24 Nov 2021 4:46 AM GMT
While discharging five men in a case concerning the North East Delhi riots, a Delhi Court has directed the DCP concerned to conduct an enquiry into the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the IO to "find out whether or not there had been any deliberate attempt to shield the offenders."Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat said,"The perusal of the chargesheet does...
While discharging five men in a case concerning the North East Delhi riots, a Delhi Court has directed the DCP concerned to conduct an enquiry into the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the IO to "find out whether or not there had been any deliberate attempt to shield the offenders."
Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat said,
"The perusal of the chargesheet does not indicate whether or not were any efforts made by the IO to trace any other witness to the incident in question. It is not clear as to whether the IO chose not to find out any other witness or whether no other person came forward who had seen the incident in question."
Chargesheet was filed against Raj Kumar, Manish Sharma, Raj Kumar @ Siwainya, Ishu Gupta and Prem Prakash under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 120B, 436, 380 and 455 of IPC.
It was the case of the prosecution that a mob consisting of about 100 rioters who were armed with rods, pipes, stones, petrol bottles etc. and raising slogans "Jai Shree Ram" had broke open the shutter of Firoz Khan's (complainant) medical store.
The complainant had alleged that after vandalizing his house and some other adjacent houses, the rioters took away medicines and cosmetics worth about Rs. 22 lacs to Rs. 23 lacs as well as Rs. 25,000 which were lying in the shop. It was also alleged that they took Rs. 9 lacs in cash and jewelery worth of Rs. 4,50,00 belonging to his wife.
As per the disclosure statement made by accused persons namely Ishu Gupta and Prem Prakash admitting their involvement in the incident, others were arrested in the matter.
The Court was of the view that when an unlawful assembly or a large number of persons take part in arson or in a clash between two groups, in order to convict a person, at least two prosecution witnesses have to support and identify the role and involvement of the persons concerned.
"In the instant case, it is evident from the perusal of the entire chargesheet that there is only one witness i.e. the complainant Firoz Khan who is stated to have identified the accused herein as the assailants who were part of the mob which vandalized, looted and burnt his shop. Even he too had not identified them directly from the mob at the time of the incident," the Court said.
The Court observed that Khan had identified them from their photographs which were shown to him in the police station and that there was no other witnesses who was identified, either directly or indirectly.
"Charges cannot be framed against the accused upon taking into account the material annexed with the chargesheet on the basis of which there is no possibility of the conviction of the accused at the final stage. It would be a sheer wastage of judicial time if the charges are to be framed against the accused upon consideration of the evidence on record on the basis of which he has to be acquitted later on," the Court added.
It was also observed that there should be sufficient and legally admissible evidence on the basis of which charges can be framed against an accused, which was lacking in the matter.
"Hence, there is no sufficient evidence on record on the basis of which charges can be framed against the accused. Accordingly, all the accused are hereby discharged. Their bail bonds are released and their respective sureties are also discharged," the Court ordered.
"This Court is not insensitive towards the mental agony and the financial loss suffered by the complainant due to this incident. However, the sensitivity or the emotions alone are not the factors to be taken into consideration by the court while deciding the fate of any accused. These cannot take place of evidence."
Further, directing the DCP to conduct an enquiry, the Court sought report regarding the same.
Case Title: State Vs. Raj Kumar etc
Click Here To Read Order