[Delhi Riots] Travesty of justice if viral video or witnesses disbelieved: Court orders framing of charges

A Delhi court has ordered the framing of rioting and other charges against six men for allegedly vandalising and setting ablaze two establishments during the Delhi Riots of February 2020 [State v. Sumit & Ors]..Additional Sessions Judges Virender Bhat ordered the framing of charges under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with armed weapons), 395 (dacoity), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.) read with Section 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) and Section 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..The six accused are Sumit, Naresh, Uday Singh, Darshan, Vinod Kumar and Devraj. An additional charge under Section 412 (dishonestly receiving stolen property from dacoity) of the IPC was ordered against Sumit..The main grounds on which the charges were ordered to be framed are:.It would be a travesty of justice to disbelieve either the viral video or the statements of these two witnesses at this stage where charges are to be decided against the accused. It is prima facie evident that if the material on record remains unrebutted, the conviction of the accused is reasonably possible. There is nothing on record that could persuade the Court to doubt the authenticity of video footage at this stage, when charges are to be decided against the accused. The stage required to see if the conviction of the accused was reasonably possible if the material on record remains un-rebutted or whether there was a strong suspicion that could lead the Court to think there were grounds for presuming that the accused persons had committed the offences.No illegality or irregularity appeared in filing of single combined chargesheet with regards to the two riotous incidents involving the shop of the complainant Yakoob and factory of Atikul Rehman for the reason that both areas in question were in close proximity with each other as seen in the site plan filed along with the chargesheet..The case stems from two incidents relating to looting and setting afire of business establishments of Atikul Rehman and Yakoob.The defence counsel opposed the allegations saying that though one of the cases was registered on the complaint of Rehman, no investigation seems to have been conducted with regard to the riotous incident in which his factory was vandalised and set ablaze. As far as Yakoob’s case was concerned, it was submitted that same did not disclose commission of the offence under Section 436 of the IPC and therefore, the case was not triable by the Sessions Court..[Read Order]