A Delhi court on Thursday adjourned a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case against former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar, who is accused of instigating a mob to kill Sikhs, to January 22.
The Patiala House Court judge District was scheduled to record the statement of a key prosecution witness in the case and Kumar appeared before the court on Thursday. The case was adjourned to January after Kumar said his main lawyer was unavailable.
Three persons -- Kumar, Brahmanand Gupta and Ved Prakash -- are facing trial on charges of murder and rioting in the case connected to the killing of Surjit Singh in Delhi's Sultanpuri.
The witness, Cham Kaur, had on November 16 identified Kumar before the court as one who had allegedly instigated the mob to kill Sikhs.
Ms Kaur had told the court that she had seen Kumar allegedly addressing the crowd in Sultanpuri area in 1984 and saying that Sikhs had killed "our mother" and instigated the mob to kill them.
"On October 31, 1984 we were the TV coverage on the death of Indira Gandhi. On November 1, 1984 when I stepped out to look for my goat, I saw accused Sajjan Kumar addressing the crowed and was saying 'hamari ma maar di. Sardaro ko maar do' (killed our mother. Kill the Sikhs)," Mr Kaur had told the court.
She had said the next morning, her son and her father were killed.
"My son Kapoor Singh and my father Sardarji Singh were pulled out of the hiding place on second floor, beaten badly and were thrown down from the roof," she had said, adding that she too was injured in the attack.
During the proceedings, Ms Kaur had also identified Kumar, who was present in the court.
"I could recognise the accused Sajjan Kumar, as we used to visit him for getting help in making ration card, passport. We used to visit the accused for getting the papers stamps as he was the lawmaker," she had said.
Before Ms Kaur, another key prosecution witness Sheela Kaur had identified Kumar as the one who had instigated the mob in Sultanpuri.
The case was transferred from the Karkardooma court to the Patiala House court here by the Delhi High Court, which had directed the district judge to video record the proceedings at the cost of the accused.
Kumar and the other two other accused had said that they were ready to bear the expenses of the videography of proceedings.