Congress leader Sajjan Kumar and five others are to face trial in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case of the Delhi Cantonment area in which five persons of a family were killed and houses were looted and set ablaze by a rioting mob allegedly led by him.
Additional Sessions Judge Sunita Gupta on Friday fixed July 1 as the date for recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses.
Earlier, the judge framed charges of murder, conspiracy, dacoity and spreading enmity between two communities against Mr. Kumar and the five co-accused saying that there were prima facie sufficient materials on record to send them up on trial.
Besides Mr. Kumar, the other accused persons to face trial in the case are: Balwan Khokhar, Krishan Khokhar, Mahender Yadav, Captain Bhagmal and Girdhari Lal.
Ms. Gupta passed the order to conduct trial of the accused persons in the case when they pleaded not guilty and claimed to face trial on being asked after reading out of the charges by the judge.
Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court has reserved order on a revision petition filed by Mr. Kumar against the trial court's order for framing of charges against him.
Ms. Gupta is also hearing arguments on framing of charges against Mr. Kumar and others in another anti-Sikh riot case. This particular riot had broken out in the Sultanpuri area in Delhi in which one person was killed and houses were looted and set on fire.
The riots had broken out across the capital on the following day of the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, on October 31 in 1984.
The Central Bureau of Investigation registered the two cases in 2005 against the accused persons on a complaint lodged by Jagdish Kaur whose husband, son and three cousins were killed in the riot.
The investigating agency had registered the case on her complaint on the recommendation of the Justice Nanvati Commission set up by the NDA government in 2000 to look into the sparks that led to the attacks targeting members of the Sikh community; the sequence of events; whether these crimes could have possibly been averted and whether there were any lapses on the part of the authorities.
The court had on May 15 ordered framing of charges against the accused.
Opposing the framing of charges, counsel for Mr. Kumar submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were recorded very late and it was not reliable as their statements were full of discrepancies. However, the court rejected his argument.
The investigating agency had charge-sheeted Mr. Kumar and his co-accused on January 13 in the two riots cases.
