[Delhi Riots] Haven't seen such riots in Delhi since 1984: Delhi Court in charge order against Shahrukh Pathan

The Delhi Riots of 2020 could perhaps be the first such riots since the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, a Delhi court noted while framing charges against one Shahrukh Pathan and others in connection with a rioting case connected to north-east Delhi violence [ State v. Shahrukh Pathan & Ors ].

. In an order passed Tuesday, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat stated,

" It is not an ordinary case of individuals or groups committing an unlawful act... These riots are of such a nature as has not been witnessed since the Sikh Riots of 1984 ."

. Besides Pathan, " sufficient grounds" were found against co-accused persons Shamim, Abdul Shehzad and Ishtiyaq Malik.

Accordingly charges under Sections 147/148/186/188/353/307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC were framed against all accused persons.

Pathan was additionally charged under Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act. Another accused Kaleem Ahmed was charged under Section 216 IPC.

. The charges pertained to rioting, destroying public property, disobedience to public servants, assault, attempt to murder, unlawful assembly under Sections 147/148/186/188/353/307 IPC read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code (IPC). Pathan was additionally charged under the Arms Act for carrying arms under Sections 25 and 27.

. The Court noted that it was clear from the testimony of policeman Deepak Dahiya, at whom gun was pointed, that Pathan had led a group of rioters who formed an unlawful assembly.

It was also observed that at around 2 pm, Pathan, fully armed with deadly weapons, committed rioting, attempted to shoot at Dahiya, obstructed a public servant in discharge of his public functions and assaulted or used criminal force on a public servant to deter the public servant from the discharge of his duty.

The Court further noted that it has relied on the statement of the officer and the video-footage captured by a journalist, therefore there is no discrepancy as to the identity of the accused.

. The Court recorded that the weapon used by the accused was also recovered in a pigeon's cage on the roof of his house upon his disclosure, consequent to his arrest. The said recovery was video-graphed, and thus Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act are attracted.

Apart from this, the empty shells which were found also matched with the weapon used by Pathan as per a ballistic report.

. The Counsel for Pathan argued that he should be let off the charges framed under Sections 307 and 188 of the IPC i.e. attempt to murder and disobedience to public order promulgated by public servant, respectively.

It was his case that the ingredients of Section 307 are not made out as there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the police officer. He contended that the accused had not attempted to kill the victim but only threatened him by firing in the air.

It was also contended that even after the first firing, the accused had a second opportunity to kill Deepak Dahiya and the fact that he did not do so shows that there was no such intention on his part.

. The Court, however, pointed out that Dahiya's statement was enough to attract the charge.

"It has been specifically stated that the accused Shahrukh Pathan had aimed at the head of HC Deepak Dahiya and fired at him but he escaped. This statement is enough for attracting Section 307 IPC at the stage of charge," the Court said.

Regarding the video footage, the Court stated in view of the specific statement of Dahiya and the video footage available, there cannot be any basis for discharge.

During the course of arguments, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy had contended that even though Pathan had fired a shot, it was not intended to injure or kill the policeman seen in the video.

Guruswamy, therefore, stressed that a charge under Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the IPC was not made out in the case. The two times Pathan could be seen firing a gun in the video were stated to be done without any intention to injure or kill. The first gunshot was stated to have been fired while he was “ pointing towards the right and looking in the right direction .”

When it came to dealing with this proposition, the order underlined that Pathan was seen raising his pistol aimed at the victim, who was taller than him but the direction of the pistol was " certainly aimed at the head of Deepak Dahiya " and even the point at which the trigger was pulled, he had aimed at Dahiya.

. "Usually after firing or pulling of the trigger, there is a jerk and the hands and the pistol is raised up because of the jerk. Thus, even the video shows firing by accused Shahrukh Pathan from pistol in daylight with an aim to kill HC Deepak Dahiya. This is enough for framing the charge against the accused Shahrukh Pathan under Section 307 IPC, " the order stated.

. Pathan's counsel had also argued that he had an opportunity to kill the victim after failing in his first attempt, but he didn't, indicating he had no intention.

The Court termed the argument illogical.

"This logic has no basis at all. When accused Shahrukh Pathan fired at Deepak Dahiya at his head and he escaped, Section 307 IPC was made out," the Court said.

The police officer also came in for praise from the Court.

" In the face of such attack resolutely stood his ground and even showed his danda in front of a gun wielding accused " showcasing " his devotion to duty and work which might have played into the mind of accused," the Court said.

. The Court opined that it would not be legally sound to diminish the valour of a brave policeman by arguing the criminal act as an act of magnanimity of Pathan in not killing the policeman.

. "There is an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C duly issued in the face of protest against Citizenship Amendment Act and the consequential riots. The knowledge can be presumed in such like cases," it stated.

. [Read Order]

[Delhi Riots] Haven't seen such riots in Delhi since 1984: Delhi Court in charge order against Shahrukh Pathan

Zeb Hasan

Related Stories