A Delhi court on Thursday acquitted former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar in a case related to inciting violence in the Janakpuri area of the national capital during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh, while pronouncing the verdict, underlined that although the court understood the trauma suffered by the victims and their families, its decision had to be “sans emotions”.
“The finding of guilt of the accused in this case must be solely judged based on the evidence led in the present matter. Unfortunately, most of the witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case are hearsay, and/or those witnesses who failed to name the accused for three long decades,” the judge said.
He added that relying on the identification of the accused by such witnesses “would be risky and may lead to a travesty”. The court further held that there was no reliable evidence to establish Kumar’s presence at the crime scene, nor any proof that he instigated a riotous mob or entered into a conspiracy in relation to the alleged incident.
In its 60-page order, the court observed, “Sum and substance is that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, which is essential for conviction in a criminal trial.”
“Resultantly, because of a lack of credible evidence as to the presence of the accused in the crime in question or a part of the unlawful assembly or his involvement in any manner, either through instigation, conspiracy, or abetment of any other nature, he is acquitted of the charges,” it said.
Rejecting the argument that Kumar’s alleged involvement in similar offences could be a basis for conviction, the court said a person could be convicted of 100 crimes, but to be held guilty of the 101st crime, proof beyond a reasonable doubt was required.
“One cannot be found guilty merely because in the past he was involved in similar offences. Past criminal background or the commission of other offences are separate and can have some value in sentencing a person, but they cannot be considered by a court of law in holding a person guilty of another crime,” it said.
The judge emphasised that conviction in a criminal case could only rest on conclusive proof and that suspicion, however grave, had no place in criminal jurisprudence.
“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,” the court said.
Addressing the prosecution’s argument that due weight must be given to the extraordinary circumstances of the riots, including killings, injuries, destruction of property and alleged police inaction, the court said: “Accepted. But then, even if that allowance is given in favour of the witnesses, still, there is no satisfactory justification for not naming the accused for three long decades.”
“While appreciating evidence of this case, this court did consider all those factors, yet 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,” it added.
The court noted that a witness who lost a family member would ordinarily name the alleged perpetrator at the earliest opportunity. “Therefore, even if the fear of the influence of the accused got reduced in a few years, there is no reason why the members of the families who suffered human loss and who were also eyewitnesses would fail to name the accused for so long,” it said.
It also observed that the absence of prior enmity did not conclusively rule out false implication. “It is well-nigh possible that, given the accused's alleged involvement in various similar riots against a particular community during the relevant period, the accused has been named in this case as well,” the court said, reiterating that “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 court concluded that once the prosecution failed to conclusively prove Kumar’s presence, instigation, conspiracy or membership of an unlawful assembly, the remaining arguments became merely academic.
The case stemmed from a re-investigation conducted by a special investigation team (SIT) in February 2015 into two FIRs registered at the Janakpuri and Vikaspuri police stations in connection with the 1984 riots. Although the Delhi Police had earlier filed closure reports, the SIT later filed a chargesheet against Kumar based on fresh statements, alleging that he had conspired to commit offences including rioting, arson, murder, destruction of Sikh property and setting a gurdwara on fire.
A common chargesheet was filed, with the SIT asserting that Kumar, then an MP from the Outer Delhi constituency, had conspired with 100–125 unidentified persons to form an unlawful assembly. Kumar was later discharged in the Vikaspuri case relating to alleged murders, while charges were framed against him in the Janakpuri violence case for multiple offences.
Despite Thursday’s acquittal, Kumar remains in jail, having been awarded life imprisonment on February 25 last year in another case related to the killings of Jaswant Singh and his son Tarundeep Singh in the Saraswati Vihar area on November 1, 1984.
Outside the courtroom, the verdict sparked anguish and anger among victims’ families, many of whom have been pursuing justice for more than four decades.
“My father was burnt alive before my eyes, and I have spent 42 years moving from one court to another, clinging to the belief that justice would one day arrive,” Nirmal Kaur told PTI, breaking down as she spoke. “I myself was destroyed, and every good thing in my life was taken away.”
Another woman, standing beside her, said the man she held responsible must be punished and hanged, adding that if this did not happen, they would remain outside the court even if it meant dying there, as they had nothing left to lose.
Wazir Singh, a relative of another riot victim, said Kumar had faced around 18 murder cases yet had been let off. “He was responsible for the killing of thousands of Sikhs, and families like mine have spent their entire lives moving in and out of courtrooms,” he said, asserting that they were prepared to approach the high court and even the Supreme Court.
For Bagi Kaur, the memories of the riots remain painfully vivid. “Ten members of my family were killed. I vividly remember that during the riots, the roads were littered with corpses. One had to jump over dead bodies to cross the road,” she said. Questioning the verdict, she added, “Our pain has now been completely disregarded. Satwant Singh was hanged; then why is the man responsible for the deaths of about a thousand people still alive?”
As protesters refused to disperse from outside the court complex, they said the acquittal was not just a legal outcome but another reopening of wounds that have never healed. Insisting that their fight was far from over, the families vowed to continue their legal battle in search of justice.