1984 riots: Court drops murder, criminal conspiracy charges against Sajjan Kumar
The court further ruled that there was enough oral and documentary evidence on record to show that Kumar was part of an unlawful assembly of hundreds of persons armed with deadly weapons, which set the Gurudwara in Gulab Bagh on fire.
3 min read
The charges of murder were dropped by the court which ruled that the accused was not present at the spot in the Janakpuri incident. (Express Photo by Prem Nath Pandey) A Delhi court has dropped charges of murder and criminal conspiracy against former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in two separate cases in which two Sikh men were allegedly killed and one was set ablaze during the 1984 riots.
In February 2015, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had registered two FIRs against Kumar based on complaints of violence in Janakpuri and Vikaspuri during the anti-Sikh riots. In Janakpuri, two men, Sohan Singh and his son-in-law Avtar Singh, were killed on November 1, 1984.
The second FIR was registered in the case of Gurcharan Singh, who was allegedly set ablaze on November 2, 1984, in the Vikaspuri area. According to the complaint, Gurcharan, who sustained severe burns, remained bed-ridden for three decades.
The court ruled out charges of criminal conspiracy, noting that Kumar was not named as part of the mobs involved in the incidents of murder. It was further pointed out that he was not present at the spot during the second incident.
“Allegations contained in this consolidated chargesheet, as already discussed, do not make out a prima facie case for the commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy,” the Rouse Avenue court said Wednesday.
The charges of murder were dropped by the court which ruled that the accused was not present at the spot in the Janakpuri incident.
The court, however, charged the accused with the other offences mentioned in the chargesheet, including rioting with deadly weapons, promoting enmity between different groups, and attempting to commit culpable homicide. He was further charged with causing mischief by explosive substance with intent to destroy houses.
Senior advocate Anil Kumar Sharma, representing Kumar, called the constitution of the SIT “illegal”. The court, though, said that the SIT was formed for further investigation into the cases and not for re-investigation. Special Judge M K Nagpal further pointed out that new witnesses were also examined during the probe.
After Sharma flagged that a consolidated chargesheet was filed even though two separate FIRs were registered, the court said the clubbing of the FIRs could not be termed illegal as it caused “no prejudice” to the accused.
Mentioning an “inordinate delay” in filing the case, Sharma further argued that Kumar was named for the first time 32 years after the incident took place. To this, the court said the witnesses could have been afraid of naming Kumar as he was an influential political figure.
The court further pointed out that while at the stage of trial, the delay could be factored in, it was not an important factor at the stage of framing of charges.
“…at the stage of charge, the court is required to form only a prima facie view on the basis of material or evidence placed before it regarding involvement of the accused in commission of alleged offences… meticulous examination of the evidence is not at all required,” the court ruled.
It was further ruled by the court that there was enough oral and documentary evidence on record to show that Kumar was part of an unlawful assembly of hundreds of persons armed with deadly weapons, which set the Gurudwara in Gulab Bagh on fire.
You May Like
