"Investigation Highly Callous, Inefficient But Cannot Ignore Statements Of Victims": Delhi Court Frames Charges Against One In Delhi Riots Case
A Delhi Court recently framed charges against one Rohit in a case concerning North East Delhi riots after observing that even though the investigation in the matter appears to be highly callous and inefficient, however, the statements of victims cannot be ignored by the Court."Be that as it may, it is worth noting that investigation in the matter appears to be highly callous, inefficient...
A Delhi Court recently framed charges against one Rohit in a case concerning North East Delhi riots after observing that even though the investigation in the matter appears to be highly callous and inefficient, however, the statements of victims cannot be ignored by the Court.
"Be that as it may, it is worth noting that investigation in the matter appears to be highly callous, inefficient and unproductive; however, as noted earlier this Court at this stage, cannot ignore the statements of victims dehors the delay in recording of FIR in the matter," observed Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav.
Charges were framed by the Court in FIR 32/2020 P.S. Gokulpuri against Rohit under sec. 143, 147, 148, 454, 427, 380, 436, 435 of IPC read with sec. 149 and 188.
The FIR was registered on February 26 last year alleging that a riotous mob consisting of about 400-500 persons, armed with dandas and iron rods blocked the road and set on fire some shops and vehicles in the area.
A written complaint was received from one Anwar Ali regarding vandalizing, looting and putting on fire his house by the mob. The said complaint was clubbed with the instant case FIR. Two other complaints were also clubbed with the FIR.
The Court observed that there was enough ocular evidence in the form of supplementary statements of complainant and public witnesses in order to frame charges against the accused.
"Their statements cannot be brushed aside/discarded at this stage, merely because there has been some delay in recording of their statements or the complainant(s) have not specifically named them in their initial written complaints. Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence, unless there are strong reasons to doubt it," the Court observed.
"Whether the same unlawful assembly was operating in the area at the relevant time is a question which cannot be decided at this stage. Similarly, the issue of improper clubbing of complaints and delay in recording of witnesses in the matter also cannot be adjudicated upon at the stage of consideration on charge. This Court, will try to seek answers to these questions during the course of trial," it added.
Title: State v. Rohit