The Rouse Avenue Court acquitted former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar in cases related to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots connected to the Janakpuri and Vikas Puri police stations. The Janakpuri case involved the killings of Sohan Singh and his son-in-law Avtar Singh on November 1, 1984, while the Vikas Puri case concerned the burning of Gurcharan Singh on November 2, 1984.

Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh delivered the acquittal after hearing the case, which was investigated by the SIT set up by the central government. The detailed judgment will be uploaded by the court. The court had reserved its verdict on January 22. Sajjan Kumar had already been discharged from murder charges in 2023.

Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat represented the prosecution, while advocates Anil Kumar Sharma, Apoorv Sharma, and SA Hashmi represented Sajjan Kumar. During his statement on July 7, Sajjan Kumar denied all allegations, claiming he was not present at the riot sites and had been falsely implicated.

The court had previously framed charges against him under several sections of the IPC, including 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapons), 149 (unlawful assembly), 153A (promoting enmity), 295 (injuring religious places), 307 and 308 (attempted murder and culpable homicide), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 395 (dacoity), and 426 (mischief). The court noted that a large mob armed with weapons had gathered near the Gulab Bagh Gurudwara on November 1, 1984, and that Sajjan Kumar was allegedly part of this mob, whose intent was to set the Gurudwara on fire, destroy Sikh homes, loot property, and target Sikhs in retaliation for Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination.

Charges were also framed against him for abetment under Sections 107, 109, and 114 IPC, as he was considered a principal abettor present at the scene. However, regarding the November 2, 1984 incident near the Congress party office in Uttam Nagar, which involved the murder of Sohan Singh and Avtar Singh and injuries to Harvinder Singh, the court discharged Sajjan Kumar from the relevant IPC sections 302 and 325, citing reasons discussed in the order.