Tag: riots

2020 Delhi riots: Four acquitted of rioting, arson, theft charges

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A court here has acquitted four men in a case of rioting, vandalism, arson and theft by a mob at Bhagirathi Vihar during the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, saying the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The court was hearing a case against Dinesh Yadav, Sahil, Sandeep and Tinku, accused of being part of a riotous mob that was involved in looting and arson in some shops on February 25, 2020.
“I find that charges levelled against the accused persons, in this case, are not proved beyond doubt. Hence, accused persons… are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them in this case,” Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said in an order passed earlier this week.
The judge said the formation of unlawful assembly, rioting and vandalism in two shops was “well established” but though both the shops were vandalised, they were not set ablaze.
The court said seven prosecution witnesses could not identify any rioters by appearance or name as they did not see their faces, much less the people involved in the incidents.
It said the testimonies of two police officials were “not reliable” to establish that all the accused persons were members of the riotous mob.
“Prosecution did not prove any record of such vital information being given by these two witnesses in the police station, though ideally it should have been at least recorded in writing. Accused persons were arrested much later in time and statements of these witnesses were also recorded after a long delay.
“I find that accused persons herein are entitled to benefit of the doubt in the present case,” the court said.

Gokalpuri police station had filed a chargesheet against the accused men for several offences, including rioting, theft in dwelling house and mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy house, under the Indian Penal Code.
[ad_2]
#Delhi #riots #acquitted #rioting #arson #theft #charges
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 25, 2023
2020 Delhi riots: Sharukh Pathan contends delay in trial before HC

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday was informed by Shahrukh Pathan, who had aimed a pistol at a policeman during the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, that the conclusion of the trial has been delayed for a long time now and that for more than a year now, only two witnesses have been examined out of 40.
A single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with Pathan’s bail plea, which he moved last year in January in a case related to rioting and causing injuries to police personnel; charges against him have already been framed in this case.
Simultaneously, he is facing charges in another case in connection with aiming a pistol.
A trial court had rejected his bail plea in December 2021.
Pathan’s counsel Advocate Khalid Akhtar submitted: “There is a huge delay in the conclusion of the trial. Only two witnesses have been examined so far out of about 40. Until now, only two witnesses have been examined. I have been attacked in jail too,” he said.
Akhtar, while urging the court for an early hearing, submitted: “The bail application has been pending for 14 months now. I filed the bail application here in January 2022.”
The judge then listed the matter for the next hearing on May 2 and directed both Pathan and Delhi Police to file brief written submissions.
A single-judge bench of Amit Sharma on February 9 had asked Pathan to file an application before the trial court for an early hearing of his plea alleging that he was assaulted by jail officials.

Justice Sharma, who was dealing with a similar petition moved by Pathan, had said that since a plea has already been moved before the trial court, it is only just if an application is filed before the concerned court.
His counsel Akhtar had contended that the trial court, which listed the matter for the next hearing on February 28, has not passed any order or direction that relevant CCTV footage be preserved or produced.
Akhtar had said: “There was no order to the effect that some adequate safety measures be provided to him.”
To this, Justice Sharma had orally said that the prerequisite is that Pathan moves an application before the concerned court, and if it does not work out, the court will grant him the liberty.
“You move an application for an early hearing before the trial court. If nothing happens, we will see. We will give you the liberty,” he had said.
Pathan had withdrawn his plea post getting liberty from the HC to move to the trial court for an early hearing of his pending plea.
Though Pathan is an accused in various cases registered during the riots, the petition was moved in the case of aiming a pistol at Head Constable Deepak Dahiya on February 24, 2020. Social media was abuzz with his pictures.
The First Information Report (FIR) in this case was registered under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. In December 2021, the trial court framed charges against Pathan and other accused in the FIR.
On January 30, a court discharged a man accused of selling a pistol to Pathan.
“The case against accused Babu Wasim is essentially based on surmises and conjectures rather than actual material or evidence and there is no ground to presume that the accused committed an offence under Section 25 Arms Act. He is accordingly discharged for the said offence,” Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat had said.
Pathan had disclosed that he had purchased a pistol and 20 rounds from Babu Wasim by paying Rs 35,000 in December 2019, the prosecution had said.
[ad_2]
#Delhi #riots #Sharukh #Pathan #contends #delay #trial
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 20, 2023
2020 Delhi riots: Court acquits 2 of charges of rioting, arson

