[Delhi Riots] Delhi Court orders framing of rioting charges against four men

There were instances of rioting, killing, looting, vandalising and setting ablaze movable and immovable properties by the members of each community, a Delhi Court observed while ordering framing of charges against four men in connection with the 2020 Delhi Riots [State v. Mohd Shahnawaz & Ors]..Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhatt ordered framing of charges against Mohd Shahnawaz, Mohd Shoaib, Sharukh and Rashid under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 392 (robbery), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy house, etc.), and 454 (house trespass)..The prosecution alleged that the four men had vandalised, looted and destroyed a couple of shops during the riots. Police witnesses were stated to have identified the accused as being part of a mob which took part in rioting. The police also highlighted the accused’s confessions admitting their alleged roles in the violence..The defence counsel, on the other hand, termed the case as fabricated, arguing that there was delay in registration of the First Information Report (FIR). The incident was stated to have taken place on February 25, 2020, whereas the FIR was registered on March 2, 2020, he pointed out.Therefore, the counsel stressed on the delay of about “more than a month” in recording of the statements of the eye witnesses. The accused's disclosure statements, on the basis of which they were stated to be arrested, were also alleged to have been fabricated..The Court noted though there was a delay of about five days in lodging the complaint and registration of the FIR in this case, the case was an “offshoot of communal riots” that erupted in the region starting February 24, 2020 and continuing till February 26, 2020, brought under control by the police and paramilitary force.“There had been instances of rioting, killing, looting, vandalising, setting ablaze movable and immovable properties etc., by the members of each community against each other,” it added..The order went on to observe, “There was an atmosphere of terror and trauma which prevailed in the area for several days even after these riots. In these circumstances, the delay of five days in reporting the incident to the police station would appear justified to any prudent person and cannot be considered fatal to the prosecution case.”.It was also observed that apart from the police witnesses, there were public witnesses who had “specifically named and identified” the four accused persons. Further, their account couldn’t be ignored at this stage “merely for the reason that their statements had been recorded after a delay of about more than one month from the date of incident.”.The Special Public Prosecutor earlier contended that that soon after the situation turned somewhat normal, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted a complete lockdown from March 2020, onwards, resulting in the delay of recording the statements of public witnesses..In this light, the order stated that the delay in recording the statements of the witnesses couldn’t be termed “intentional or contumacious” and the accused couldn’t claim discharge merely on this ground.“It appears that the delay in recording the statements of the witnesses was occasioned on account of the situation which prevailed in the area during and after the incident of rioting. The truthfulness or otherwise of the statements of these witness can be assessed only during the trial of the case,” the Court found..The material on record was stated to have prima facie disclosed the commission of offences of rioting, looting and setting ablaze the shops of the complainant by the accused persons.“There is no escape from the conclusion at this stage that the accused were members of an unlawful assembly, the object of which was to cause riots, vandalism, destruction of property etc. No case for their discharge is made out,” held the Court..[Read Order]