A Delhi Court has ordered the framing of attempt to murder and rioting charges against three men in a case related to the Delhi Riots of 2020 [State v. Sonu & Ors]..In addition, charges under Sections 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of 50 rupees) and 395 (dacoity) read with 149 (unlawful assembly with common object) of the Indian Penal Code were also ordered against the three men. They have also been charged for flouting an order promulgated by a public servant..Four of the total seven accused persons were discharged by a magisterial court, which committed the case to a sessions court for further proceedings, given the nature of charges..Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala observed that there was “no hard and fast formula” for the identification of an accused person and as a result, there was “no prohibition” on the investigation agency to confirm the identity of any accused by showing videos or photographs of the riots to different victims..The case pertained to the assault on a man, who was also robbed during the melee. The victim was on his way home when a mob attacked him and struck his head with a sword several times. He was stated to have identified his assaulters, who were arrested during the investigation and chargesheeted..The defence counsel opposed the manner of identification, stating there was no test identification parade conducted. The identification was instead made through a police witness, which was illegal, he argued.The special public prosecutor, however, contended that the victim had identified the accused persons. It came on record that the accused were identified with the help of photographs taken out of a video, in which they were purportedly recorded participating in vandalism..“Obviously, all the things need not be compulsorily video recorded. However, prosecution has relied upon the identification by injured in respect of assault to injured Jafar Jiya and damage caused to his motorcycle, which was caused by a mob, including accused persons. The simple criteria is to be that a piece of evidence, if found to be relevant in respect of alleged facts in this case, can be relied upon by the prosecution,” noted the order..The Court also highlighted that the victim was assaulted with a sword by the rioters, and that it was common knowledge that assaulting a person on his head with a sword can cause death.“Therefore, a case of attempt to murder is also prima facie reflected against the accused persons,” it held..The allegations were found to have been “duly supported” by witness statements that were stated to show an unlawful assembly participating “actively with the common object of indulging into showing criminal force against other persons” and “committing mischief as well as damaging and setting such property on fire”..“Just because all the five persons or other members of the mob could not be traced and chargesheeted by the investigating agency, it cannot be said that robbery was not committed by a group of five or more persons. In these circumstances, I also find a prima facie case for offence of dacoity being made out against the accused persons,” the Court held..[Read Order]
A Delhi Court has ordered the framing of attempt to murder and rioting charges against three men in a case related to the Delhi Riots of 2020 [State v. Sonu & Ors]..In addition, charges under Sections 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of 50 rupees) and 395 (dacoity) read with 149 (unlawful assembly with common object) of the Indian Penal Code were also ordered against the three men. They have also been charged for flouting an order promulgated by a public servant..Four of the total seven accused persons were discharged by a magisterial court, which committed the case to a sessions court for further proceedings, given the nature of charges..Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala observed that there was “no hard and fast formula” for the identification of an accused person and as a result, there was “no prohibition” on the investigation agency to confirm the identity of any accused by showing videos or photographs of the riots to different victims..The case pertained to the assault on a man, who was also robbed during the melee. The victim was on his way home when a mob attacked him and struck his head with a sword several times. He was stated to have identified his assaulters, who were arrested during the investigation and chargesheeted..The defence counsel opposed the manner of identification, stating there was no test identification parade conducted. The identification was instead made through a police witness, which was illegal, he argued.The special public prosecutor, however, contended that the victim had identified the accused persons. It came on record that the accused were identified with the help of photographs taken out of a video, in which they were purportedly recorded participating in vandalism..“Obviously, all the things need not be compulsorily video recorded. However, prosecution has relied upon the identification by injured in respect of assault to injured Jafar Jiya and damage caused to his motorcycle, which was caused by a mob, including accused persons. The simple criteria is to be that a piece of evidence, if found to be relevant in respect of alleged facts in this case, can be relied upon by the prosecution,” noted the order..The Court also highlighted that the victim was assaulted with a sword by the rioters, and that it was common knowledge that assaulting a person on his head with a sword can cause death.“Therefore, a case of attempt to murder is also prima facie reflected against the accused persons,” it held..The allegations were found to have been “duly supported” by witness statements that were stated to show an unlawful assembly participating “actively with the common object of indulging into showing criminal force against other persons” and “committing mischief as well as damaging and setting such property on fire”..“Just because all the five persons or other members of the mob could not be traced and chargesheeted by the investigating agency, it cannot be said that robbery was not committed by a group of five or more persons. In these circumstances, I also find a prima facie case for offence of dacoity being made out against the accused persons,” the Court held..[Read Order]
