Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Rouse Avenue Court, on Tuesday, awarded life imprisonment to former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar, who was convicted for the murder of Jaswant Singh and his son Tarundeep Singh during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Delhi’s Saraswati Vihar. 

Special Judge Kaveri Baweja held, “this is a fit case where the Convict must also be awarded life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 436 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC in addition to fine”. 

Per the prosecution, Sajjan Kumar participated in an unlawful assembly that used force and deadly weapons, resulting in the murder of Sardar Jaswant Singh (50) and his son Sardar Tarundeep Singh (18), who were burned alive. 

Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat, for the State, argued that the case fell under the "rarest of rare" doctrine, justifying the death penalty under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, APP Rawat emphasized that the crime was unprovoked and specifically targeted a community. Four women were brutally beaten, and two men were burned alive in the presence of their families. Survivors continued to suffer severe psychological trauma, as evident from their emotional state during testimony. 

APP Rawat also highlighted the broader social impact, stating that such incidents disrupted communal harmony and forced mass displacement. Sajjan Kumar, an elected Member of Parliament at the time, failed in his duty to protect citizens and instead instigated violence. His political influence enabled him to evade legal consequences for over three decades until the 2016 SIT investigation ensured justice for the survivors. 

Advocate S.A. Hashmi, for Kumar, opposed the death penalty and asserted that life imprisonment remained the rule, while the death penalty was an exception under the amended Indian Penal Code of 1955. Advocate Hashmi emphasized that the convict was already serving life imprisonment for another case related to the 1984 riots and that the High Court had not imposed the death penalty in that instance.  

The court, after examining the available records and the arguments, identified aggravating and mitigating factors in the case.  “Aggravating factors:- 
i) Murder of two innocent persons by burning them in presence of their family members; 
ii) Inflicting of injuries and the resultant continuing trauma of the survivor victims i.e. PW-11, PW-12 & PW-13 and destruction of their house and belongings by the mob, of which the Convict was a member during rioting; 
iii) Targeting of male members of a particular community only; 
iv) Conviction in a similar case by the Hon’ble High Court where five (05) persons were murdered by a mob of which the Convict was held to be the leader. 

Mitigating factors:- 
i) The Convict is already undergoing life imprisonment for the rest of his life in terms of the judgment dated 17.12.2018 of the Hon’ble High Court in a similar case [i.e. Sajjan Kumar vs. State (Supra)]; 
ii) Convict is about 80 years old and suffering from hypertension, lumbar Spondylitis, left side DNS, IMSC left eye, BPH (Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy), recurrent Dyselectrolytemia with Hyponatremia, Parkinson’s diseases, Syncopal dizziness, Weight loss etc. 
iii) His wife aged 75 years is also reported to be bed ridden on account of illness; 
iv) Convict has roots in the society; 
v) Nothing adverse has been reported about his behaviour and his conduct has been found to be ‘satisfactory’ as per Report of Jail Authorities”. 

The court reaffirmed that the death penalty should be imposed only in the 'rarest of rare cases' and that life imprisonment remained the general rule. After evaluating all factors, the court concluded that although the offences committed were brutal and reprehensible, the mitigating circumstances favored a sentence of life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. The court noted that the present incident was a continuation of the riots following the assassination of then PM Indira Gandhi, for which the convict was already serving a life sentence.  

“Though the killings of two innocent persons in the present case is no less an offence, however, the above noted circumstances, in my opinion, do not make this a ‘rarest of rare case’ warranting imposition of death penalty for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 149 IPC”, the court outlined. 

For State: Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat
For Convict: Advocates S.A.Hashmi, Apoorav Kumar Sharma and C. M. Sangwan
For Complainant: Senior Advocate H.S.Phoolka with Advocates Gurbaksh Singh, Kamna Vohra, Surpreet Kaur and Mandeep Singh
Case Title: State v Sajjan Kumar (SC No.03/2021)