 | « Back to article | Print this article |
A Delhi court on Wednesday said former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar was part of an unlawful assembly that killed the victims and is guilty of murder in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots' case, in which he now faces a maximum of death penalty and a minimum of life term in prison.
Special judge Kaveri Baweja aside from saying that a mob took part in rioting and killed the victims, held, "It has further been established that Kumar, being a member of such unlawful assembly, is guilty of having committed the murder of Jaswant Singh and Tarundeep Singh, the husband and son of the complainant, during the incident."
The conviction judgment further said, "The complainant who witnessed the brutal killing of her husband and son can certainly not be expected to forget the face of the person who was instigating the mob to carry out the said killings and looting and her deposition in court fortifies her stand that it is accused who was not only present during the alleged incident but also instigating and leading the mob which resulted in commission of the aforesaid offences."
Kumar was convicted under Indian Penal Code Sections 147 (rioting), 302 (murder), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) 395 (dacoity), 397 (robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc), and 440 (mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt) aside from other provisions.
Arguments on sentence would be heard on February 18.
Saying the prosecution brought 'home the guilt', the court held Kumar instigated the mob, which was armed with deadly weapons and was 'unlawful assembly' that used force and violence as a part of its common object of looting and rioting.
Members of the unlawful assembly were armed with iron rods, lathis, bricks, etc., which proves the alleged offences were committed after having made preparations, it added.
Kumar was produced in court from Tihar jail for the pronouncement.
Jaswant and his son Tarundeep were killed on November 1, 1984.
The judge rejected Kumar's argument that the statement of the complainant couldn't be trusted as she named him belatedly and held at the time of the incident, she was not aware of the identity of the accused as she was admittedly new to the area and had never seen him earlier.
"It is only when she was going through magazine after 1.5-2 months of the incident, that upon seeing the photograph of the accused, she was able to recollect that it was Kumar who was leading and instigating the mob on November 1, 1984. The version of the Complainant and her narration of the incident is natural and believable," said the court.
The deposition of the complainant was a 'correct and honest' narration of the incident as it occurred on November 1, 1984, it added.
"I am also not inclined to accept the submissions of defence counsel that the testimony of PW-13 (complainant) cannot be relied upon since though she admittedly received the compensation for death of her family members on account of registration of FIR, still she did not initiate any action against the accused at that time," said the judge.
The court said the complainant even correctly admitted that she did not have enough confidence to pin point anybody as instigator of the mob but the accused's face ran in her mind throughout.
The judge noted it was clear from her deposition that she neither had the occasion nor the trust to confide in the police though she joined the investigation.
"This can certainly be said to be a natural reaction keeping in view her prior experience of complete inaction and lack of any sympathy towards the victims by the police during the horrific incident. The complainant could apparently gather courage when a notice was published in newspapers following constitution of Justice Rangnath Misra Inquiry Commission," the verdict said.
The court therefore found her deposition 'truthful, reliable and worthy of credit'.
On defence's argument that the prosecution's case was solely based on the statement of the complainant and her family members -- daughter and niece -- the court said the other residents from the locality did not even come forward to the aid and assistance of the victims at the time when their house was being burnt and their loved ones were being brutally beaten and killed.
'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,' it added.
A huge mob, armed with deadly weapons, resorted to large-scale looting, arson and destruction of properties of Sikhs to avenge the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the prosecution alleged.
The mob attacked the house of the complainant, who is Jaswant's wife, killing the men aside from looting articles and setting their house ablaze, the prosecution claimed.