The decision is likely to be seen as a setback for survivors and families seeking justice in decades-old cases related to the riots.
However, hours after the national capital’s Rouse Avenue Court cleared Kumar in the Janakpuri violence case, senior advocate HS Phoolka, who has represented riot victims for decades, said the order would be challenged in the Delhi High Court. He accused the Congress of conspiring to prolong proceedings so that the passage of time itself worked in favour of the accused.
According to Phoolka, repeated delays ensured that witnesses either died or were rendered incapable of testifying, undermining the prospects of justice in riot cases involving influential political figures.
He maintained that though several witnesses had named Kumar, their testimonies were not given due weight by the court.
The Rouse Avenue Court, however, acquitted Kumar after holding that the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh found no reliable evidence establishing Kumar’s presence at the scene on November 1, 1984, or his role in leading or instigating a mob in Janakpuri following the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
The court ruled that neither Kumar’s political standing nor his involvement in other riot-related cases could justify lowering the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. It held that criminal culpability must be established strictly on evidence relevant to the case at hand.
While acknowledging the prolonged suffering of riot victims and their families, the court said emotional considerations could not substitute legal proof. It reiterated that decisions in criminal trials must be guided by evidence, not sentiment, regardless of the gravity of the crime or the time elapsed.
The case was based on allegations of arson, looting and targeted violence against the Sikh community in West Delhi’s Janakpuri area. An FIR was registered years after the incident, charging Kumar under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including murder, attempt to murder, rioting with deadly weapons, promoting enmity between groups, defiling a place of worship and dacoity.
The prosecution alleged that Kumar led an unlawful assembly that attacked Sikh homes and religious sites, including a gurdwara. However, after examining 18 prosecution witnesses, the court found that many testimonies were either hearsay or involved delayed identification of the accused, often made decades after the violence.
The court expressed serious reservations about the reliability of such delayed statements, noting that unexplained silence over long periods weakened the prosecution case. It rejected the argument that fear alone could justify witnesses not naming the accused despite suffering personal losses, including deaths of family members.
Phoolka, however, contested this assessment, pointing to specific instances where witnesses had come forward but their statements were allegedly ignored or sidelined by investigators. He recalled the case of Gurcharan Singh, a minor at the time of the riots, who was allegedly thrown from his father’s truck, set on fire and left with severe burn injuries. According to Phoolka, Gurcharan remained bedridden for over two decades before dying in 2008.
Phoolka claimed that Gurcharan had given a statement to the CBI stating that he had seen Kumar leading the mob, but the agency did not act on it as it was probing another case at the time. He described this as a grave failure that cost the prosecution critical evidence.
He also referred to another victim, Harvinder Singh Kohli, who, he said, went door to door seeking justice but died before he could record his statement after the case was reopened in 2015.
The investigation in the Janakpuri case was carried out by a special investigation team (SIT) constituted in 2015 following recommendations of the Justice GP Mathur Committee to re-examine serious 1984 riot cases that had earlier been closed or marked untraced. The SIT filed a chargesheet against Kumar in 2022.
While the court held that the SIT’s investigation was legally permissible as further investigation, it concluded that the evidence collected did not meet the threshold required for conviction.
Kumar remains lodged in Tihar Jail, serving life sentences awarded in two other 1984 riot cases, one by a trial court in the Saraswati Vihar case and another by the Delhi High Court in the Palam Colony killings.
Takht questions sincerity of probe
Akal Takht officiating Jathedar Kuldip Singh Gargaj has expressed concern over the acquittal of Sajjan Kumar, saying it showed the sincerity of probe agencies in pursuing the case