New Delhi, Jan 22 A Delhi court, which on Thursday acquitted former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar in a case related to inciting violence in the Janakpuri area during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, flagged the lack of explanation by witnesses for not naming him as an accused for over three decades.
Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh noted that the complainant, Harvinder Singh, stated that during the rioting incident, his brother-in-law Avtaar Singh and father Sohan Singh Kohli lost their lives, while he became disabled because of the injuries.
"Unfortunately, before the victim, Harvinder Singh, could be examined (by the present court), he passed away. Nevertheless, his affidavit and statement recorded in 1991, which are proved in this case, do not support the prosecution's case, and no plausible explanation is offered as to why the accused (Sajjan Kumar) was not named for a long period spanning over three decades," the judge said.
He said the prosecution explained the delay, saying Kumar was a Member of Parliament and a powerful person in the Congress party, and so the witnesses were in fear of him, but this reason could not be accepted as a sufficient reason.
"It is particularly important that in other cases the accused was arrested and in custody, which would have addressed any fear factor, if any."
"It is also particularly important that the arrest of the accused was published widely in newspapers, and therefore, one cannot even take shelter under a plea that the complainant and other victims were not aware that the person who is feared is no longer a free man," the judge said.
He said that not naming the accused in the affidavit or in the statement of the complainant became an important factor while assessing the reliability of the prosecution witnesses.
The judge noted the investigating officer’s (IOs) admission that Kumar’s name was not mentioned in Harvinder Singh's affidavit, nor in his statement recorded in 1991, nor in the records of the two FIRs investigated by the Delhi Police’s anti-riots cell.
He noted that according to the IO, Kumar’s involvement was not indicated by any witness in the untrace or closure reports, which were earlier accepted by the courts.
Also noting the IOs admission that the complainant later expressed dissatisfaction with the investigation, leading to a further inquiry and a supplementary chargesheet being filed in 1994, the judge said even the supplementary final report did not name Kumar as an accused.
The court noted the statements of Harjeet Kaur, widow of Avtar Singh and the daughter of Sohan Singh, according to which, her husband and father were killed in the incident on November 2, 1984, when they, along with her brother, the complainant Harvinder Singh, were travelling towards Janakpuri.
It said, "One wonders why would she not name the accused in her statements recorded on April 23, 1992, her other statements recorded in 1992 and 1993, as well as her statement recorded by the special investigating team (SIT) on August 20, 2016, particularly when she herself admits that the accused was a known politician and that she and her family were traditional supporters of the party to which the accused belonged."
The judge highlighted that despite the accused's well-known identity in the area and the witness's clear knowledge of him, she did not name him for as long as 32 years.
"No plausible explanation is even put forth in this regard. It is only in the (present) court for the first time that she claimed the accused's presence at the spot, leading the mob," the judge said.
"When a witness names an accused after almost four decades, even though the accused is clearly known to the witness, such an identification ought to be rejected and cannot be relied upon," he added.
The court also rejected the testimonies of some other prosecution witnesses regarding Kumar’s identification, his presence at the spot or the accused’s participation in the alleged offences, saying they were based on hearsay, instead of being direct eyewitness accounts.
It said relying on the identification of the accused by such witnesses "would be risky and may lead to a travesty".
