A court here acquitted four people, including three retired policemen, of killing three men during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau acquitted the then station house officer of Nangloi police station Ram Pal Singh Rana, then assistant sub inspector Dalel Singh and then head constable Karam Singh and one Satpal Gupta.
They were facing trial for allegedly killing three members of the Sikh community - Swaroop Singh, Amrik Singh and Trilochan Singh - on the morning of Nov 2, 1984 in West Delhi's Nangloi.
The case was registered on the recommendation of the Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission on the basis of the affidavits and statement made by Gurbachan Singh, son of deceased Swaroop Singh in 1991.
Police booked three policemen along with Gupta and two other persons Prem Chand Jain and Ram Niwas alias Tunda.
However proceedings against Jain and Niwas were dropped as they died during the trial.
"The material and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and "must be true" so essential for a court to record a finding of guilt of an accused, particularly in cases based on circumstantial evidence," the court said in its Sep 20 order.
"Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused," it said.
"It is highly unfair for the special public prosecutor and counsel for victims to blame the state and institutions when the witnesses of the prosecution i.e. alleged victims on the basis of whose assertions the case has been registered, are themselves inconsistent and wavering as regards the incident and do not support their earlier versions," the court said.
"Merely because the case relates to communal frenzy, yardstick cannot be different."
"Whether, it is an ordinary crime or a crime emanating due to communal frenzy, law does not make any distinction either in leading of evidence or in its assessment and the rule is one and only one namely, if depositions are honest and true and the witness so examined credible then a conviction can be even based on the sole testimony of such a witness," the court said.
The court observed that the investigation has been seriously lacking and has not been conducted professionally in the manner it ought to have been.
The court said that when these witnesses who are the eyes and ears of the Court, have themselves not supported their earlier versions, there is little that the state or the courts can do and to shift the entire blame on the prosecution and investigating agency would be highly unfair.
