Sajjan Kumar acquittal: Delhi court's ruling highlights systemic challenges in riot cases

A Delhi court on Thursday acquitted former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar in a case linked to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, offering him a legal reprieve in one of the many prosecutions arising out of the mass violence that followed the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Kumar was accused of inciting a mob that allegedly carried out violence in West Delhi’s Janakpuri and Vikaspuri areas. The court, however, ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations and extended him the benefit of the doubt.

The acquittal is significant because Sajjan Kumar remains one of the most politically prominent figures to have faced trial in the long-running search for accountability over the 1984 riots. For decades, survivors and victims’ families have pursued cases against political leaders and alleged perpetrators, often battling delays, fading memories, and gaps in documentation.

But today’s decision once again underlines how difficult it has been for the criminal justice system to bring closure in riot cases where evidence is largely dependent on eyewitness accounts and public memory.

“Unfortunately, most of the witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case are hearsay, and/or those witnesses who failed to name the accused for 3 long decades. Relying on the identification of the accused by such persons would be risky and may lead to a travesty,” said Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Court in his judgment.

“There is no reliable evidence in the present matter that the accused was present at the crime scene for which he has been charged on 01.11.1984, or that he was seen there by anyone. There is no evidence of instigating any such mob. There is no evidence of conspiracy so far as the incident in question is concerned, and this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has not met the standard of proof required in a criminal trial to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” he added.

The prosecution examined 18 witnesses, including nine alleged eyewitnesses, in the case. The judge chose to focus on the reliability of these witnesses’ testimonies while passing judgment.

“A man may be convicted of 100 crimes, but to be held guilty of the 101st crime, proof beyond a reasonable doubt in that crime is required. One cannot be found guilty merely because in the past he was involved in similar offences. Past criminal background or the commission of other offences are separate and can have some value in sentencing a person, but they cannot be considered by a Court of law in holding a person guilty of another crime,” the court said.

At the same time, the order does not substantially alter Sajjan Kumar’s immediate legal position. Kumar is already serving a life sentence in another 1984 riots case. This means that while Thursday’s acquittal offers him relief in one case, it does not translate into release from jail or a clean slate. In practical terms, it narrows his exposure to additional convictions but does not undo the punishment he is currently undergoing in connection with other riot-related findings against him.

The case before the Delhi court pertained to allegations that Kumar played a role in instigating violence during the riots in the Janakpuri and Vikaspuri localities. Prosecutors had argued that he was part of the leadership that allegedly incited mobs targeting Sikhs. The prosecution’s case relied on witness statements and the broader narrative of political involvement in organising the violence. The defence, on the other hand, challenged the reliability of the testimonies and argued that the evidence fell short of the legal threshold needed for conviction.

The acquittal is also politically sensitive because Sajjan Kumar has long been seen as a symbol of the Congress party’s association with the 1984 riots. For the victims’ families, each acquittal is not merely a legal outcome but a reminder of what they view as systemic failure, delayed justice turning into denied justice.

For Sajjan Kumar, this order may provide strategic relief in the continuing legal contest over his liability. Each acquittal can strengthen the defence narrative of unreliable evidence and mistaken identity, particularly in cases where individual acts of instigation are difficult to attribute.