Sajjan Kumar Matter- proceeding before Supreme Court

In the Supreme Court today, Sajjan Kumar case-arguments went on for the whole day. U. U. Lalit argued for Sajjan Kumar and Harin P Raval, ASG argued for the CBI. Shri Dushyant Dave and Mr. Phoolka appeared for the victims.
CBI argued that Delhi Police’s role has been partisan from very beginning, first it did not register any case on complaint of Jagdish Kaur, and then later, it filed closure report after investigations had been transfered to CBI.

Arguements to continue on Friday, 10th September 2010

~~Ramneek Singh/ Kumar Saurabh

Mr. Phoolka’s Chamber

Today’s Proceedings summary – Sajjan Kumar’s Case in Supreme Court

Supreme Court has listed Sajjan Kumar’s case for final disposal on 7th September. Dushyant Dave appeared for the victims pro-bono. Copy of the application of victims Jagdidh kaur and Nirprit Kaur is also on the blog. CBI has alleged in its counter affidavit filed before the Supreme Court that Delhi Police made clandestine attempt to hush up the matter when Delhi Police filed closure report in this case after investigation was transferred to CBI.

~~ Kumar Saurabh/ Ramneek singh


Mr. Phoolka’s Chamber

Intervention Application in Supreme Court – Sajjan Kumar Matter

Below is the text of the intervention application filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the victims Jagdish Kaur and Nirprit Kaur

~~ Kumar Saurabh/ Ramneek Singh


Mr. Phoolka’s Chamber




CRL.M.P. NO __________of 2010




SAJJAN KUMAR         …Petitioner


C.B.I.               …Respondent


1. Jagdish Kaur

W/o Late Shri Kehar Singh

R/o House No.4 Darshan Avenue

Danga Pidit colony GT Road Bypass

Amritsar (Punjab).      ….Applicant No.1

2. Nirprit Kaur

W/o Late Shri Dilbar Singh

R/o WZ-127/A,Street no 10-A,

Old Saheb Pura(M.B.S Nagar)

Tilak Nagar, Delhi-110018.

….Applicant No.2









  1. The present application is being filed by the applicants seeking leave of this Hon’ble Court to intervene in the present special leave petition arising out of judgment/order dated 19.07.2010 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi whereby the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the legality of framing of charge against the petitioner u/s 109/147/148/149/153-A/295/302/396/427/486/449/505 and 201 of I.P.C.
  2. The applicants are seeking intervention in the matter for the reason that the applicants are the victims in the matter currently before the Court of  M/s Sunita Gupta , ASJ , Karkrardooma, Delhi and  therefore the applicants are necessary and proper parties in as much as any order passed herein shall have a vital bearing on the rights and interest of the applicants.
  3. The applicant No.1 lost 5 members of her family including her husband and son during Anti Sikh Riots in Delhi. Her husband Kehar Singh was in the Indian Army when he became a victim of the frenzy of an unruly mob and was brutally killed in front of his wife i.e Jagdish Kaur ( Applicant no 1). The applicant No.2 Nirprit Kaur is a witness as well as a victim who lost her father in the same riots which had broken out after the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi.
  4. The Special Leave Petition was listed for hearing before this Hon’ble Court on 13.08.2010 and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass the following order.

“Exemption allowed.

Issue notice returnable on 27th August, 2010.

Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.

Stay of trial till then.”

5.         That certain pertinent facts were not brought to the attention of this Hon’ble Court at the time of the passing of the order .  It is submitted that the examination in chief of the applicant No.1 Jagdish Kaur  started on 1.7.2010 and her cross examination started on 3.7.2010 as PW-1 and her Cross Examination continued for 16 hearings. On 13th August 2010 was the 17th hearing/day of Cross-Examination. Since last 3 hearings the defence lawyer for Petitioner had been assuring the trial court that he shall conclude the cross examination of the witness. The trial of the case is at the crucial stage.

6.          The applicant No.1 is an old widow aged about 70 years and is a patient of high B. P. During the hearing she had to be taken to Ganga Ram hospital twice due to her elevated Blood Pressure. She had been accompanied by a nurse during recording of her evidence to monitor her condition as her health could deteriorate at any time due to the high tension and changed atmosphere at the trial .

7.          In the large scale riots, which broke out after the assassination of Mrs. Indra Gandhi on 31.10.1984, the then Prime Minister of India on 31.10.1984, the husband, son, and cousins of the applicant No. 1 were killed by the unlawful assembly.  During the course of the proceedings before Justice Nanavati Commission, the Commission took note of the depositions/affidavit of the applicants and observed that many witnesses have stated about the involvement of Sajjan Kumar i.e. the petitioner.  It has also come on record that the applicant No. 1 and other aggrieved persons had reported to police about involvement of petitioner at the time of the brutal murders of their family members  but the police did not take down their complaint and petitioner was not put up for trial.

