Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

"From Hundred Rabbits You Can't Make A Horse, Hundred Suspicion Don't Make A Proof": Delhi Court Discharges 2 Accused In Delhi Riots Case

Nupur Thapliyal
3 March 2021 7:59 AM GMT
From Hundred Rabbits You Cant Make A Horse, Hundred Suspicion Dont Make A Proof: Delhi Court Discharges 2 Accused In Delhi Riots Case
x

"From a hundred rabbits you can't make a horse, a hunder suspicion don't make a proof" - Quoting lines from Fyodor Dostovsky's book "Crime and Punishment", Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat on Monday discharged two accused persons of the charges of attempt to murder and using arms or ammunition in the Delhi Riots case. Imran and Babu, the two accused persons, were charged of the...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

"From a hundred rabbits you can't make a horse, a hunder suspicion don't make a proof" - Quoting lines from Fyodor Dostovsky's book "Crime and Punishment", Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat on Monday discharged two accused persons of the charges of attempt to murder and using arms or ammunition in the Delhi Riots case.

Imran and Babu, the two accused persons, were charged of the offences under sec. 143,144,147,148,149,307 of IPC along with sec. 27 of Arms Act.

The case of the prosecution was that the two had allegedly joined an unlawful assembly armed with weapons thereby participating in the rioting on 25th February last year near Maujpur Red Light area.

It was also alleged that despite a prohibitory order under sec. 144 CrPC imposed by the police on the said date, the two had committed the offence of having disobeyed the orders duly promulgated by a public servant.

Having opined that there was a prima facie case against the two for being a part of unlawful assembly, armed with weapons and committing rioting, the Court however discharged the duo of the charges of sec. 307 (attempt to murder) and sec. 27 of the Arms Act of one Rahul who according to the prosecution sustained gunshot injury by the mob/rioters comprising of the two accused persons.

According to the case of police, they had after a long investigation, concluded that Rahul was shot by the mob and that therefore they had done an act with intention or knowledge to cause his death.

However, at this juncture, the Court observed that the police had never seen Rahul. In fact, Rahul had given wrong contact details in his MLC (Medico Legal Case). Therefore, by the time police arrived in the hospital, he had already vanished.

"That being the case, who is going to say that who shot whom and by whom and where. The alleged victim has never been seen by the police. He has never given any statement about any gunshot injury or about any mob/rioters. So how is Section 307 IPC made out against the accused persons when the victim is absent from even the police investigation. How is the gunshot injury established. There is no murmur of that." The Court opined.

Noting that the criminal jurisprudence says that there must be some material against the accused persons to frame a charge, the Court also observed "Presumption cannot be stretched to take the shape of proof/evidence."

While discharging the two of the said offences, the Court however transferred back the case to the Magisterial Court for trying the other offences as made out against the two accused persons.

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]


Next Story
Share it