World
India
The Delhi Police on Tuesday strongly urged the court to award the death penalty to former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar for his involvement in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The prosecution argued that Kumar’s role in the massacre amounted to genocide and ethnic cleansing, making it a crime of the “rarest of rare” category deserving capital punishment.
The police contended that Kumar’s prior conviction in a similar case reinforced the need for the harshest punishment, asserting that life imprisonment would not suffice given the gravity of his crimes against humanity and the Sikh community.
Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat made these submissions before Additional Sessions Judge Kaveri Baweja, who has scheduled the sentencing arguments for February 21.
Kumar’s Role in Brutal Murders
In its written submission, the prosecution described Kumar as a key instigator in the gruesome killings of 50-year-old Sardar Jaswant Singh and his 18-year-old son, Sardar Tarundeep Singh, in Delhi’s Saraswati Vihar on November 1, 1984. Both victims were burnt alive while Singh’s wife, daughter, and niece sustained severe injuries in the attack. The prosecution stated that an unlawful assembly, incited by Kumar, was responsible for the assault.
Terming the crime as “rarest of rare,” the police sought the death penalty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They cited landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1983) and Machhi Singh Vs State of Punjab (1983), to support their plea that capital punishment was the only justifiable sentence in such a heinous case.
Prosecution Cites International Law and Psychological Trauma
The prosecution invoked India’s commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), arguing that Kumar’s actions fit the convention’s definition of genocide, which includes the mass killing and infliction of harm on a particular ethnic or religious group.
“The murders were committed in an extremely brutal, diabolical manner, shocking the collective conscience of society,” the prosecution stated. It further noted that the survivors remained deeply traumatized even after 39 years.
The submission also pointed out how Kumar misused his position as a Member of Parliament to evade justice for decades. It was only in 2016, following the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), that he was formally charged.
The 1984 Riots and Legal Battle Against Kumar
The 1984 anti-Sikh riots erupted after Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination by her Sikh bodyguards on October 31, 1984. In Delhi alone, an estimated 2,800 Sikhs were killed, with many more injured or displaced.
Kumar was convicted on February 12, 2024, after a prolonged legal battle spanning nearly four decades. Special Judge Baweja ruled that Kumar incited a violent mob to attack Sikh victims in Saraswati Vihar, leading to their deaths and the destruction of their home.
“I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt… Accused Sajjan Kumar, being a member of such unlawful assembly, is guilty of having committed the murder of Jaswant Singh and Tarundeep Singh,” the court stated in its verdict.
Previous Conviction and Systemic Failures
Kumar, now 79 years old, is already serving a life sentence awarded by the Delhi High Court in 2018 for his role in the killing of five Sikhs and the burning of a Gurudwara during the 1984 riots.
The February 12 judgment extensively criticized systemic failures that allowed Kumar to evade justice for decades. The court particularly highlighted the Delhi Police’s role in delaying accountability, pointing to a 1994 “untrace report” that closed the case without informing the complainant, Jaswant Singh’s wife—a move the court described as a “grave failure of justice.”
The prosecution argued that the survivors of the attack endured severe psychological trauma. Initially, Jaswant Singh’s wife was unable to identify Kumar, but she later recognized him from a magazine photograph, further strengthening her testimony.
Defense’s Counterarguments and Court’s Rebuttal
Kumar’s defense team attempted to discredit the identification, arguing that Singh’s wife only named him 32 years after the incident. However, the court rejected this claim, acknowledging the impact of trauma on memory.
“The agony and trauma suffered by the complainant on seeing her husband and young son being burned must be kept in mind, more so when she herself suffered severe injuries,” the judgment stated.
The court also acknowledged the reluctance of independent witnesses to testify due to fear and intimidation, which hindered justice for decades. “The fact that the residents of the locality hesitated to rescue and provide aid to these victims at the time of the occurrence is sufficient to conclude that they would also not have come forward to support their version before the court,” the judgment observed.
Prosecution Draws Parallel to Nirbhaya Case
In its closing submission, the prosecution contended that Kumar’s conviction in 2018, combined with the brutality of the present case, warranted the harshest form of punishment.
“The present case is graver than the Nirbhaya case,” the prosecution stated, drawing a comparison to the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, in which the convicts were sentenced to death. “While Nirbhaya was a single victim, here, an entire community was targeted, resulting in mass killings and forced displacement.”
