Investigation into attacks on the minority communities being stalled

(Published in The Hindu, 4 May 2008)

Anti-minority bias forestalls probe: court

J. Venkatesan

New Delhi: “There appears to be near unanimity that a deliberate attempt is made by the police and the investigating agencies to forestall fair investigation into attacks on the minority communities and, on the contrary, to connive with the perpetrators,” the Supreme Court has held.

A Bench comprising Justices S. B. Sinha and H. S. Bedi was disposing of appeals, which raised a question how evidence in cases of multiple murders during and arising out of communal riots had to be assessed during trial. It dealt with the appeals from five persons sentenced to life by the Gauhati High Court for their role in riots in Assam after the demolition of the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya in December 1992.

The evidence factor

Justice Bedi said: “In such matters it is the statements of the eye witnesses which are of the utmost importance and unless very good reasons can be given for disbelieving them, they must be accepted, even if there are contradictions.”

However Justice Sinha, who headed the Bench, disagreed with him on conclusions of convicting the accused. “The courts, in order to do justice to the parties, must examine the material brought on record in each case on its own merits. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence must be done strictly in accordance with the law.”

In view of the split verdict, the Bench referred the matter to Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan for posting the case before a three-judge Bench.

Justice Bedi said: “As is well known, the fallout of the destruction of the Masjid was felt all over India and caused great consternation amongst the Muslim community. Widespread riots broke out throughout the country and the present multiple murders are also a consequence of the happenings in Ayodhya.”

He said “it is indeed tragic that though reams of paper have been used and dozens of suggestions made as to the methods to prevent or to control communal riots, the cancer continues to metastasize on account of several factors, one of the predominant being the feeling amongst the assailants, emboldened yet further by the anonymity which a crowd provides, that come what may, no harm will come to them. Several reports have been perused and herein below are made a few of the observations which clearly highlight the anti-minority bias in the police.”

Upholding life imprisonment, Justice Bedi said: “Arguments with regard to the delay in the FIR or some minor contradictions in the statements under section 161, vis-a-vis the statements in the court or a flaw in the recording of the post mortem or inquest reports or non-recovery of murder weapons, etc, are a matter of little concern.” These issues would be relevant in normal circumstances and to a situation where the civil administration was functioning effectively, “but in a case of a complete breakdown of the civil administration, these broad arguments are wholly inapplicable.”

Acquitting the appellants, Justice Sinha said: “In my opinion, it would not be proper to contend that only because an offence is said to have been committed during a communal riot, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Act would not be applied differently vis-a-vis a so-called ordinary case. They are meant to be applied in all situations. Appreciation of evidence must be on the basis of materials on record and not on the basis of some reports which have nothing to do with the occurrence in question. Each accused person, even a terrorist, has his human right. He must be tried in accordance with the law.”

© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu