2020 Delhi riots: Court frames charges against 6 people accused of rioting, burning property

New Delhi [India], August 1 (ANI): Delhi’s Karkardooma Court on Monday framed charges against six persons accused of rioting, mischief by fire and burning furniture after vandalising shops during the Delhi riots of February 2020.

This matter pertains to Khajuri Khas police station of North East Delhi.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala Monday framed charges against accused Rajendar Jha, Tejveer Chaudhary, Rajesh Jha, Govind Singh Manral, Peetamber Jha and Devendar Kumar alias Monu Pandit.

“I find that a prima facie case for offence punishable under sections  48/379/427/435/436/450/453 IPC read with Sections 149 IPC as well as under sections 188 IPC is made out, against all accused persons. All the accused persons are liable to be tried accordingly,” ASJ Pramachala ordered on Monday.

Delhi police first registered the FIR on the Complaint filed by one Alka Gupta. Later on three complaints filed by Gulzar, Vikas Sharma and Mohd Irshad were clubbed into this FIR. They all had alleged rioting, loot, mischief by fire and destruction of property by fire and other offences committed by a mob.

After completion of the investigation, on 22.03.2022 charge sheet along with complaint u/s. 195 Cr.P.C. and other documents were filed against six accused persons for offence u/s 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapons), 149 (unlawful assembly), 188 (violation of orders passed by the public servant), 392 (robbery), 427 (Mischief by using Fire or Explosive), 435 (mischief by using fire or Explosive with intent of cause damage to property), 436 (mischief by using Fire or Explosive substance with intent to destroy property) of the IPC, before the ACMM Court.

On 08.02.2023, the first supplementary chargesheet along with certificate u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act and other documents were filed directly before this court.

Thereafter on 17.07.2023, the second supplementary chargesheet with an additional statement of Ct. Vipin Tomar was also filed directly before this court.

Special PP Nitin Rai Sharma appeared for Delhi Police and submitted that there is sufficient material to frame charges against the accused persons.

The counsels for accused Rajendar Jha, Rajesh Jha, Govind Singh, Peetamber Jha and Devender argued that the site plan placed on the record shows two different places of the incident.

They further submitted that statement of Prosecution Witness Satish Chand Sharma mentions that the video pertains to Pushta and that it is not a video of the said incident. It was submitted that Alka Gupta did not name anyone in the video and she did not describe the weapons in the hands of the accused.

They further argued that the statement of identification is too belated and the witnesses did not describe the particular act of the accused persons. They said that there was no evidence against the accused.

The court said that the facts, mentioned in the statement of Alka Gupta, Gulzar, Vikas, Altaf and Ct. Vipin show that all accused persons were part of the riotous mob, which indulged into riot being armed with deadly weapons in that area. They broke open the salon of one Salman in the property, salon of Gulzar, salon of another Salman and salon of Irshad in Ram Prasad Market, which were situated near to each other.

They damaged the articles of these shops, having value more than Rs. 50. They also burnt several articles of these shops, having value more than Rs. 100.

The accused persons also stole the utensils from outside the shop of Alka. They burnt the shop of Gulzar. Such evidence makes out a case for offence U/S 148/379/427/435/436/453 read with S. 149 IPC, the court said in the order.

Furthermore, it is also noticed that during the period of above said incidents, the proclamation was made U/S 144 Cr. P.C. in compliance of order of DCP North-East. This announcement was made by police officials, the court said.

Allegedly, all accused persons were outside their home and were part of an unlawful assembly, consequently violating the same which satisfies the ingredient of offence U/S 188 IPC, the court said in the order on July 31.