New Delhi [India], January 22 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue court on Thursday acquitted former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar in a 1984 Anti Sikh riots case, citing a lack of credible evidence to show his presence in the crime in question or being part of an unlawful assembly.
This case is linked with FIRs registered at Janakpuri and Vikas Puri Police Stations.
Special Judge (MP-MLA) Dig Vinay Singh acquitted former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar on Thursday.
While acquitting Sajjan Kumar, 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 (Sajjan Kumar) is acquitted of the charges," Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh said in the judgement dated January 22, 2026.
Sajjan Kumar was charge-sheeted (in July 2022) under two FIRs related to the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, namely FIRs lodged at Police Station Janak Puri (dated 17.04.1992) and Police Station Vikas Puri (dated 25.06.1992).
However, a common charge sheet was filed for both the FIRs. The present judgment is directed only to the FIR of Janakpuri, as the accused was discharged in the second FIR of Vikas Puri.
These FIRs, lodged in 1992, pertained to incidents of arson, looting, and murder that occurred after the assassination of the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984.
The accused was charge-sheeted for offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 153-A, 295, 395, 436, 307, 302 & 120-B of the IPC.
While acquitting, the court also referred to the lie detector report.
In the present matter, the lie detector test report is a report admitted by the prosecution itself; therefore, the prosecution cannot go beyond it, the court said.
The said report was also admitted at the stage of admission/denial. "Even otherwise, in law, the evidentiary value of a lie detector test is not substantial," the court said in the judgment.
The court also noted that in the present matter, there was no earlier final report naming the accused, nor was any closure filed in his favour.
Rather, the earlier final reports were untraceable, indicating that no evidence could be found against anyone and no offender could be traced; therefore, an untraceable report was preferred.
The court observed that it is not a case where the accused was exonerated in any manner by the earlier untraced reports.
Therefore, there is no question of filing a supplementary chargesheet, as contended by the accused, nor of filing final reports in which the accused is facing trial after re-investigation.
The Janakpuri case pertains to the killing of two Sikhs, Sohan Singh and his son-in-law Avtar Singh, on November 1, 1984.
The second case was registered in the Vikaspuri police station related to the burning of Gurcharan Singh on November 2, 1984.
Additional public prosecutor (APP) Manish Rawat appeared for the prosecution. Advocate Anil Kumar Sharma alongwith Apoorv Sharma and S A Hashmi, appeared for Sajjan Kumar.
On July 7, during the recording of his statement, Former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar denied the charges levelled against him in the 1984 Anti Sikh riots case. He had stated before the court that he was not present at the site of the riots and was falsely implicated.
The court had discharged Sajjan Kumar from the offence of murder on August 23, 2023.
The court had framed charges against Sajjan Kumar under sections of IPC 147 (Punishment for rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (offence is committed by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly), 153 (promoting enmity between different groups), 295 (Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class), 307 (attempt of murder), 308 (Attempt to commit culpable homicide), 323 (deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 395 (Punishment for Dacoity) and 426 (Punishment for mischief) etc.
The Special court while ordered framing of charges stated that, "this court is of prima facie view that the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by prosecution is sufficient to hold that an unlawful assembly or mob consisting of hundreds of persons and armed with deadly weapons like dandas, iron rods, bricks and stones etc. had gathered near the Gurudwara situated in Gulab Bagh, Nawada on November 1, 1984.
Court had noted that the accused Sajjan Kumar was also a part of the said mob and common object of the said mob was to put the above said Gurudwara on fire and to burn and loot the articles lying therein and also to burn and destroy the houses of Sikhs situated in the said locality, to damage, destroy or loot their articles or property and to kill the Sikhs residing in that locality, in order to avenge killing of the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi.
Hence, a prima facie case is held to be made out against the accused/Sajjan Kumar, for the commission of the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 153A, 295, 307, 308, 323, 395, 436 IPC and charges are accordingly directed to be framed against him for the said offences. Further, in alternative, a charge for the offence of abetment defined by section 107 IPC and made punishable by section 109 read with 114 IPC in relation to the above said offences is also directed to be framed against the accused as the accused being principal abettor was present at the scene of crime, when the offences abetted by him were committed by the other unknown offenders.
However, as far as the offences committed during the incident dated November 2, 1984 and which relate to the murder of Sohan Singh and Avtar Singh at the hands of members of the mob or crowd, which had gathered on that date near or outside the Congress party office in Uttam Nagar, and also the injuries suffered by complainant Harvinder Singh in the said incident, are concerned, the accused is being discharged for the offences Under section 302 and 325 IPC respectively committed in the said incident for the reasons already discussed in this order, court had said. (ANI)
