Sikh Pogrom 1984 case – Removal of police cover to Special Public Prosecutor act of vendetta: says trial judge

New Delhi, India (February 08, 2014): It is learnt that a Delhi Court in one of the November 1984 Sikh pogrom related case, which has been on for the past 22 years, was put into fast-track mode on Friday (February 07).

According to Indian Express (IE): “[a] sessions court declared that the proceedings in the case will be conducted on a daily basis from February 24. The court also directed the DCP (South) to arrange for the security of the special public prosecutor in the case”.

It may be recalled that in this case the special public prosecutor B S Joon had submitted an application to the court alleging that police officers at the Nangloi police station had destroyed important records in the case in order to aid the accused.

As per information the court had sought replies from the DCP (Legal) and the DCP (West) on the issue.

It is notable that Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) B S Joon on Monday (Februay 08) had sought to withdraw himself from the case, claiming that the Delhi Police had withdrawn his security without prior notice. He also mentioned that he was “under pressure” not to pursue the issue of destruction of records.

“On Friday, Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau took police to task for withdrawing the protection. Police said security was withdrawn as Joon had retired as the director of prosecution on January 31”, IE has reported.

Judge Lau said the removal of security at the time when the prosecutor was alleging destruction of evidence by police was “an interesting coincidence” and appeared to be “an act of vendetta” on the part of police.

The court directed DCP (South) to consider arranging B. S. Joon’s security on the grounds that he was still a special public prosecutor in the November 1984 pogrom related case.

According to Indian Express (IE): Judge Lau also said the replies filed by the DCP (Legal) regarding the procedure on destruction of police records was not complete. A week’s time was given to the department to submit a satisfactory response.

B S Joon told the court that key evidence, including inquest reports, logbook entries, kalandras, non-cognisable offence register, were missing and he believed they were destroyed by the then SHO and ACP of Nangloi police station.

Judge Lau asked B S Joon to submit in writing by February 14 the documents that he believed were destroyed by police and how these documents could be considered as an evidence in the present case.