"Accused Not Seen In CCTV Footage No Ground For Discharge When Identified By Witnesses": Charges Framed Against 11 In Delhi Riots Case

A Delhi Court has framed charges against 11 accused in a case concerning the North East Delhi riots that rocked the city in 2020, observing that the fact that they were not seen in the CCTV footages cannot be made a ground for their discharge.

Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat framed charges against Ankit Chaudhary @ Fauzi, Sumit Badshah, Pappu, Vijay, Ashish Kumar, Sourabh Kaushik, Bhupender, Shakti Singh, Sachin Kumar, Rahul and Yogesh.

Charges have been framed in FIR 58/2020 registered at Gokalpuri Police Station under Sections 147 (Punishment for rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 380 (Theft in dwelling house), 427 (Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees), 436 (Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house) and. 149 (unlawful assembly) of IPC.

"The fact that the accused are not seen in the CCTV footages can not be made a ground for their discharge in this case for the reason that they have been clearly identified by two public witnesses and two police witnesses. It is nowhere the case of the accused that the concerned CCTV footage was pertaining to the exact spot of incident involved in this case i.e.the shop of the complainant Naseem Khan," the Court said.

The FIR was registered on the basis of written complaint by one Naseem Khan stating that some unknown persons had trespassed into his shop, looted it and set the same ablaze. While the complainant had not named any assailant in the written complaint, however, statements of two public witness and two police witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation.

The public witnesses had stated that all the accused persons were the members of the unlawful assembly which had resorted to vandalization and burning of properties in the Gokalpuri area and that they had also looted, damaged and set on fire the shop of complainant.

They also specifically took names of all the accused stating that they were known to them previously and identified them amongst the rioters at the time of incident. Similarly, police witnesses had also identified the accused amongst the rioters who had, apart from damaging and burning other properties in the area, vandalized and set ablaze the shop of the complainant.

The Judge was of the view that the availability of the CCTV footage with regards to the incident would have served as a corroborative evidence, however, its absence does not in any way discredit the prosecution case at the stage of bail.

"Their involvement in the incident in question had become further evident by virtue of the statements of the above named public witnesses/police witnesses. It will be totally unjustified to discard the statements of these witnesses at this very stage of deciding charges against the accused without testing their truthfulness or otherwise during the trial of the case," the Judge said.

Accordingly, charges were framed against the accused persons.

Case Title: State v. Ankit Chaudhary & Ors.

Click Here To Read Order