The Rouse Avenue court convicted former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar in a 1984 Anti Sikh riots case.
This case is linked with the killing of father son duo in Saraswati Vihar area on November 1, 1984. Sajjan Kumar is serving a life sentence in another anti Sikh riots case of Delhi Cantt.
Special judge Kaveri Baweja pronounced the judgement and convicted Sajjan Kumar.
Sajjan Kumar was produced physically before the court. On January 31, the court had reserved the order after hearing additional submissions by the Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat.
This case is related to the killings of one Jaswant Singh and his son Tarundeep Singh in Saraswati vihar area on November 1, 1984.
Advocate Anil Sharma had submitted that Sajjan Kumar’s name was not their from very beginning, law of foreign land is not applicable in this case and there was a delay of 16 years in naming Sajjan Kumar by the witness.
It was also submitted that a case in which Sajjan Kumar was Convicted by the Delhi High Court is pending appeal before the Supreme court.
Advocate Anil Sharma had also referred to the case cited by the senior advocate HS Phoolka. He submitted that the law of the land will prevail even in the extraordinary situation and not the international law.
Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat in rebuttal had submitted that the accused was not known to the victim. When she (a family members killed in the riots) became aware that who is Sajjan Kumar she named him in her statement.
Earlier, Senior advocate H S Phoolka had appeared for riots victims and argued that the police investigations were manipulated in the Sikh riots cases. Police investigation was tardy and to save the accused.
It was argued that during riots situation was extraordinary. Therefore, these cases have to be dealt with in this context.
During the arguements senior advocate H S Phoolka had referred to judgement of Delhi High Court and submitted that It is not an isolated case, it was a part of bigger massacre, it is a part of genocide.
It was further argued that as per official figures 2700 Sikhs were killed in Delhi in 1984. It was an ordinary situation.
Senior Advocate Phoolka had referred to the Delhi High Court judgement in 1984 Delhi cantt case wherein the court called the riots crime against humanity. It was also said that objective of genocide is always targetting of minorities.
There is a delay. Supreme court took it seriously that there is delay and a SIT was constituted, he argued.
Senior advocate had also referred to the judgement delivered by foreign courts in the cases of genocide and crime against humanity. He also referred to Geneva Convention.
It was also submitted that a a charge sheet was prepared against Sajjan Kumar in 1992 but was not filed in the court. It shows that the police was trying to save Sajjan Kumar.
On November 1, 2023, the court had recorded the statement of Sajjan Kumar. He had denied all the charges levelled against him.
Initially an FIR was registered in Punjabi Bagh police station. Later on, this case was investigated by the Special Investigation Team constituted on the recommendation of justice G P Mathur committee and filed a charge sheet.
The committee had recommended the reopening of 114 cases. This case was one of them.
On December 16, 2021, the court had framed charges against the accused Sajjan Kumar for commission of the offences punishable Under Section 147/ 148/149 IPC as well as the offences punishable Under section 302/308/ 323/395/397/427/436/440 read with Section 149 IPC.
It has been alleged by the SIT that the accused was leading the said mob and upon his instigation and abetment, the mob had burnt alive the above two persons and had also damaged, destroyed and looted their household articles and other property, burnt their house and also inflicted severe injuries on the person of their family members and relatives residing in their house.
It is claimed that during the course of investigation, material witnesses of the case were traced out, examined and their
statements were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.
The statements of complainant under the above provision was recorded on 23.11.2016 during the course of this further investigation, in which she again narrated the above incident of looting, arson and murders of her husband and son by the mob armed with deadly weapons and she is also claimed to have deposed therein about the injuries suffered by her and the other victims of the case, including her sister in law who is stated to have subsequently expired.
She had also clarified, interalia, in that statement that the photograph of accused was seen by her in a magazine after around one and half months. (ANI)
