2020 Delhi Riots: High Court Upholds Order Framing Charges Against Accused, Says 'Evidence Will Be Filtered In The Crucible Of Trial'
The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court order framing charges against one Salim Malik booked in a case related to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
Justice Anish Dayal rejected Malik's plea against the trial court order that framed charges against him for the offences under Sections 147(Punishment for rioting), 148(Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 427(Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees), 435(Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred or (in case of agricultural produce) ten rupees), 436(Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc), 450(House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life), 149(Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) and 188 (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
“Any decision by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction to discharge the accused by setting aside the Trial Court's order on charge, at the stage when the trial is just about to conclude, would be unmerited. The evidence, which either the prosecution or the defence relies upon, will be filtered, distilled and tested in the crucible of the trial,” the Court said.
The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by a man working as General Manager in a car showroom. He alleged that Malik was part of a mob which damaged the showroom and set it on fire.
Malik challenged framing of charges against him on the grounds of inadmissible disclosures, delayed and unreliable witness statements, and lack of cogent evidence linking him to the alleged offences of arson and vandalism in the showroom.
Dismissing his plea, the Court perused the statement of a constable did not prima facie completely exclude the possibility of his presence at the site of the incident or as part of the mob.
“As per Ct. Mukesh's statement, the presence of the petitioner at the stage, is clearly indicated. It also indicates that when the protesters surrounded them, there was tussle amongst the crowd, the police personnel had to escape, and incident of the showroom happened a bit later,” the Court said.
It observed that evidence is yet to be tested in the trial, which is at the stage of completion.
“In the view of the above assessment, this Court does not find any impropriety, illegality or infirmity with the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed,” the Court concluded.
Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Archit Krishna, Ms. Tamanna Pankaj, Ms. Stuti Rai and Ms. Pooja Mehta, Advocates
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Madhukar Pandey, SPP along with Mr. Aviral Bansal and Mr. Daksh Sachdeva, Advocates
Title: SALIM MALIK @ MUNNA v. STATE