Court reserves order on sentence to be awarded to Sajjan Kumar

Former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar was Convicted on February 12 in a Saraswati vihar case of killing of the father Son duo on November 1, 1984. He was convicted in a case of killing of father son duo on 1 November 1984 in Saraswati Vihar area. He is already undergoing life sentence in Delhi cantt case of 1984.

Special judge Kaveri Baweja reserved the order on sentence for February 25 at 2 PM.

The senior counsel H S Phoolka appeared online for 1984 riots victim ans submitted his written submissions and sought capital punishment. The defence counsel Anil Kumar Sharma also appeared online due to ongoing strike. The court asked the defence counsel to file their written submissions within two days.

On February 17, the prosecution had argued and sought death penalty for Sajjan Kumar. Additional Public prosecutor (APP) Manish Rawat had filed written submissions. He pressed for Death penalty in view of the guidelines in Nirbhaya and other cases.

APP Manish Rawat submitted that this case was a rarest of rare cases. In this case people from a community were targetted without any provocation. It was also submitted that the incident, break entire fibre of trust and harmony among the communities thereby severely effecting the knitting and assimilation of different religious and social groups.

The Rouse Avenue court on February 12 convicted former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar. This case is linked with the killing of father son duo in Saraswati Vihar area on November 1, 1984. 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 there from the 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 H S 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 became aware that who is Sajjan Kumar she named him in her statement.

Earlier, Senior advocate H S Phoolka who had appeared for riots victims had argued that the police investigations were manipulated in the Sikh riots cases. He argued that the 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 arguments 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. The 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 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. (ANI)