Delhi court discharges 11 accused in Delhi Riots case

A Delhi court on Monday discharged 11 persons accused of criminal conspiracy, rioting and damaging public property during the Delhi Riots of 2020. [State v. Ajmat Ali & Ors].Additional Session Judge Pulastya Pramachala determined that based on the evidence on record, no grave suspicion was created against the accused to show their involvement in the incidents."In fact, there is no specific evidence in respect of finding culprit behind incident related to other complaints, which were clubbed for investigation in this case and which are being prosecuted in the same chargesheet. The video relied upon by the prosecution to chargesheet Suleman and Mohd. Faeem, does not connect them with the alleged incidents," the Court added..As per the chargesheet, on February 23, 2020, a phone call was received at Dayalpur Police Station regarding an incident at Sherpur chowk. On reaching the spot, Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Hukum Singh purportedly found two mobs raising slogans against and in favour of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Singh intimated the Station House Officer (SHO), who declared the mob illegal and tried to disperse it. In the meantime, the mobs started pelting stones at each other and there was damage to public as well as private property.Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed on April 27, 2020 against 10 individuals for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act. On September 16, 2020, the first supplementary chargesheet impleading an 11th accused was filed. The second supplementary chargesheet was filed in February 2022.Thereafter, on December 14, 2023, a third supplementary chargesheet was filed, taking a fresh stand to prosecute the case in respect of nine complaints purportedly received from residents of the area where the incident took place. .Counsel for the accused pointed out discrepancies in the investigation and prayed for discharge. Specifically, they strongly challenged the testimonies given by two witnesses, Sachin and Deepak.According to Sachin and Deepak, a shop was set ablaze by the accused. However, the owner of the shop, a Muslim, mentioned in his complaint that throughout the incident, the rioters were raising slogans of "Jai Shree Ram".However, his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) said that CAA opposers attacked his shop while chanting "Jai Shree Ram"..The court stated that it was not probable that persons in the mob belonging to the Muslim community would chant "Jai Shree Ram" or beat up a Muslim person while acting as part of a mob in a communal riot."Therefore, the aforesaid addition made in the statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of Mohd. Mumtaz, does appear to be artificially crafted therein, as far as it relates to describing nature of the mob entering into his shop as the one which was opposing CAA. This addition, therefore, is to be ignored," it observed..It further that Sachin and Deepak made the statements without actually witnessing the incident as they had failed to mention that the owner of the shop was assaulted and looted by the mob. "The statement of these two witnesses are neither probable nor do they stand before the complaint made by the actual victim i.e. Mohd. Mumtaz. If at all the accused persons herein, were actually involved in the incident at the shop of Mohd. Mumtaz, then IO could have verified their identity from Mohd. Mumtaz as well, by way of holding TIP etc. However, IO did not confirm identity of the accused persons arrested by him in this case from any of the victims," the court recorded.Furthermore, it observed that the IO, Hukum Singh, himself could have identified the mob or the persons in it because he was present on the spot, but did not do so. It also observed that the IO did not examine other victims. "This was a major omission on the part of IO, especially when he had to find out the culprits behind incident with each of these complainants/ victims," the court said. .It determined that based on the evidence on record, no grave suspicion was created against the accused to show their involvement in the incidents being prosecuted."Since police had registered separate cases for riotous incidents, a general piece of evidence to show presence in the mob at some point of time and at some different place, cannot be sufficient evidence to prosecute and charge an accused for a particular incident," the order stated.Noting that there was no evidence to show the existence of a criminal conspiracy among the accused persons and that the element of prior agreement among the accused persons could not be inferred, the court did not find a case for criminal conspiracy.Therefore, it discharged the 11 accused in the case namely Ajmat Ali, Shadab Alam, Naved, Md Shahid, Md Sakir, Nadeem, Md Sohail, Sultan Ahmed, Wazid, Suleman and Mohd Faeem..Advocates Tara Narula, Sowjanaya Shankaran, Abdul Gaffar, Badre Alam, RH Zaidi, Ritesh Dhar Dubey and Nishant Kumar Tyagi appeared for the accused. .The State was represented by Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Madhukar Pandey..[Read Order]