Jain Aggarwal Report
C H A P T E R – 4
Appointment of Justice J. D. Jain Shri D. K. Agrawal CommitteeAppointment of Justice J. D. Jain Shri D. K. Agrawal Committee
4.1. The Delhi Administration re-constituted the Committee second time with the appointment of Sh. D. K. Agrawal, a retired officer of the Indian Police Service and formerly D.G. (Police), Uttar Pradesh as Member in place of Sh. P. A. Rosha (who had since relinquished office) vide order no. F.10/(65)/87/Home Police-II dated 1st October 1990 and Sh. Justice J. D. Jain, a retired Judge of Delhi High Court, as Chairman of the Committee vide Order of even No., dated the 30th November 1990 in place of Justice P. Subramonian Poti. The Committee started functioning from the first week of December, 1990.
4.2. To start with, the Committee reviewed the progress of work done so far. The Committee noted that out of the total number of 1084 affidavits taken over from its predecessor Committee i.e. Justice Poti – Sh. Rosha Committee, recommendations in respect of 30 (thirty) affidavits had already been sent to the Lt. Governor of Delhi in August and September 1990. The remaining 1054 affidavits were sorted out keeping in view the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Sh. Brahma Nand Gupta & Others Vs Delhi Administration & Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 3337/87) Supra. The Committee took a decision informally that top priority would be given to cases involving heinous crimes like murders and less serious offences involving loot, arson etc. would be taken up at later stages.
4.3. The Committee kept in view the procedure followed by its predecessor Committee i.e. Justice Poti – Sh. Rosha Committee regarding tabulation, scrutiny and analysis of the affidavits which formed basis of recommendations sent to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi. The Committee found that bulk of the affidavits filed before Justice Ranganath Misra Commissionof Inquiry were in Punjabi script and many of them had already been translated into English and remaining affidavits of its nature were translated in the Committee’s Office.
4.4. The case files relating to 403 F.I.Rs. registered and investigated by the respective Police Stations, as reported by the Delhi Police to Justice Ranganath Misra Commissionof Inquiry and indicated in the Report of the Commissionat page 17 of Volume ‘II’, were collected and examined in order to know as to whether they were complete in all respects. It transpired that by and large these case files did not contain copies of the charge sheets and their enclosures e.g. list of witnesses etc. where cases were sent up for trial. Such charge sheets and enclosures were required to be obtained from the Director of Prosecution, Delhi Administration and the Trial Courts concerned as well as the Record Rooms of the District Police / Sessions Courts. For this purpose, Secretary (Home), Delhi Administration was requested vide D. O. Letter No. F.9/(1)/Committee/P.Rold/90/436 dated the 23rd April 1990 to supply certified copies of the charge sheets put up in the Court, in respect of these 403 cases. This was followed by a D.O. letter dated the 1st October 1990 from the Member of the Committee Sh. D. K. Agrawal addressed to the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration, for expediting the supply of the charge-sheets. It was later decided by the Delhi Administration that the Director of Prosecution should obtain certified copies of the charge sheets either from the Investigating Officers or the Courts concerned and supply the same to the Committee. It took considerable time for the Director of Prosecution to supply certified copies of the charge sheets to this Committee.
4.5. The case files received from the Delhi Police showed that they were either maintained in Urdu or Hindi. The detailed scrutiny was taken up to find out the particulars of investigation done, witnesses examined and nature of finalisation etc. This process had to be done with meticulous care as it was found that large number of incidents had been clubbed together in a particular F.I.R. This data was compiled alphabetically in order to link those affidavits.
4.6. A detailed scrutiny was then taken up in respect of each affidavit Police Station-wise in order to find out;
i) Whether allegations contained in a particular affidavit were taken up for investigation in any of the cases registered at a particular Police Station and, if so, whether such an investigation was conducted in a proper manner and, if not, whether to suggest further investigation to be taken up in order to bring that particular case to its logical conclusion.
ii) In case a particular allegation contained in an affidavit was not taken up at all for investigation in any of the cases registered at a particular Police Station, fresh registration and investigation by a competent investigating agency was suggested.
iii) It was noticed that in a large number of affidavits the deponents although examined under Section 161 Cr. P. C., their grievances were not reflected in the charge- sheets and even the deponents were not cited as Prosecution Witnesses. Consequently such cases ended in acquittal in order to find out as to whether such acquittal. The Committee sought copies of judgement of acquittal was just and proper or whether it was a result of faulty investigation or a lack of interest on the part of the investigating agency or prosecuting agency. The Committee examined such cases carefully and made their recommendations in the light of the judgement to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi.
iv) The Committee came across a large number of cases, mostly relating to loot and arson, in which the police did not register F.I.Rs. despite the victims having lodged their written reports with them. In such cases, the Committee tried to ascertain if there was any evidence or clue to identify the culprits involved in the incidents. In cases where there was no such evidence or clue in sight, the Committee took note of the lapse of long time and refrained from recommending registration of fresh cases and their investigation. Such cases were, however, sent to the Lt. Governor of Delhi for taking such disciplinary action against the delinquent police officials as deemed proper.
4.7. The scrutiny, tabulation and the analysis of the various affidavits in the manner described above was taken up at the level of the Superintendent of Police and other police personnel attached with him who submitted their reports to the D.I.G. (Police). The D.I.G. (Police) in turn, after recording his comments submitted the files to the Member / Chairman of the Committee for final orders of the Committee.
4.8. It would be worthwhile to mention here that the Committee held two meetings with the Lt. Governor of Delhi during the year 1991 at their request. One meeting was held on 5th February 1991 in which certain ways & measures were suggested to speed up investigation and trial of the cases relating to October – November 1984 riots in Delhi. The Committee also suggested setting up of two – three Special Investigating Teams in the Delhi Police under a Deputy Commissioner of Police and the overall supervision by the Additional Commissioner of Police, In-charge – CID and also to review the work-load of the three Special Courts set up to deal with October – November, 1984 riots cases exclusively so that these cases could be taken up on day-to-day basis. The question of appointment of Special Prosecutors to deal with October – November 1984 riots cases exclusively was also discussed. The Committee, however, did not receive the minutes of the meeting. In the second meeting held on 9th August 1991 under the Chairmanship of the Lt. Governor of Delhi following decisions were taken;
i) The cases in which the police officials of the level of S.H.O. and Sub-Inspector etc. were allegedly involved should be investigated by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Special Investigating Team.
ii) The cases relating to the same incidents should be clubbed together to quicken and facilitate the investigation.
iii) In order to ensure that recommendations were made only in such cases where deponents owned their affidavits, a decision was taken to call the deponents to verify their affidavits only to the extent of finding out whether the deponent had made that particular affidavit or not.
iv) It was brought out by the Commissioner of Police and his Officers that the people were not forthcoming with the evidence / information at the time of investigation. The Lt. Governor of Delhi directed that all efforts should be made to gain the confidence of the people at the time of investigation.
4.9. In pursuance of the decision taken in the meeting referred to in Sub para (iii) above, the Committee drafted special measures for service of notices on the deponents requesting them to appear before the Committee for recording their statements in confirmation of the affidavits filed by them. In a number of affidavits, it was noted that the deponents were not available at their given addresses and had moved to other places. Efforts were made to locate their present addresses. It is gratifying to note that in most such cases our efforts bore fruit and the deponents were located and examined in the Committee. The Committee also deputed its secretary to Chandigarh to record statements of four deponents who had gone and settled in Punjab after October – November, 1984 riots and were not coming forward to appear before the Committee in Delhi despite notices issued to them earlier. All the four deponents appeared before the Secretary and confirmed their depositions made by them in the affidavits filed before Justice Ranganath Misra Commission of Inquiry.
4.10. The Committee considers that the above procedure of calling the deponents and examining them to enlist confirmation / clarification in respect of their respective affidavits proved quite useful and helpful in arriving at the eventual decision as regards action / recommendations to be made to the Lt. Governor of Delhi. So the effort made was worthwhile.