<div>The verdict of the trial court in the Hashimpura case has put a serious question mark on the justice system in India and is an eloquent commentary on the prosecution, investigation and the judiciary. <br /><br />The victims of Hashimpura in Meerut district of Uttar Pradesh, having waited for nearly 28 years since May 22, 1987 when 42 Muslims were shot dead allegedly by the Provincial Armed Constabulary jawans, were in for a rude shock when 16 accused cops walked free after being acquitted getting the benefit of doubt. <br /><br />The additional district judge of the Tis Hazari court in Delhi said that the court was giving the “benefit of doubt” for want of sufficient evidence regarding their identity. Three other PAC personnel, who made up the initial 19 accused, died during the course of trial. They had all been charged with murder, criminal conspiracy and tampering of evidence.<br /><br />It all happened three days after one Dr Prabhat Singh was killed by a “Muslim” mob when he was on his way to attend a Muslim patient. The PAC arrested all the able-bodied men of Hashimpura, totalling 324 according to official records, and packed them into police trucks. Around 50 of them were allegedly taken to a lonely place, dragged out, shot and thrown into a ditch (Ganga Nahar) in Ghaziabad. However, six survived and one of them, Zulfiqar somehow fled to Delhi, met politician Syed Shahabuddin, and both broke the story of the massacre, at a press conference.<br /><br />Many bodies were found floating in the canal. The state government was not ready to admit that so many people were killed in cold blood, and so, no death certificates were issued. The People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) moved the Supreme Court which was initially reluctant to admit the case. Vacation judge Justice Ranganath Misra asked the petitioner to go to the Allahabad High Court first. However, the case was admitted, and the kin of the victims got a major relief that they got death certificates. Justice Misra was appointed by the government as the first chairman of the National Human Rights Commission. <br /><br />After big brouhaha, the state government directed the Crime Branch of Central Investigation Department (CB-CID) to investigate the case. But its report, submitted in 1994, was never made public. The kin of those killed and the survivors moved the Supreme Court in 1995 for a direction to make the report public and initiate action against those indicted in it. <br /><br />However, the Court did not accede to the prayer and, instead, told the petitioners to approach the High Court. The case is still pending there, but the state government, in 1996, filed criminal charge sheets against 19 PAC personnel. No senior police officer was charge sheeted.<br /><br />Guilty remained in service<br /><br />None of the charge sheeted jawans was arrested despite 23 non-bailable arrest warrants issued against them by the court between January 1997 and April 2000. They remained in active service though the state government pleaded that they were absconding throughout. Thus, they were in a position to influence the investigation, tamper with the evidence and intimidate witnesses.<br />It is a sad commentary on the collusion between the state and the accused. Policemen did not arrest their uniformed brethren and misled the court that they were not traceable. But the court cannot go unscathed either as it could have directed the head of UP Police to produce them in the court failing which it could request the High Court to initiate contempt proceedings against him.<br /><br />Later, some activists and relatives of the victims moved the Supreme Court to transfer the case from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi and the Court allowed the prayer in September 2002. Still, the case continued to be adjourned on technical grounds. Ultimately, charges were framed in May 2006 -19 years after the incident took place. Some of the accused have already died.<br /><br />However, a silver lining in our civil society, not the judicial system, is that Dr Harpal Singh, the father of Dr Prabhat Singh, who fell to communal violence, has been fighting along with the relatives of the victims to bring those policemen to justice.<br /><br />On May 24, 2007, two survivors and members of 36 victim families filed 615 applications at the office of the DGP, UP, under the RTI, seeking information about the case. The reply made startling disclosure that all the accused remained in service, and none had any mention of the incident in their Annual Confidential Reports. <br /><br />At the end of May and early June 2000, 16 of them surrendered and were granted bail. The trial court fixed dates in September and October 2000 for framing of charges for which the government counsel was not prepared. On December 13, the CB-CID submitted that it wanted time for appointing a special public prosecutor.<br /><br />The fact that 28 years after the brutal massacre of the Muslims, the guilty in police fatigue have been let off on grounds of lack of identification though they were on duty at Hashimpura on the fateful day, speaks volumes about the shoddy investigation and corruption in the police force. Delay derails the trial as evidences disappear, witnesses leave this world or are not traceable. <br /><br />How delay pays dividends is evident in this case as three investigating officers have already passed away, three accused have died and the surviving guilty are roaming free. This verdict is a wakeup call for the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature to address the problem of judicial delays which has eaten into the system from within.</div>