8.           The Commission concluded that there is credible material against Sajjan Kumar the petitioner and the Commission recommended  the Government to take further action and examine those cases where witnesses have accused the Petitioner of murder and yet no charge sheets had been filed  and the cases were terminated as untraced.   After considering the findings of Nanavati Commission, the Government of India directed the CBI to re-investigate the cases against the Petitioner including F.I.R. No. 416/84 dated 4.11.1984 of P.S. Delhi Cantt.  Accordingly, case F.I.R. No. 416/84 of P.S. Delhi Cantt. was re-registered by CBI as RC-24(S)2005-SCU.I/SCR.I on 22.11.2005 and investigation was taken up.

9.           It is submitted that the investigation revealed that petitioner instigated the unlawful assembly/mob by provoking it to kill all Sikhs   and in addition to that not even spare any Hindu who  provides shelter to Sikhs. The Petitioner gave provocative speeches, which promoted immediate and violent enmity amongst the public against Sikhs and disturbed the harmony between the two religious groups resulting in the killing of Sikhs and burning/looting of their houses/properties.

10.        That it is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was an M.P. in the year 1984 from outer Delhi constituency and enjoyed a position of strong power and denomination ,something he enjoys till date. At present his brother is the sitting M.P. from the same constituency.

11.        It is submitted that Petitioner is very powerful leader who wields great influence. The Delhi Police had been protecting the Petitioner from the very beginning , which is why the case stood transferred to C.B.I , who initiated are- investigation.

12          The influence of the petitioner is evident from the fact that a large number of victims had named him but the Police did not register any case against him. Name of petitioner figured in the inquiry reports carried out by the Human Rights Group. It is submitted that the former CJI J. S.M.SIKRI also conducted inquiry and the name of the Petitioner figured there as well. The Secretary to the Sikri Commission also gave his evidence before Nanavati Commission.

13.         The extent of the influence of the Petitioner can be seen from the fact that in one case registered against him on the complaint of one Smt. Anwar Kaur in the year 1990 , the jeeps of CBI were burnt when their team went to arrest him. Unfortunately he was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble High Court. At that time after he was arrested by CBI Team he was not allowed to be taken by the violent mob. Anwar Kaur was a witness to the killing of her husband Navin Singh. The said case did not relate to the role of the Petitioner as a whole and CBI did not investigate from that angle. The case was investigated only regarding the circumstances relating to the killing of Naveen Singh. It is submitted that the Anwar kaur’s case was also registered only after the recommendation of the Committee, which was consisted of a retired High Court Judge. The recommendation was made in 1987 but the case was registered in the year 1990 and charge sheet was filed in 1995.

14.        That the influence of the petitioner can be gauged from the fact that in an another case registered against the petitioner pertaining to Nangloi Police Station wherein the charge sheet was signed, prepared but even then the same has not been filed in the Court. The Charge Sheet has been prepared under Section 302 IPC on 8.4.1992. Till today charge sheet has not been filed before the Court by Delhi Police.

15.       That the Delhi Police has not filed any charge sheet against the petitioner despite a number of victims naming the petitioners in their complaints, affidavits, statements etc. On the recommendation of Jain Aggarwal Committee, police had to register some case against the petitioner but all the cases were closed and no charge sheet was ever filed against him.

16.         In Police Station Delhi Cantontment, as per the finding of Nanavati Commission the following killings took place.

“According to the police record 246 Sikhs were killed in this area between 31.10.1984 and 5.11.1984. it is stated by Carnage justice Committee that as many as 426 persons were brutally killed in this area by the rioting mobs. The Ahuja Committee in its report determined the number of death as 341. According to police record, 6 Gurdwaras, 345 houses, 110 shops and 45 vehicles were burnt. (Ahuja Committee was appointed by the Government to ascertain the numbers of death).

It further held “even though more than 340 Sikhs were killed in this area and a large number of house and properties were burnt, only 5 FIR’s were recorded by the police”.

17.        That a Division Bench of Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.02.2010 has directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of 6 months. As per directions of Division Bench and also in view of the suit that incident is 26 years old, the trial in the present case is proceeding on day to day basis .

18.         The applicant No. 1 had earlier challenged the order dated 26.2.2010 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide SLP (Criminal) No. 2770 of 2010. This Hon’ble Court vide order dated 29.3.2010, allowed the petitioner to file the SLP, though declined to interfere with the impugned High Court order. Copy of the order dated 29.3.2010 passed by this Hon’ble Court is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-1.

19.       In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, the applicants herein respectfully pray that they may be allowed to intervene in the matter since any order passed in the present petition will have direct bearing on the rights and interests of the applicants.


