In a case related to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, a Delhi court on Friday framed allegations of rioting and attempted murder against activist Khalid Saifi, a former Congress councillor, Ishrat Jahan, and eleven other people. Judge Amitabh Rawat of the Additional Sessions, however, cleared the accused of using unlawful firearms and engaging in criminal conspiracy.
Regarding the criminal conspiracy charge, the court determined that the accused was not adequately supported by any evidence. Nonetheless, the Court determined that the accused individuals were, at least on the face of it, members of a “riotous armed mob” that had “assembled and refused to follow the direction of police” to disperse, hurled stones, and physically attacked police officers.
For the crimes under other sections of the Arms Act and the IPC, all of the defendants were found not guilty. The weapon that was allegedly used during the protest was solely in the custody of a minor, the court concluded. The complainant and eyewitness to the incident, Head Constable Yograj, has “categorically identified” that all of the accused were members of an unlawful assembly, the Court said in reference to the remaining accusations.
“In his statement, Inspector/SHO Sunil Kumar, another police witness who was on the scene, named the defendants as members of the unlawful assembly (as previously reported by HC Yograj). In addition to naming the accused, he has also assigned blame for the offences and deeds of the accused. It is claimed that one of the juveniles involved in the illegal assembly shot the police officer. The Court did point out that there is uncertainty regarding the precise moment of fire, though.
“The time frame is clear, and witnesses can clarify the same during trial, even though there is a small discrepancy about the time that could have been clarified by the IO but was not done.” The Court described the Investigating Officer’s charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC as a “figment of imagination” and suggested that the concept might have been taken from another case.
“Although the accused individuals have been charged with the aforementioned conspiracy, to which the investigating officer has devoted several paragraphs, they are unrelated to any material that the investigating officer has either discovered or depended upon,” the statement stated. The accused would be put on trial at the Karkardooma Court, which would be pertinent.
