The 1984 anti-Sikh riots remain one of the darkest chapters in Indian history, marked by widespread violence, loss of lives, and destruction of property. Former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar was found guilty of his involvement in the killings, yet he was not awarded the death penalty. This decision has raised several questions about the legal reasoning behind the verdict.

Let’s break down why the court did not impose the death penalty on Sajjan Kumar and what the judges stated in their ruling.

Background of the Case

The 1984 anti-Sikh riots erupted after the assassination of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. Thousands of Sikhs were brutally killed across India, especially in Delhi. Several political figures, including Sajjan Kumar, were accused of inciting violence and leading mobs that attacked Sikh families.

Sajjan Kumar was convicted in 2018 for his role in the murder of five Sikhs in Delhi’s Raj Nagar area and for spreading communal violence. However, despite being found guilty of serious crimes, he was given a life sentence instead of the death penalty.

Why Was the Death Penalty Not Given?

1. The Court Considered Life Imprisonment as Sufficient Punishment

The Delhi High Court, which sentenced Sajjan Kumar to life imprisonment, stated that a life sentence till natural death was a fitting punishment for his crimes. The court believed that this would ensure he remains behind bars without parole, making it an equally severe punishment.

2. Delay in Prosecution and Age Factor

• Delayed Justice: The case was prosecuted decades after the riots occurred, and the legal proceedings took a long time to conclude. Courts generally consider the delay in delivering justice as a mitigating factor when deciding on extreme punishments.
• Age of the Convict: Sajjan Kumar is an elderly individual, and courts often consider age when deciding whether to impose the death penalty. At the time of his conviction, he was in his 70s, and the judges reasoned that life imprisonment was an appropriate alternative.

3. Supreme Court Guidelines on the Death Penalty

Indian courts follow the principle that the death penalty should be given only in the "rarest of rare" cases. While the crime was horrific, the court concluded that life imprisonment would serve justice without resorting to capital punishment.

4. No Direct Execution Role

While Kumar was found guilty of inciting violence and conspiring against Sikhs, the court noted that he was not directly involved in physically committing murders. This factor also played a role in determining the nature of his punishment.

What Did the Court Say?

In its judgment, the Delhi High Court made strong remarks about the nature of the crime, stating:

• The riots were a deliberate attempt at genocide, with mobs systematically targeting Sikhs.
• Sajjan Kumar used his political influence to shield himself from the law for decades.
• The case exposed a failure of justice and the inability of law enforcement to act swiftly against the perpetrators.

However, despite these strong statements, the court upheld life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.

Public Reaction to the Verdict

The verdict sparked mixed reactions.

• Victims' families and Sikh organizations expressed disappointment that Kumar was not given the death penalty, arguing that justice would only be served with the highest punishment.
• Legal experts and activists welcomed the life sentence but believed the delayed judgment reflected flaws in the legal system.
• Political debates emerged, with many questioning why justice took over three decades.