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A court here on Friday acquitted two people of all charges connected to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, saying “presumption cannot take the place of evidence”.
The court was hearing a case against accused Ranjeet Singh Rana and Ravi Singh who were accused of being part of a riotous mob that torched a car on February 24, 2020 and committed arson and vandalism in two salons or shops in the Karawal Nagar area the next day.
“I find that charges levelled against the accused persons in this case are not proved beyond doubt. Hence, accused persons…are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them in this case,” additional sessions judge Pulastya Pramachala said.
The judge said that on the basis of the testimony of the person who was driving the car, it could be held that a riotous mob had torched it, but the prosecution evidence fell short of giving an exact account of the facts regarding the two other incidents.
“…On close scrutiny of evidences, I find that prosecution could show involvement of mob only in respect of the incident of damage caused to the car of Prosecution Witness 1 (person driving the car) and it is basically on the basis of (his) unrebutted testimony…that factum of burning his car by an unlawful assembly is established,” the judge said.
Also, the prosecution did not submit the requisite certificates under Section 65B of the Evidence Act for the two shops and without such certificate, digitally taken photographs were not admissible as evidence, the judge said.
“This court had given direction, for all the cases of riots, to obtain such certificates from the persons concerned…and these directions were even sent to higher officers of the police…. All prosecutors were also time and again reminded about such legal requirements, but as far as this case is concerned, no such steps were taken by the investigating officer (IO),” the judge said.
“I find that the prosecution has left it for making guesses and presumptions only to assume that there had been an unlawful assembly behind these two incidents,” the judge added.

Regarding the identity of the accused persons as part of the riotous mob, the court said that two of the complainants turned hostile and denied having identified the accused persons.
Another eyewitness, a head constable, could not vouch for involvement of the accused persons as he had not seen the incidents, the court said.
It said the police official stated that he saw both the accused present at some distance there and thus it was only the prosecution’s presumption that both accused were involved in the incidents.
“However, presumption cannot take the place of evidence. Prosecution witness 1 was the best person to identify the accused persons, if they were involved in the attack upon his car and when (he) did not identify the accused persons, then presumptions of prosecution cannot be basis to hold that both accused were members of that mob,” the court said.
“Thus, I find that prosecution could not prove that incidents at the salons…were caused by an unlawful assembly. Prosecution also could not prove that both the accused persons were involved in any of the three incidents probed in this case,” the judge said.
The Karawal Nagar police station had registered an FIR against the two accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including rioting, on the basis of three complaints.
[ad_2]
#Delhi #riots #Court #acquits #charges #rioting #arson
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 11, 2023
SC to hear plea against ban on BBC documentary on Gujarat riots on Friday

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court would hear a plea challenging the Centre’s decision to ban a BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots on Friday.
According to the cause list uploaded on the apex court website, a bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh will take up a petition filed by senior journalist N. Ram, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, and advocate Prashant Bhushan, and also another petition moved by advocate M.L. Sharma.
The documentary series, titled ‘India: The Modi Question’, has been dismissed as a biased “propaganda piece” by the government.
The plea filed by Sharma contended that the BBC documentary on Gujarat riots was released for public view. However, due to “fear of truth”, the documentary has been banned from viewership in India by any means under rule 16 of the IT Act 2021.
Sharma’s plea sought a direction for quashing of the January 21 order under the IT Act being illegal, malafide and arbitrary, unconstitutional and void ab-initio and ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
The documentary has been banned on social media and online channels, but some students have screened it on campuses of various universities across the country.
Sharma’s plea contended that the BBC documentary has reflected the true facts with original recordings of the victims of the 2002 riots as well as other concerned persons involved in the scenario of the riots, and it can be used for judicial justice.
A separate petition has been filed by journalist N. Ram, Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra, and advocate Prashant Bhushan against taking down their tweets with links to the documentary.

