"Framing Charges Would Waste Judicial Time": Court Discharges 6 Accused Of Vandalizing During Delhi Riots, Cites Lack Of Evidence

A Delhi Court has discharged six men in a case concerning the North East Delhi riots of 2020 accused of being members of an unlawful assembly committing vandalization in city's Sonia Vihar area. Taking note of the inadequate material against the accused persons, the Court observed that it would be sheer wastage of judicial time if charges are to be framed against them.

Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat however charged other three accused in the case under Sections 143, 147, 427, 435, 436 and 149 of IPC.

While discharging six men namely Ajay, Rohit Saxena, Kuldeep, Utkarsh, Raj @ Dheeraj and Harender Rawat, the Court said:

"Charges cannot be framed against these accused upon taking into account the material annexed with the charge­sheet on the basis of which there is no possibility of their conviction at the final stage. It would be sheer wastage of judicial time if the charges are to be framed against the accused upon consideration of the evidence on the basis of which they have to be acquitted later on."

The Judge however said that the co accused Ashutosh, Vishwajeet and Hunny @ Anil were identified as rioters by more than one witness and that the video footages prima­ facie appeared to be legally admissible which could not be discarded without testing their authenticity during trial.

"Therefore, the charges u/s 435/436 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC are liable to be framed against them besides the charges for other offences for being members of the above noted unlawful assembly and having knowledge that the offences would be committed by the members of the said assembly," the Court said.

FIR 35/2020 PS Sonia Vihar was registered alleging that a mob had resorted to rioting and committed vandalization as well as arson thereby damaging and setting ablaze the shops and vehicles the area.

The Charge­sheet mentioned that during further investigation of the case, the IO received a video clip from public domain which he saved in the computer. The video footage in the pen drive was shown to Head Constable Sanjeev who identified a boy wearing green check shirt and Army Dress as Ajay whom he already knew.

The IO had then taken the screen shot of the footage where Ajay was seen. Thereafter, the said boy named Ajay was apprehended. Upon making enquiries from him and being satisfied about his role in the incident, he was arrested. Later other arrests were done.

The prosecution had argued that there was sufficient material on record against all the accused in the form of ocular evidence as well as electronic evidence and therefore, the charges were liable to be framed against all of them.

On the other hand, the counsels appearing for accused persons submitted that all the accused had been falsely implicated without there being any iota of legally admissible evidence against them on record. It was argued that there was no eye witness who had seen any of these accused indulging in rioting at the incident spots and the case of the prosecution was based upon the statements of the police witnesses only who were stated to have identified the accused from a video clip and not directly at the spot.

"It needs note here that at the time of deciding the charges against the accused, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of material on record. At this stage, the Court is not to apply exactly the standard and test which it finally applies for determining the guilt or otherwise of the accused. The Court is not supposed to decide whether the material collected by the investigating agency provides sufficient grounds for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to culminate in his conviction. What is required to be seen at this stage is whether, the conviction of the accused is reasonably possible if the material on record remains unrebutted or whether there is strong suspicion which may lead the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence," the Court noted at the outset.

Case Title: State Vs. Ajay & Ors.

Click Here To Read Order