Delhi court issues production warrant against Sajjan Kumar in 1984 anti-Sikh riots case
District Judge Poonam A Bamba issued production warrant against Sajjan Kumar after Tihar Jail authorities, where he is lodged after conviction in another case related to the riots, could not produce him .Updated: Jan 23, 2019 13:44 IST
A Delhi court Tuesday issued production warrant for January 28 against former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. District Judge Poonam A Bamba issued production warrant against Kumar after Tihar Jail authorities, where he is lodged after conviction in another case related to the riots, could not produce him .
In the case before the trial court, three persons --Sajjan Kumar, Brahmanand Gupta and Ved Prakash -- are facing trial on charges of murder and rioting pertaining to the killing of Surjit Singh in Sultanpuri. The riots broke out after the assassination of then prime minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards on October 31, 1984.
The witness, Cham Kaur, had on November 16 last year identified Kumar before the court as one who had allegedly instigated the mob to kill Sikhs.
Kaur had told the court that she had seen Kumar allegedly addressing a crowd in the national capital’s Sultanpuri area in 1984.
“On November 1, 1984 when I stepped out to look for my goat, I saw accused Sajjan Kumar addressing the crowd and saying ‘hamari ma maar di, Sardaro ko maar do’ (They killed our mother, kill the Sikhs),” Kaur had told the court.
She further said the next morning, her son and father were killed.
“My son Kapoor Singh and my father Sardarji Singh were pulled out of the hiding place on the second floor, beaten badly and thrown down from the roof,” Kaur had said, adding, she also received injuries in the attack.
Before Kaur, another key prosecution witness Sheela Kaur identified Kumar as one who had instigated a crowd in Sultanpuri.
The case was transferred from the Karkardooma court to the Patiala House court here by the Delhi High Court, which had directed the district judge to video record the proceedings at the cost of the accused.
Kumar and two other accused -- Brahmanand Gupta and Ved Prakash -- had said that they were ready to bear the expenses of the videography of proceedings.
The proceedings in the case were earlier stayed after the complainant Joginder Singh approached the high court seeking transfer of the case while alleging that evidence was not being properly recorded.
The Delhi High Court had on December 17 convicted Kumar and sentenced him to imprisonment for “remainder of his natural life” in another 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, saying the riots were a “crime against humanity” perpetrated by those who enjoyed “political patronage” and aided by an “indifferent” law enforcement agency.