29.03.2017.”
The order reproduces passages from prior orders and trial court judgments to note the non‑production of material witnesses. The 1986 Sessions Court text cited that the two eye‑witnesses in one case “have not been produced by the prosecution,” with process reports describing them as untraceable. It recorded: “Even the report of the process server were not forwarded by the SHO which was necessary according to the practice… the most important witnesses… were untraceable.”
In Crl.Rev.P. 246/2017, the Bench set out the Sessions Court’s treatment of Jagir Kaur’s complaint: “the only eye‑witness is Jagir Kaur… [who] has also not been produced by the prosecution in spite of opportunity given… she is untraceable… non‑production of this material witness goes against the prosecution and an adverse presumption can be drawn u/s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.”
The order further records broader prima facie observations extracted from earlier proceedings on the nature of the crimes reflected in the complaints: “The complaints disclose horrifying crimes against humanity… everybody else, the police, the prosecutors, even the courts, appear to have failed the victims, and, most importantly society. Perhaps, had these terrible offences in 1984 been punished and the offenders brought to book, the history of crime in this country, may have been different. We are of the view that if we fail to take action even now, we would be miserably failing in our constitutional duty as well as in discharging judicial function.”
On the legal pathway when records are unavailable, the Bench cited the Supreme Court’s formulation in Abhai Raj Singh that the proper course is reconstruction with assistance from all possible sources, and if reconstruction is not practicable, retrial may be ordered; only where both reconstruction and retrial are impossible can the matter be treated as closed. The extract reproduced reads: “The High Court shall direct reconstruction of the records within a period of six months… If it finds that reconstruction is not practicable but by ordering retrial interest of justice could be better served — adopt that course and direct retrial… If only reconstruction is not possible… and the further course of retrial… is also rendered impossible… the matter shall stand closed.”
The Bench also noted submissions referencing Jitender Kumar Rode on the impact of long time‑lag and unavailability of foundational papers on the question of ordering a de novo trial. The order states: “where the entire record was lost or destroyed and the re‑construction of record was not possible, the Appellate Court shall order a fresh/de novo trial provided that the time lag from the date of incident and the date of hearing of the appeal is short… if the same is long and/or the FIR, statement of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC and other relevant papers are not available, the Appellate Court shall ordinarily not make an order for re‑trial.”
The Bench recorded that valuable lives were lost and that crucial witnesses had not been examined due to insufficient efforts to secure their presence in the 1986 trials. It stated: “Since the entire records are not available and without vital documents… it would be impossible for this Court to proceed with further consideration of the present cases.”
The order first identifies potential repositories and mandates best‑effort retrieval. The Court recorded: “This Court hopes that records of Sessions Case 10/86, Sessions Case 31/86 and Sessions Case 32/86 may be available with the CBI… The records of the present Sessions Cases 10/86, 31/86 and 32/86 may also be available as part of the Trial Court Record in the said appeals… Such records may also be available in the archives of the various Committees/Commissions… Efforts are required to be made on a best endeavour basis to secure such records from any and all sources so as to enable this Court to finally adjudicate the present Criminal Revision Petitions.”
The Bench then issued a specific direction to the Trial Court and recalled an earlier procedural step, stating: “As a first step, this Court directs the jurisdictional Trial Court to make an endeavour to reconstruct the records of Sessions Cases 10/86, 31/86 & 32/86. To this end, the Order dated 28.05.2025 passed by this Court reserving Judgment in the present Criminal Revision Petitions is recalled.”
In addition, the Court identified persons whose assistance may be sought to facilitate reconstruction: “the assistance of lawyers who conducted Sessions Cases 10/86, 31/86 & 32/86 may be taken, including Public Prosecutors, Defence Counsel and other assisting counsel, as they are equal stakeholders in the judicial process, and owe a duty to this Court to ensure a proper adjudication of the present Criminal Revision Petitions.”
The directives flow from the Court’s finding that adjudication cannot proceed without the records and that reconstruction must be attempted from “any and all sources,” including CBI repositories, Supreme Court records pertaining to appeals in the CBI case, and archives of Commissions/Committees. “Efforts are required to be made on a best endeavour basis to secure such records from any and all sources…”
“The Ld. Trial Court is expected to make best possible efforts to reconstruct the records from all possible avenues as expeditiously as possible, and file a detailed report in that regard before the next date of hearing.”
It further directed that the matters be listed for further hearing on 01.09.2025 and recorded its appreciation for the invaluable assistance rendered by Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel (Amicus Curiae), and Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, learned Counsel, who assisted the Amicus Curiae and the Court.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Mr. Karan Dhalla and Mr. Japman Singh; Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Ms. Nazreena Sheikh
For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Vatsa, Mr. Jeetin Jhala, Mr. Shakunt Jhala, Ms. Reenila Jhala (for Respondent/Balwan Khokhar); Mr. Laksh Khanna, Advocate for the State; Mr. H. S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gurbaksh Singh, Ms. Surpreet Kaur and Ms. Kamna Vohra for Complainant; Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Mr. Akash Singh and Mr. Akshay N., Advocates for CBI
Case Title: Court on Its Own Motion v. Dhanraj & Ors.; Court on Its Own Motion v. Vidyanand & Ors.; Court on Its Own Motion v. Balwan Singh Khokhar & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6729-DB
Case Numbers: CRL.REV.P. 245/2017; 246/2017; 249/2017
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad; Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
