"Statements Cannot Be Brushed Aside Merely Because Of Delay In Recording Them": Court Frames Charges Against One In Three Delhi Riots Cases

A Delhi Court has framed charges against one Noor Mohammad of rioting, being member of an unlawful assembly and other offences in connection with three Delhi riots cases.

Framing charges on the basis of ocular evidence available in the cases, Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav observed that statements of witnesses cannot be brushed aside merely because there was a delay in recording them or that the complainant had not specifically named the accused in the initial written complaint.

"The said issue cannot be decided at the stage of consideration on charge. Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence, unless there are strong reasons to doubt it," the Court added.

Three FIRs were filed against Noor Mohammad on the basis of different written complaints alleging that a riotous mob had criminally trespassed into the shops owned by complainants thereby committing robbery, looting them, setting them on fire resulting in a financial loss to owners.

The said FIRs were filed under sec. 147 (punishment for rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 188 (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 392 (Punishment for robbery), 435 (mischief by fire or any explosive substance), 436 and 34 (common intention) of IPC.

It was thus the case of the accused that he was falsely implicated in the said cases and that the complainants had not specifically named or identified him in their initial written complaints.

It was also contended that out of the 150-200 people allegedly being part of the riotous mob, only Noor was chargesheeted in the FIRs. It was also submitted that the investigating agency was unable to identify any other accused in the matter.

On the other hand, it was the case of the Prosecution that Noor was found to be "active member of the riotous mob" and thar he took active participation in rioting, vandalizing and arson in the area on the date and time of incident.

"Though, there is no specific CCTV footage/video­clip of the incident available on record, however, at this stage we have the ocular evidence in the form of supplementary statement of complainant," the Court said.

It added:

"At this stage, defence has not been able to put forth any reason worth to disbelieve/discard the ocular evidence of aforesaid witnesses by doubting their presence at the spot/SOC on the date and time of incident."

Observing that prima facie there was enough material on record, the Court framed charges against Noor in the three FIRs.

Title: State V/s Noor Mohammad @ Noora

Click Here To Read