1984 Riots: Why Delhi court dropped murder, criminal conspiracy charges against Sajjan Kumar

Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court on Wednesday dropped charges of murder, criminal conspiracy and voluntarily causing grievous hurt against former Congress politician Sajjan Kumar in a case related to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots..Kumar has instead been charged with rioting, attempt to murder and other offences for crimes against the Sikh community in the aftermath of the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi..On the directions of the Central government, a special investigation team (SIT) was formed to reinvestigate cases relating to the 1984 violence. Kumar, who is currently serving life term imprisonment in another related case, faced various charges, including murder, arson and criminal conspiracy, after the SIT filed a consolidated chargesheeted in connection with two separate incidents. .Breaking: Delhi HC sentences former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar to life imprisonment in 1984 anti-Sikh Riots case.Here’s a closer look at the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge MK Nagpal and the reason why the two incidents for which Kumar faced charges were de-linked and why he was charged only for one incident..The two incidents.From the records, it is seen that the first incident took place at around 11 AM on November 1, 1984 in Delhi’s Gulab Bagh, falling under the jurisdiction of Janakpuri police station.A mob was stated to have gathered in the area and set on fire a Gurudwara and houses belonging to members of the Sikh community. There were reports of damage and destruction besides looting of articles from inside these properties. The mob resorted to violence, grievously injuring several people. .The other incident took place at around 7 AM the following day, near the Congress party office in Uttam Nagar, in the jurisdiction of Vikas Puri police station. The deaths resulting from the second incident became the bone of the contention in the present case..The prosecution tried to link the two incidents by demonstrating the ordeal of two men who took shelter on the first day. They were allegedly attacked when they came out to seek medical help on the second day. It was contended that the second incident took place in continuity of the first one. The court, however, did not accept the view of the prosecution and called them “two separate incidents”. Its reasoning was based on the prima facie view that the people comprising the mob on the two days were not the same.Judge Nagpal referred to the statement of the complainant, who was reportedly attacked along with family members in the first incident. The court underlined that only because he had vaguely claimed in his statements that some of the persons constituting these two mobs on two different dates were the same, the two separate incidents cannot be termed to be a “part of the same transaction or chain of same events”, perpetrated by the same people..Why conspiracy, murder charges were dropped.The prosecution’s argument that there was a criminal conspiracy between Kumar and other accused to kill Sikhs and destroy their property did not impress the court..In connection with the second incident that took place on November 2, 1984, the court found that two witnesses hadn’t named or identified Kumar “as a participant of the above mobs”. The evidence put forth before the judge did not reflect who Kumar conspired with.“Even the place and manner where the alleged criminal conspiracy was hatched are not prima facie clear from contents of the chargesheet and other material filed in support,” the court added. Vaguely stating and alleging in the chargsheet that unlawful assemblies were formed or had gathered as a result of a criminal conspiracy did not make out a prima facie case of conspiracy, Judge Nagpal said.“Contention of public prosecutors is not legally tenable as a mob or a crowd can assemble or an unlawful assembly can be formed even spontaneously to commit some offences and it is not at all necessary that this formation or assembly of the mob or crowd should be preceded by a criminal conspiracy,” the order highlighted. Prima facie holding that the two incidents were “entirely separate” and occurred at different times and places, the court said that there was no evidence to show that Kumar was present during the second incident or that he was part of the mob that had attacked the complainant or his relatives on the day..Therefore, for the incident occurring on November 2, 1984, relating to the murder of one Sohan Singh and Avtar Singh, Kumar was discharged of the offence of murder..Why other charges were framed.Kumar’s involvement in the present case was stated to have come on record for the first time when the complainant recorded his statement in September 2016, 32 years after the riots. Other witnesses subsequently testified against him.The court was of the opinion that these witnesses could not be “straightaway disbelieved” when it came to framing charges. “The case of prosecution cannot be thrown away merely on the ground that the accused was named by these witnesses after a long and inordinate delay of 32 years as it has also come on record during some of these statements that the witnesses were afraid of naming or deposing against the accused , who was an MP of their area and an influential political figure,” the order stated. .Not only the witness statements, but also evidence such as 13 photographs, prompted the court to observe that the properties and articles of the witnesses were destroyed by the mob on November 1, 1984.“The oral testimonies of the witnesses regarding attack by the mob upon them and infliction of injuries had been corroborated by the medical record or documents pertaining to some of them that have seized during investigation and filed with the chargesheet,” it noted..In conclusion, the politician was stated to be a part of the same mob acting with a “common object” to set a “Gurudwara on fire and burn and loot articles” besides destroying the houses belonging to the members of the community.“The name of accused Sajjan Kumar has specifically come on record during most of these statements of the complainant as the person who had instigated the mob, which set Gurudwara and houses of Sikhs on fire, looted or destroyed their property and inflicted injuries during the incident on November 1, 1984,” it said. .Kumar now faces trial for offences committed under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 153A (promoting enmity), 295 (destroying place of worship), 307 (attempt to murder), 308 (attempt to culpable homicide) and other charges under Indian Penal Code..[Read Order]