<div>The verdict of the trial court in the Hashimpura case has put a serious question mark on the justice system in India and is an eloquent commentary on the prosecution, investigation and the judiciary. <br /><br />The victims of Hashimpura in Meerut district of Uttar Pradesh, having waited for nearly 28 years since May 22, 1987 when 42 Muslims were shot dead allegedly by the Provincial Armed Constabulary jawans, were in for a rude shock when 16 accused cops walked free after being acquitted getting the benefit of doubt. <br /><br />The additional district judge of the Tis Hazari court in Delhi said that the court was giving the “benefit of doubt” for want of sufficient evidence regarding their identity. Three other PAC personnel, who made up the initial 19 accused, died during the course of trial. They had all been charged with murder, criminal conspiracy and tampering of evidence.<br /><br />It all happened three days after one Dr Prabhat Singh was killed by a “Muslim” mob when he was on his way to attend a Muslim patient. The PAC arrested all the able-bodied men of Hashimpura, totalling 324 according to official records, and packed them into police trucks. Around 50 of them were allegedly taken to a lonely place, dragged out, shot and thrown into a ditch (Ganga Nahar) in Ghaziabad. However, six survived and one of them, Zulfiqar somehow fled to Delhi, met politician Syed Shahabuddin, and both broke the story of the massacre, at a press conference.<br /><br />Many bodies were found floating in the canal. The state government was not ready to admit that so many people were killed in cold blood, and so, no death certificates were issued. The People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) moved the Supreme Court which was initially reluctant to admit the case. Vacation judge Justice Ranganath Misra asked the petitioner to go to the Allahabad High Court first. However, the case was admitted, and the kin of the victims got a major relief that they got death certificates. Justice Misra was appointed by the government as the first chairman of the National Human Rights Commission. <br /><br />After big brouhaha, the state government directed the Crime Branch of Central Investigation Department (CB-CID) to investigate the case. But its report, submitted in 1994, was never made public. The kin of those killed and the survivors moved the Supreme Court in 1995 for a direction to make the report public and initiate action against those indicted in it. <br /><br />However, the Court did not accede to the prayer and, instead, told the petitioners to approach the High Court. The case is still pending there, but the state government, in 1996, filed criminal charge sheets against 19 PAC personnel. No senior police officer was charge sheeted.<br /><br />Guilty remained in service<br /><br />None of the charge sheeted jawans was arrested despite 23 non-bailable arrest warrants issued against them by the court between January 1997 and April 2000. They remained in active service though the state government pleaded that they were absconding throughout. Thus, they were in a position to influence the investigation, tamper with the evidence and intimidate witnesses.<br />It is a sad commentary on the collusion between the state and the accused. Policemen did not arrest their uniformed brethren and misled the court that they were not traceable. But the court cannot go unscathed either as it could have directed the head of UP Police to produce them in the court failing which it could request the High Court to initiate contempt proceedings against him.<br /><br />Later, some activists and relatives of the victims moved the Supreme Court to transfer the case from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi and the Court allowed the prayer in September 2002. Still, the case continued to be adjourned on technical grounds. Ultimately, charges were framed in May 2006 -19 years after the incident took place. Some of the accused have already died.<br /><br />However, a silver lining in our civil society, not the judicial system, is that Dr Harpal Singh, the father of Dr Prabhat Singh, who fell to communal violence, has been fighting along with the relatives of the victims to bring those policemen to justice.<br /><br />On May 24, 2007, two survivors and members of 36 victim families filed 615 applications at the office of the DGP, UP, under the RTI, seeking information about the case. The reply made startling disclosure that all the accused remained in service, and none had any mention of the incident in their Annual Confidential Reports. <br /><br />At the end of May and early June 2000, 16 of them surrendered and were granted bail. The trial court fixed dates in September and October 2000 for framing of charges for which the government counsel was not prepared. On December 13, the CB-CID submitted that it wanted time for appointing a special public prosecutor.<br /><br />The fact that 28 years after the brutal massacre of the Muslims, the guilty in police fatigue have been let off on grounds of lack of identification though they were on duty at Hashimpura on the fateful day, speaks volumes about the shoddy investigation and corruption in the police force. Delay derails the trial as evidences disappear, witnesses leave this world or are not traceable. <br /><br />How delay pays dividends is evident in this case as three investigating officers have already passed away, three accused have died and the surviving guilty are roaming free. This verdict is a wakeup call for the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature to address the problem of judicial delays which has eaten into the system from within.</div>
