Continuing final arguments in the case, Kumar's counsel I U Khan told District Judge J R Aryan that several witnesses said one thing before judicial commissions set up to probe riot cases, but they changed their statements before the court and said something else.
Khan argued that inconsistent statements were made by key witness and complainant Jagdish Kaur to frame his client Kumar in the case.
He said Jagdish Kaur in her affidavit to Justice Nanavati Commission in 2000 had said that on November 1, 1984, a mob of 100 people, led by Sajjan Kumar, entered her house and killed her husband and son.
"In the same affidavit, she had said on November 2, 1984 morning when she approached the police station, on her way she saw MP Sajjan Kumar organising a meeting and she felt Kumar would help her in saving the lives of her children and for cremating the dead bodies of her husband and son.
"But, she was shocked on hearing that Kumar was addressing that no Sikh should be spared and any Hindu, if found giving shelter to them, should also be burnt. If she had seen Kumar leading the mob on November 1, how could she think of taking help from the same person just the next day.
"This shows the contradiction in the statement of the witness," argued Khan, assisted by advocates Anil Sharma and R D Rana.
More From This Section
Sajjan Kumar is facing trial along with five others - Balwan Khokkar, Kishan Khokkar, Mahender Yadav, Girdhari Lal and Captain Bhagmal - for allegedly inciting a mob against the Sikh community in Delhi Cantonment area here.
The case relates to anti-Sikh riots that had broken out after the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984. (More)