'Object Was To Create Fear Amongst Hindu Community, Threaten Them To Leave Country': Court Frames Charges Against 10 Men In Delhi Riots Case

A Delhi Court has framed charges against 10 men in connection with a case concerning the North East Delhi riots, observing that the object of the unlawful assembly was to create fear in the minds of the people belonging to Hindu Community, threaten them to leave the country and to loot and burn their properties.

Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat found credibility in the statements of the witnesses and observed thus:

"From the utterances of the rioters comprising the unlawful assembly, as mentioned by these witnesses in their statements, it is limpid that the object of the assembly was to create fear & panic in the minds of the people belonging to Hindu Community, threaten them to leave the country and to loot as well as burn their properties."

The Court has framed charges against Mohd. Shahnawaz, Mohd. Shoaib, Shahrukh, Rashid, Azad, Ashraf Ali, Parvez, Mohd. Faisal, Rashid @ Monu and Mohd. Tahir under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 436 (Mischief by fire), 452 (House-trespass with preparation to assault), 454 (Lurking house-trespass), 392 (robbery), 427 (mischief) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of IPC.

It was the case of the prosecution that the accused persons had constituted an unlawful assembly on February 25 last year and in furtherance of it, they resorted to violence, looted and set ablaze the properties belonging to members of Hindu community.

The FIR was registered on the complaint of one Jagdish Prasad wherein he stated that the rioters had burnt the auto spare parts shop run by his son. He also alleged that the mob threw petrol bomb into the shop as a result of which the whole shop got burnt. He further stated that he along with his two brothers managed to escape from the rear gate and saved their lives.

According to the prosecution, the complainant, his son, his nephew and three police officials were eye witnesses in the matter. It was submitted that all the witnesses had specifically named the accused persons in their statements, claiming that the accused were present in the mob which indulged in looting, damaging and setting ablaze the properties including the shop of the complainant.

The Court was of the view that the delay of three days in registering of the FIR and in recording the statements of witnesses would appear to be reasonable and justified to any prudent person in the aftermath of the riots.

"One has to bear in mind that in the aftermath of the riots in North East Delhi between 25.02.2020 and 27.02.2020, a deluge of complaints from riot victims were received in the police stations in the North East District which made it an uphill task for the police force to examine the complaints to know which of the offences are made out and then to register the FIRs," the Court observed at the outset.

The Court was of the prima facie view that there was no ground to disbelieve the version of the witnesses.

"They have taken the names of only three accused whom they already knew and had seen them in the mob. If they had any intention to falsely implicate any person in this case, they would have taken the names of all the accused and not only of the three accused. This indicates the truthfulness of their statements and makes their statements trustworthy," the Court said.

The Court also added that it would be against the demands of justice to discard the statements of the two witnesses at the stage of framing of charges against the accused persons.

"It is possible that more than one incidents of crime, which had taken place in same locality, happened before the eyes of a police official who had been deputed to that particular area for maintaining law & order. Hence, there is no illegality in citing that police official as a witness in all those cases. Only caution would be that the version of the incident given by that police official needs to be scrutinized minutely in every such case in order to see as to whether or not the same is prima ­facie probable and reliable," the Court added.

The Court said that there were 10 accused in this case and different accused were identified by different witnesses.

"All the six prosecution witnesses, who have identified the accused, have given identical version of the riotous incident involved in this case. All of them corroborate each other's version in entirety," the Court said.

Accordingly charges were framed against the 10 men.

Case Title: Sate Vs. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu & Ors.

Click Here To Read Order