The Delhi Police on Tuesday demanded the death penalty for former Congress parliamentarian Sajjan Kumar, contending that his role in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots amounted to genocide and ethnic cleansing.
The prosecution stressed that Kumar’s previous conviction in a similar case underscores the necessity of the death sentence, as life imprisonment would be inadequate for the severity of his crime that it said was “against humanity” and targeting the Sikh community.
Additional public prosecutor Manish Rawat adduced the submissions before additional sessions judge Kaveri Baweja, who has scheduled arguments on sentencing for February 21.
In its written submissions, the prosecution emphasised that Kumar was a key instigator in the brutal killing of Sardar Jaswant Singh (50) and his son Sardar Tarundeep Singh (18) in Delhi’s Saraswati Vihar on November 1, 1984. The victims were burnt alive, while Singh’s wife, daughter, and niece sustained grievous injuries in the attack led by an unlawful assembly incited by Kumar.
The police categorised the crime as a “rarest of rare” case, justifying the imposition of the death penalty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Citing Supreme Court judgments, including Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1983) and Machhi Singh Vs State of Punjab (1983), the prosecution argued that the crime was so heinous and its impact so profound that no lesser punishment than capital punishment would suffice.
The submissions 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 met the convention’s definition of genocide, which includes killing and inflicting serious bodily or mental harm on members of a particular ethnic or religious group.
“The murders were committed in an extremely brutal, diabolical manner, shocking the collective conscience of society,” the submission stated, adding that the survivors remained visibly traumatised even after 39 years. The prosecution also pointed out that Kumar had misused his position as a Member of Parliament to evade justice for decades, only being formally charged in 2016 after a special investigation team (SIT) was constituted. Upon taking view of all the circumstances and in the light of guidelines framed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is submitted that the present case is fit for giving death sentence to accused Sajjan Kumar,” stated the prosecution’s submissions.
The 1984 riots erupted in the wake of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination by her Sikh bodyguards on October 31, 1984, and led to the killing of an estimated 2,800 people in the national capital alone.
Kumar was convicted on February 12 after a four-decade-long legal battle, with special judge Baweja finding that he actively incited a violent mob to attack the Sikh victims in Saraswati Vihar, culminating in 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 judge stated in the verdict.
Kumar, 79, is already serving a life sentence awarded by the Delhi high court in 2018 for the killing of five Sikhs and the burning of a Gurudwara during the 1984 riots.
The February 12 judgment extensively documented systemic failures that allowed him to evade justice for decades. It also criticised the Delhi Police’s role, particularly highlighting the acceptance of an “untrace report” in 1994, which closed the case without notifying the complainant — Jaswant Singh’s wife — an act the court described as a “grave failure of justice”.
The prosecution argued that the survivors of the attack had faced extreme trauma, with Jaswant Singh’s wife initially unable to identify Kumar. However, she later recognised him from a magazine photograph, reinforcing her testimony that he led the violent mob.
Kumar’s defence sought to discredit her identification, arguing that she named him only after 32 years had passed. However, the court rejected this claim, recognising 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 noted 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,” it observed.
In its closing submission, the prosecution argued that Kumar’s conviction in a similar case in 2018, along with the brutality of the current case, warrants the highest form of punishment.
“The present case is graver than the Nirbhaya case,” the submission stated, drawing parallels 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.”
The court will hear arguments from Kumar’s defence team on February 21 before delivering its verdict on the quantum of punishment.