E-Paper
Former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar acquitted in case related to violence during 1984 anti-Sikh riots
The judgement based its findings on the fact that the witnesses named Kumar after a gap of over 30 years casting doubts on the veracity of their accusations.
A Delhi court on Thursday acquitted former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar of all charges related to leading a mob and inciting violence during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in the Capital’s Janakpuri area, citing insufficient evidence and the belated naming of the accused by witnesses after a gap of over three decades.
The 60-page judgement, pronounced in open court by special judge (CBI) Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts, based its findings on the fact that the witnesses named Kumar belatedly – after a gap of more than 30 years – casting doubts on the veracity of their accusations and presence of the former parliamentarian at the scene of the violence.
ALSO READ | Families to move HC after court acquits Sajjan Kumar in 1984 riots case
“There is no evidence of instigating any such mob or of conspiracy so far as the incident in question is concerned… this court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has not met the standard of proof required in a criminal trial to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” the court said.
The court cast doubt over the motive of the victims, stating that while the trauma suffered by them was understood, it was a possibility that they named Kumar in this case because of his alleged involvement in other riot cases, rather than based on direct evidence.
Kumar, represented by advocates Anil Kumar Sharma and Anuj Sharma, was present in the proceeding through video-conference and bowed before the court with clasp hands after the judge announced the verdict.
Meanwhile, protests simultaneously erupted outside the court premises by victims of the 1984 riots, wherein they raised slogans condemning the verdict.
Additional public prosecutor Manish Rawat told HT, “Once we examine the judgement, we shall challenge it before the appropriate court”.
The FIR pertained to violence on November 1, 1984, when a mob of 200-250 people arrived in a DTC bus and allegedly attacked a gurudwara in Janakpuri, setting it on fire and looting it. The complainant, Harvinder Singh, stated that his brother-in-law Sohan Singh and Sohan’s son Avtar Singh died from injuries, while he was left permanently disabled.
Kumar was charge-sheeted in July 2022 in this case and a related Vikaspuri matter – both arising out of allegations made by complainant Harvinder Singh.
In August 2023, a Delhi court discharged Kumar for the murder of Sohan and Avtar Singh and causing grievous hurt to the complainant, noting that there was no prima facie evidence connecting Kumar to the murders. A challenge to the order is currently pending before the Delhi High Court.
During the trial, Kumar, represented by advocates Anil Kumar Sharma and Anuj Sharma, said that there was no evidence against him since he was not present at the incident sites. His counsels further argued that Kumar was belatedly named by witnesses because he was an MP.
Meanwhile, the prosecution, led by additional public prosecutor Manish Rawat, had claimed that Kumar was an active participant and member of the unlawful assembly consisting of hundreds of people carrying deadly weapons with the intention to kill Sikhs and destroy their properties.
The prosecution had produced 18 witnesses before the court.
Analysing witness statements, the court noted that even Harvinder Singh’s initial affidavit and 1991 statement did not name Kumar, and no plausible explanation was offered for the delay of more than 30 years.
The court stated, “The reason put forth by the prosecution, that the accused was an MP of the area and a powerful person in the Congress party, would have held the water for some time or maybe a few years. But it cannot be accepted as a sufficient reason for decades.”
The judgment also scrutinised the testimony of Harjeet Kaur, Avtar Singh’s widow and daughter of Sohan Singh, who named Kumar as leading the mob for the first time during the trial. She had not identified him in three previous statements recorded in 1992, 1993, and 2016. “One wonders why would she not name the accused… particularly when she herself admits that the accused was a known politician and that she and her family were traditional supporters of the party to which the accused belonged,” the court remarked, declining to rely on her testimony as she did not name Kumar as accused for 32 years.
The court further noted that at least five prosecution witnesses were not present at the crime scene and relied on hearsay, diminishing the weight of their statements.
The prosecution argued that Kumar had already been found guilty in other riot-related offences, but the court dismissed this, stating that each case requires independent proof. The court stated that a man may be convicted of 100 crimes, but to be held guilty of the 101st crime, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that that crime was required.
“Merely because the accused is an ex-MP or that he was involved in similar instances at other locations, this court cannot lower the standard of proof required in this case to hold him guilty,” the order read.
Kumar is currently serving a life sentence imposed by the Delhi High Court in 2018 for the killing of five Sikhs in Palam Colony during the riots. In February last year, he was also sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of two individuals, Jaswant Singh and his son Tarundeep Singh, in Saraswati Vihar. These past convictions, the court clarified, are relevant during sentencing but cannot be used to determine guilt in a separate trial.
With this acquittal, no other riot case naming Kumar remains pending in the lower courts. A separate case involving Congress leader Jagdish Tytler is ongoing at the Rouse Avenue Courts.
