Death Penalty Demand Against Sajjan Kumar Gains Momentum, Court to Hear Case
New Delhi (The Uttam Hindu): The prosecution has sought death penalty for former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar after a Delhi court convicted him in the murder case of two people during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
Sajjan Kumar was convicted on Wednesday in the case of murder of father-son in Saraswati Vihar area in November 1984. The public prosecutor is yet to file his written arguments. He is demanding death penalty in the guidelines in Nirbhaya and other cases. Senior lawyers will also file their written arguments. The court has fixed the hearing of the case on February 21 for debate on the sentence. Sajjan Kumar was convicted by the court under sections 147 (rioting), 302 (murder), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 395 (dacoity), 397 (robbery or robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) and 436 (using fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house etc.) of the IPC.
According to the report, Delhi's Special Court Judge Kaveri on Wednesday convicted Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in the murder case of a father-son duo in Saraswati Vihar area during the anti-Sikh riots. The court had said that Sajjan Kumar was part of the mob that carried out the murder. After being convicted of murder, Sajjan Kumar can now be sentenced to a maximum of death or a minimum of life imprisonment. Judge Kaveri Baveja had fixed February 18 as the date for the debate on Sajjan Kumar's sentence.
The judge had said, "It has also been proved that being a part of the attacking mob, Sajjan Kumar is guilty of killing the complainant's husband Jaswant Singh and son Tarundeep Singh during the incident."
In the conviction order, the judge had said, "The complainant, who has witnessed the brutal murder of her husband and son, certainly cannot be expected to forget the face of the person who was instigating the mob to commit the said murders and loot and the statement of the complainant in the court corroborates this stand of hers." The court had rejected Sajjan Kumar's argument that the statement of the complainant cannot be relied upon as she named the accused late and said that at the time of the incident she was not aware of the identity of the accused as she was new to the area and had never seen the accused before.
