[BREAKING] First conviction in Delhi Riots case: Man convicted for looting, setting house of Muslim family ablaze

In what is the first conviction in the 2020 Delhi Riots cases, a Delhi Court has found a man guilty of rioting and other charges, while observing that merely the fact he was not seen resorting to vandalism and looting did not mean he was a bystander [State v. Dinesh Yadav]..Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat further underlined that there was nothing on record to show that the accused was not associated with the unlawful assembly or to show that he did not share a common object..Dinesh Yadav was convicted for offences under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon), 457 (house trespass), 392 (robbery), 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) of the Indian Penal Code..The prosecution, which examined 13 witnesses during the trial, alleged that a mob of 150-200 rioters gathered at around 11:30 am in front of the house of the complainant. The mob broke into her house and committed robbery, and some of the material in the house was set on fire. The complainant and her children were stated to have jumped to the terrace of the adjacent house in order to save their lives.Yadav’s named cropped up in the statements of the complainant and the police personnel for being involved in the acts of arson, loot and robbery in the complainant's house. It came on record that he had been arrested in another case on June 3, 2020.Yadav denied all the charges, saying he was being framed. He also chose not to lead any evidence in his defence. His counsel contended that no active role had been attributed to his client by the witnesses, indicating that he was only a bystander and did not share an object of the alleged unlawful assembly..According to the Court, "The fact that the accused also belongs to Hindu community and was present in the mob armed with an wooden rod which mob resorted to violence against the Muslims, indicates that he shared the common object of the unlawful assembly.The mere fact that he was not seen entering complainant's house or vandalising or looting or putting it on fire, does not mean that he was mere a bystander. There is nothing on record to show that the accused had disassociated himself from the unlawful assembly and he did not share the common object of the assembly.”Yadav was stated to have been seen among the rioters - a fact sufficient to indicate “beyond any doubt that he too shared the common object of the assembly” having knowledge of the mob’s intention.Arguments on the quantum of the sentence will be heard on December 12..[Read Order]