The Delhi High Court, which on Monday sentenced Congress leader Sajjan Kumar to life term in connection with an anti-Sikh riots case of 1984, noted that the accused were brought to justice primarily because of “the courage and perseverance of three eyewitnesses”.

One of the three witnesses was Jagdish Kaur, now 79, who saw her husband, son and three cousins getting battered and burnt by mobs on November 1 and 2, 1984.

The other two witnesses were Jagsher Singh, Jagdish's cousin, and Nirpreet Kaur, who saw her father being burnt by a mob when she was 16 years old. Both Jagsher and Nirpreet's recorded statements say that they had seen Kumar in their neighbourhoods on November 2, 1984, egging on mobs to murder Sikhs and burn their homes.

Jagdish, whose statement mentioned Sajjan Kumar’s action of egging on mobs to attack Sikhs, said the verdict had allowed her “a bit of relief”. “Thoda sa sukoon mila hai. Even if a little late, it has been established that law doesn't let anyone get away, even if you are a powerful person,' she said.

But Jagdish, who saw her son die in front of her eyes, wants Kumar to be given the death sentence.

Jagdish recounted what happened near her home in the Delhi Cantonment area on the morning of November 2, 1984, two days after Indira Gandhi's assassination, details of which are also recorded in the 203-page judgment.

She said she was on her way to the police station near Shiv Mandir Marg to lodge a report about the killing of her three brothers when she saw a meeting was on. Jagdish used to live on Shiv Mandir Marg, Raj Nagar, along with her husband, three daughters and two sons. Her husband, Kehar Singh, was a gun-fitter in the Delhi Cantonment and her elder son, Gurpreet Singh,18 at the time, was studying BSc.

She said that MP Sajjan Kumar stepped out of his jeep on November 2, 1984, and told the gathering, “Sikh s*** ek nahin bachna chahiye. Jo Hindu bhai unko saran deta hai, uska ghar bhi jala do aur unko bhi maro (not a single Sikh should be spared. Hindus who have sheltered Sikhs in their houses, their homes should be burnt and they should be killed as well).”

The text of Monday's judgment has recorded the chronology of what happened on November 1, 1984, at Jagdish's home, the day before Kumar came to the Shiv Mandir Marg meeting. In the legal document, Jagdish is referred to as PW-1 or prosecution witness-1.

“PW-1 stated that around 1.30 to 2 pm, a mob entered her house from all sides, armed with sariyas, gaintis, and other lethal weapons. She (Jagdish) stated that they pounced upon her son Gurpreet Singh and dragged her husband, effectively crushing his head, till he dropped dead. Her son, who had sustained injuries, ran some distance down the street before he was attacked again and set on fire.”

Hours after the judgment on Monday, Jagdish recalled how she had found her son burnt and on the brink of death. She provided him a few drops of water before he breathed his last. 'For 34 years it has been a difficult journey,' she said. 'I didn't want to give up. If he (Kumar) goes to the Supreme Court, I will too. I will continue fighting.'

The judgment noted that Jagdish’s statement before the Justice Ranganath Misra Committee, set up in 1985, had no mention of Congress leader Kumar. But Jagdish has countered that, saying she had mentioned Kumar then too, but when her statement was translated from Punjabi to English, Kumar’s name was omitted.

In her affidavit before the Justice Nanavati Commission (formed in 2000), however, Jagdish’s statement in para 4 said: “MP Sajjan Kumar was leading the mob.”

She also made a deposition in court on July 1, 2010, in which she stated that around 9 am on November 2, 1984, Kumar came out of the meeting and ordered that not a single Sikh should be alive and Hindus protecting them should also be killed.

Supreme Court advocate H.S. Phoolka, who appeared for Jagdish, said the judgment was “symbolic”. “This is not justice, yet. The judgment is a historic document,' he said. 'This judgment will now be quoted in the cases against Kamal Nath and Jagdish Tytler.'

Phoolka claimed that in the case of Kamal Nath, who was sworn in as Madhya Pradesh chief minister on Monday, “we have even stronger evidence than this. But there is no case registered against him. We'll ask the SIT to register a case against him.”

He said 'the entire state machinery got together to save the accused”. The judgement, he said, takes note of “how everything, from police to government to administration and even the judiciary, behaved. At each and every level there has been an attempt to scuttle the process.'