“The content of the BBC documentary and the tweets by Petitioner No. 2 (Bhushan) and 3 (Moitra) are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The content of the documentary series do not fall under any of the restrictions specified under Article 19(2) or restrictions imposed under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000,” said the plea filed by Ram and others.
The government has blocked sharing of any clips from the documentary on social media, prompting students’ organisations and opposition parties to organise its public screenings.
The plea by Ram and others argued that the apex court has categorically laid down that criticism of the government or its policies or even the judgment of the Supreme Court does not tantamount to violating the sovereignty and integrity of India.
“Censoring freedom of speech and expression of the petitioners by the executive through opaque orders and proceedings is manifestly arbitrary as it frustrates the fundamental right of the petitioners to effectively seek judicial review of administrative actions under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution of India,” added the plea.
[ad_2]
#hear #plea #ban #BBC #documentary #Gujarat #riots #Friday
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 3, 2023
2020 Delhi riots: Court acquits nine accused

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Monday acquitted nine persons accused of rioting, arson and other offences during the 2020 Delhi riots, granting the benefit of doubt, which includes delay by the police in recording vital information related to the accused’s involvement.
They are accused of setting a shop and house on fire during the riots and police charge-sheeted them for committing offences punishable under Sections 147-149, 188, 427 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code.
Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court, Pulastya Pramachala, said: “I hold that sole testimony of Head Constable Vipin cannot be sufficient to assume the presence of accused persons in the mob, which set ablaze property of the complainant in Chaman Vihar. In such a situation, accused persons are given benefit of the doubt.”
The acquitted persons are Mohd. Shahnawaz alias Shanu, Shahrukh, Mohd. Shoaib alias Chhutwa, Azad, Md. Faisal, Rashid alias Raja, Ashraf Ali, Parvej and Rashid alias Monu.
Pramachala added that even though Vipin attended the briefing at the police station everyday with Investigation officers (IOs), he did not formally record it anywhere.
The Additional Sessions Judge said: “In his cross-examination, Vipin conceded that there had been a briefing at the police station everyday, which was attended by him as well as IOs. Still, the knowledge about the involvement of the accused persons was not formally recorded anywhere, till April 7, 2020.”
The court, however, noted that Vipin had stated that he had orally informed his senior officers about information with him, after about a week or 15 days of riots.
“No explanation has been offered for such delay in passing on such crucial information to senior officers by this witness,” the court noted.

The court said: “If actually such information was given to the senior officers, then why didn’t senior officers get such information recorded in a formal manner.”
Pramachala added: “Keeping in view such delay in disclosure of vital information being recorded, I find it desirable to apply the test of consistent testimony of more than one witness, in the present case also.”
Giving relief to the accused persons by granting them benefit of doubt, Additional Sessions Judge said: “Applying that test, I hold that sole testimony of PW9 cannot be sufficient to assume the presence of accused persons herein in the mob, which set ablaze property of the complainant in Chaman Vihar. In such a situation, accused persons are given the benefit of the doubt.”
[ad_2]
#Delhi #riots #Court #acquits #accused
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 31, 2023
2020 Delhi riots: Man accused of selling pistol to Shahrukh Pathan discharged by court

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A court here on Monday discharged a man accused of selling a pistol to Shahrukh Pathan who had absconded after allegedly pointing the weapon at a policeman during the northeast Delhi riots in 2020.
The court said the case against the accused, Babu Wasim, is “essentially based on surmises and conjectures rather than actual material or evidence” and the “disclosure” statement of Pathan was not admissible under law.
Pathan had allegedly aimed a pistol at Delhi Police Head Constable Deepak Dahiya with the intention to kill him on February 24, 2020, according to the police.
After the photographs of this incident went viral on social media, Pathan absconded and was nabbed from a bus stand in Shamli district in Uttar Pradesh on March 3, 2020.
Pathan disclosed that he had purchased a pistol and 20 rounds from Babu Wasim by paying Rs 35,000 in December 2019, the prosecution had said.
“The case against accused Babu Wasim is essentially based on surmises and conjectures rather than actual material or evidence and there is no ground to presume that the accused committed an offence under Section 25 Arms Act. He is accordingly discharged for the said offence,” Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat said on Monday.
The court noted that the prosecution’s case against Wasim was that he provided a pistol and the rounds to Pathan on December 6, 2019, and the weapon was then used for firing and also for the attempt on the life of head constable Deepak Dahiya by accused Pathan on February 24, 2020.
Thus, for possessing the weapons and transferring or selling them to Pathan, Section 25 of the Arms Act was invoked against Wasim, the court noted.

