The manner in which the case was handled, or lingered, at the stage of committal proceedings before the Magistrate, was designed to ensure the case would not proceed with the promptitude it deserved," the judge said."Given the fact there is no appeal seeking enhancement of the punishment, the trial court having taken a lenient view, there is no occasion for this court to modify the order on sentence either way," it said.K.The court noted that the 1984 anti-Sikh riots were a "dark chapter" in the history of independent India as the "law and order machinery had broken down".
In its 79-page verdict upholding the conviction and jail term of the convicts, the high court said in the instant matter, the police did not promptly register the crimes and collect evidence and the other agencies, including the prosecution and the trial court, "failed to rise to the occasion". Gauba, while dismissing the 22-year-old appeals, asked the convicts to surrender forthwith to serve their remaining prison terms for rioting, looting and burning houses in various residential blocks in Trilokpuri between October 31 and November 3 in 1984 after the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her two Sikh bodyguards.It said: "The police forces, and double color injection molding machine Factory the civil administration, did not take timely or effective action to prevent the riotous conditions from spiralling out of hand.Of the remaining 19 people, 16 died during the pendency of their appeals against the trial court’s August 27, 1996 decision.32, right from the afternoon of October 31, 1984.The high court said the trial court’s order committing the case "lacked clarity" as to why no case for a graver offence, like murder, was made out as a large number of persons had died in the violence committed by the rioters.