The State sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of three accused in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots murder case after a delay of over 27 years, citing a committee report. Following coordinate-bench decisions dismissing similar petitions, upheld by the Supreme Court, the High Court declined to condone the delay and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~23
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Mr. Lalit Luthra & Ms. Divya Yadav, Advs. Inspector Gajender, PS Delhi Cantt.
versus NIRANJAN KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA O R D E R % 21.10.2024
the State seeking leave to challenge the impugned judgment dated 29th July, 1995 passed by the ASJ, New Delhi, whereby the Respondents were acquitted in Sessions Case No. 14/94 arising out of FIR No. 415/1984, under Sections 147/148/302/452/395 read with Section 149 of the IPC, registered at PS Delhi, Cantt. which was lodged in respect of the 1984 riots. The names of the Respondents/accused persons in this case are as under:
| Case No. | Accused | |
|---|---|---|
| CRL.L.P. 253/2024 | 1. Mr. | Niranjan Kumar |
| 2. Mr. | Ram Kumar | |
| 3. Mr. | Sharwan Kumar |
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 07:16:18
Dhingra’s Committee which was constituted on 14th December, 2018 and submitted the report on15th April, 2019. It is after the above stated report was submitted that the internal reviews were conducted and the matters were processed for filing of this leave petition. In effect, condonation of delay is sought for 10165 days.
(iii) That there were contradictions and improvements in the testimony of the witnesses
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 07:16:18
Report dated 15.04.2019 in which a recommendation was made that the appeal may be filed against the Order of acquittal dated 28.03.1995 in FIR No.457/1991. Due to Covid-19 Pandemic the appeal could not be finalized as the file had to pass various channels, which resulted in further delay. Hence, the present Leave to Appeal has been filed along with the application for Condonation of Delay of 27 years and 335 days.
5. It is not in dispute that the accused were acquitted as the witnesses produced during the evidence by the prosecution were not found believable. If the prosecution or the complainant were aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, there was nothing which prevented them from filing the appeal. The reason now been given for filing the appeal is the opinion given by SIT in its Report, that the Trial Court could not have taken a view of weakness of the case merely due to delay in recording of FIR or delay in recording the statements of the witnesses. The delay in recording of FIR was obvious as the State was not interested in recording the FIRs. During the riots more than 3000 Sikhs were killed and only few cases were registered in respect of these gruesome murders, large scale burning and looting. The witnesses had deposed that their complaints were not being recorded by the police. Hence, an appeal may be preferred against acquittal in FIR No.457/1991.
6. It was not disputed on behalf of the State that no further investigations have been carried out by the Investigating Agencies and no fresh material in respect of the alleged offences has been placed on record. There is no explanation as to why the State or the complainant did not file the appeal on the grounds that were available even at the time of acquittal. The reason now been given is the findings by the SIT, but the SIT has also observed that the reason for disbelieving the witnesses on account of the delay of FIR was not correct. It is evident that the grounds of appeal which
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 07:16:18
are now been agitated are purely on the merits of the case which existed even at the time of trial and consequent acquittal.
7. No reason whatsoever has been given for explaining the delay of about 28 years. Pertinently, the Report was given by SIT on 15.04.2019 but even thereafter there is a delay of about four years for which no cogent explanation has been given. This Court has recently dismissed three Criminal Leave Appeals bearing Nos. Crl.L.P.322/2023, Crl.L.P.323/2023 and Crl. L.P.325/2023, where the delay was less than 1000 days.
8. In the present case, the delay is 27 years and 335 days and there is no explanation for this inordinate delay. Moreover, the grounds taken by the State are not justifiable. Therefore, we find no merit in the present application, and the same is hereby dismissed. ”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 07:16:18
the 1984 riots, considering the long delay and the decisions of the coordinate bench in similar cases, upheld by the Supreme Court, the delay is not liable to be condoned. Thus, leave is not liable to be granted.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
AMIT SHARMA, J.
OCTOBER 21, 2024 dj/Am
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 07:16:18
2 issues framed by the court
Should the delay of 10165 days in filing the State's leave petition against acquittal in a 1984 riots case be condoned?
Is leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC liable to be granted against the acquittal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State
Niranjan Kumar
Ram Kumar
Sharwan Kumar
Prathiba M. Singh
Amit Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