The court said the first incriminating material was the disclosure statements of both accused Pathan and Wasim, but disclosure statements, by themselves, were not admissible in law.
Also, there were no witnesses on record to show that accused Babu Wasim provided the said pistol to accused Shahrukh Pathan on December 6, 2019, at the Brahampuri area of Shahdara here or that he possessed the said firearm before December 6, the court said.
“The contention that accused Shahrukh Pathan made four successive calls to accused Babu Wasim on December 6 at night with location chart of mobile phones of both accused persons showing that they were at the same place, at best, shows that they were at the same spot at the same time or met with each other,” the court said.
The prosecution, instead, had to prove that Wasim possessed the said pistol before December 6 and delivered the weapon to Pathan on a particular day at a particular time, and the pistol was then used in riots.
There was no material to substantiate this allegation and even the sanction order under the relevant section of the Arms Act from the deputy commissioner of police concerned was without proper appreciation of material on record or evidence collected by the investigating officer, the court said.
The court, however, charged Wasim under Section 174 A (non-appearance in response to a proclamation) of the Indian Penal Code as he had absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender.
“As far as Section 174 A of the IPC is concerned, it is a standalone offence and all the necessary legal requirements for proceedings were completed and no infirmity has been found or even shown in the order dated July 18, 2020… declaring the accused Babu Wasim a proclaimed offender,” the court said.
The Jafrabad police station had filed a charge sheet against Wasim under the relevant sections of the IPC and the Arms Act.
[ad_2]
#Delhi #riots #Man #accused #selling #pistol #Shahrukh #Pathan #discharged #court
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 30, 2023
2020 Delhi riots: Court frames charges against two accused

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A Delhi court has framed charges for various offences, including rioting, against two accused for an alleged attack at the Modern Public Senior Secondary School on Brijpuri main road, during the 2020 riots.
The court was dealing with a case involving Shamim Ahmed, Mohd Kafil, and Faizan, accused of vandalism and arson on February 25, 2020.
Faizan, who is the third accused, was declared “proclaimed offender” as he is absconding.
The court said their common objective was to cause damage to properties as the school’s computer laboratory, library and several other goods were destroyed and the damages estimated up to Rs 1.25 crore as per the complaint.
On the basis of the statements of the witnesses, the court observed that there was enough material to the charges for what the accused persons have done.
However, the accused were discharged of charges of criminal conspiracy.
The court said: “Since the allegations of conspiracy are based on presumption, rather than any concrete evidence, I do not find it sufficient to presume that the accused persons acted out of pre-hatched conspiracy.”

[ad_2]
#Delhi #riots #Court #frames #charges #accused
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 26, 2023
Delhi HC asks police if same 2020 riots hate speech cases pending before SC

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked Delhi Police to inform whether the 2020 riots hate speeches cases it is dealing with are subject matter of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court.
“If these hate speeches are also under consideration in the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court, would it be advisable for us to proceed with it?” a division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh said.
The bench was dealing with a bunch of petitions seeking FIRs against leaders like Union Minister Anurag Thakur, BJP leader Kapil Mishra and others for alleged hate speeches during riots.
The Supreme Court, on December 17, 2021 had asked the High Court to decide expeditiously, preferably within three months, on one of the petitions seeking FIR and investigation against politicians.
Furthermore, the court asked senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who was representing one of the petitioners, Shaikh Mujtaba, regarding any instances in which the High Court had ordered that a retired judge launch a fact-finding investigation.
“Supreme Court has done so but has the High Court ever directed it? Supreme Court has powers under Article 142 which the High Court doesn’t exercise,” it held.
About the pendency of proceedings the bench said that none of these parties that are now impleaded were parties when these matters were first listed.
“That delay was occasioned not because of the court. They were not parties. That’s the point,” the court said.

“Today again we are told that there is only one petition before us and now the batch is clubbed again. The idea is to make sure that in this clutter, we don’t lose the plot. We want to know whether these hate speeches are subject matter before Supreme Court,” the court said.
On July 13, 2022, the HC had allowed the applications seeking impleadment of various political leaders like Thakur, Mishra and Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma, Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi, AAP’s Manish Sisodia and AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi among others in the pleas.
The court listed the matter for the next hearing on February 2.
[ad_2]
#Delhi #asks #police #riots #hate #speech #cases #pending
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 24, 2023