1984 anti-Sikh riots: Delhi court acquits Sajjan Kumar in Janakpuri violence case

Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court on Thursday acquitted former Congress Member of Parliament Sajjan Kumar in a case linked to the 1984 anti-Sikh violence in the Janakpuri area, holding that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt [State v. Sajjan Kumar].

The judgment delivered by Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh stated,

"Thus, there is no reliable evidence in the present matter that the accused was present at the crime scene for which he has been charged on 01.11.1984, or that he was seen there by anyone. There is no evidence of instigating any such mob. There is no evidence of conspiracy so far as the incident in question is concerned, and 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 emphasised that neither the public position of the accused nor his involvement in other riot-related cases could alter the necessity for proofs in this case.

“Merely because the accused is an Ex-Member of Parliament 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 law remains the same for all criminals, whether they are ordinary men or influential people," said the Court.

It also took note of the suffering of the victims and their families during the violence and the long passage of time since the events. However, it stated that such considerations could not influence the legal determination of guilt. Reiterating the principle that criminal trials must be decided on evidence rather than sentiment, the Court said,

“The trauma suffered by the victims and their families is well understood, but that trauma cannot come in the way of this Court’s decision, which has to be sans emotions.”

The case stemmed from allegations of violence in West Delhi’s Janakpuri area, following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984.

As per the first information report (FIR) registered several years after the incident, Kumar faced multiple charges under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including murder (Section 302), attempted murder (Section 307) and rioting armed with deadly weapons (Section 148).

The prosecution alleged that he led an unlawful assembly and conspired to incite communal disharmony, committing acts of arson, looting and destruction of Sikh property, including setting fire to a local gurdwara. Additional charges included promoting enmity between groups (Section 153A), defiling a place of worship (Section 295) and dacoity (Section 395).

A key issue before the Court was the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence. After examining the testimonies of 18 prosecution witnesses, the Court found that many were either hearsay witnesses or individuals who named the accused for the first time several decades after the incident.

The Court cautioned that relying on such delayed identification could lead to an unsafe conviction.

It considered explanations offered for the delay in naming the accused, including fear due to the accused's clout. While recognising that fear may have existed at some point, the Court found this explanation insufficient to account for the prolonged silence of eyewitnesses who had suffered personal losses.

"This court finds it unconvincing that the injuries, loss of life, and loss of properties weighed with the witnesses for so long that they were not even able to name the perpetrator of the crime," said the Court.

It further reasoned that a person who had lost a family member was likely to attempt identification of the perpetrator at the earliest opportunity.

The investigation was carried out by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up in 2015 on the recommendations of the Justice GP Mathur Committee to revisit serious 1984 riot cases that had earlier been closed or marked untraced.

The SIT examined old records, traced witnesses and recorded fresh statements before filing a charge sheet against Sajjan Kumar in 2022.

While the Court held that the SIT’s probe was legally permissible as a further investigation under criminal law, it ultimately found that the evidence fell short of the standard required for conviction.

It held that the prosecution had failed to establish Kumar's presence at the scene, his participation in an unlawful assembly or any act of instigation or conspiracy.

“There is no reliable evidence in the present matter that the accused was present at the crime scene…There is no evidence of instigating any such mob. There is no evidence of conspiracy so far as the incident in question is concerned," the Court concluded.

In February of last year, Kumar was handed a life sentence for the murder of Jaswant Singh and his son Tarundeep Singh during the violence in Delhi’s Saraswati Vihar area.

The former MP is currently in Tihar Jail, where he is also serving a life term imposed by the Delhi High Court in 2018 for the killing of five Sikhs in Palam Colony during the 1984 riots.

Kumar was represented by Advocates Anil Kumar Sharma and Anuj Sharma.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Manish Rawat argued for the State.

Senior Advocate HS Phoolka appeared for the complainant.

[Read Order]