In view of facts and circumstances, stated hereinabove, it is, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

  1. allow the applicants to intervene in the present special leave petition; and
  1. pass any such of further order(s) that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case;




FILED ON:  20.08.2010

Letter to the Primer Minister – seeking intervention in Sajjan Kumar Case

Below is the text of the letter written by Mr. Phoolka to the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh

~ ~

Kumar Saurabh / Ramneek Singh

Mr. Phoolka’s Chamber




The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India,

South Block, Raisina Hill,
New Delhi- 110 001.

SUBJECT: Sajjan Kumar’s petition for quashing murder charges framed against him

Most Respected Sir,

I have been fighting cases on behalf of the victims of the November 1984 Genocide since the past 26 years. My endeavour is to show that this country is governed by the Rule of Law and nobody can claim to be above the law. I have spent almost whole life ensuring that at least some of the perpetrators of the worst massacre in the history of independent India are punished, so as to not only act as a deterrent for anyone trying to put a dent on the country’s secular character, but also renew the victims and the common man’s faith in the justice delivery system of the country.

After the recommendation of the Nanavati Commission, the case of Sajjan Kumar was referred to the CBI for investigation. In the investigation conducted by CBI, it has become apparent that the Delhi Police has not only been trying to shield Sajjan Kumar all this while, but has committed such illegal and unprecedented acts never before heard of in criminal jurisprudence, in order to have him secured. The Delhi Police went to the extent of filing a closure report in this case, after the investigation had been transferred to CBI. This was a clear attempt to go out of their way to favour the accused, though they knew fully well that they had no jurisdiction to file such a report, the investigation having already been transferred to CBI. Taking advantage of such corrupt tactics, Sajjan Kumar has filed a petition challenging the charges framed against him for the murder of 5 Sikhs.

Since the manoeuvres of the dishonest investigation agency (the Delhi Police) in shielding the guilty have been exposed, Delhi High Court Judge, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi has taken a very stern view of the illegal acts committed by Delhi Police and directed the Police Commissioner to take action against the errant police officers. Sajjan Kumar is challenging this judgement in the Supreme Court.

In these circumstances, it becomes the duty of the Government to protect the majesty of the law and prove that at least now the Government is serious in punishing the guilty of this heinous crime. The Government should deal with this matter with the sincerity and importance that this issue deserves. The least we expect from the Government is that its topmost law officers should defend the actions of its own investigating agency, the CBI. We expect that the Government would instruct either the Attorney General or the Solicitor General of India to defend the CBI before the Supreme Court on 27th August 2010.

Sir, with utmost respect, if I may suggest that by securing the punishment of at least some of the perpetrators of this Genocide, we may be able to demonstrate to the world that no one is above the law in this country and the people of this country would not accept anyone attempting to destroy the secular fabric of India.

Yours sincerely,

Harvinder Singh Phoolka

Senior Advocate

cc:  Director, C.B.I.

Unfortunate event – Stay of Sajjan Kumar’s Trial granted by Supreme Court

Sajjan Kumar’s lawyer did not conclude the cross examination of Jagdish Kaur even on 12th August 2010, which happened to be the 16th day of cross. He had been assuring the court since the last 3 hearings that he would conclude the cross on the next date. On 12th August again he dragged the cross unnecessarily and at the end of the day assured the court that he would conclude it on the 13th of August.

However, on the morning of 13th August, Sajjan Kumar has obtained an order from the Supreme Court granting an ex parte (without giving the other side an opportunity to be heard) stay of the trial. I was informed of the orders of the Supreme Court at about 11.15 am. I immediately rushed to the concerned court and to my dismay, learnt that the news was indeed correct. I immediately mentioned the matter to the court and submitted that the stay order is likely to prejudice the case and in the least, the evidence of Jagdish Kaur who is already in the witness box should be allowed to be completed. I also informed the court that today is the 17th day of hearing of his cross.

Unfortunately, the court did not entertain my plea and stated that the stay was only for 2 weeks and now would be heard only after 2 weeks. The case has now been listed on the 27th of August 2010 for hearing before the Supreme Court.

This raises a vital issue- whether a superior court should stay the evidence of a witness already in the witness box? Unless there exist special circumstances of not continuing with the evidence, the Court should refrain from interfering. Completing the evidence would not cause any prejudice to the accused, but a stay of the evidence at the cross stage, a rather crucial juncture, is bound to seriously prejudice the case of the prosecution. In this case, it would definitely adversely effect the case of the victims. We are trying our level best to overcome such hurdles to ensure that no damage is caused to the case.

Discussions are being held amongst the lawyers involved and we are in the process of formulating a strategy.

Ramneek Singh


Mr. Phoolka’s Chamber