A Delhi court has framed charges of rioting and arson against nine accused in an exceedingly February 2020 riots case, saying that it’d be a “miscarriage of justice” to throw out the prosecution’s case merely because the statements of the general public witnesses were recorded after a delay.
Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat said that the delay in recording statements of the witnesses by the police wasn’t deliberate or contumacious and was occasioned on account of things which prevailed in Delhi’s northeast area during and after the alleged rioting.
The nine accused were allegedly a part of the unlawful assembly and caused damage, looted properties worth crores of rupees, burnt an outsized number of homes, shops, schools, and vehicles on February 25, 2020, as per the police. It relied on the statements of 4 public witnesses.
The judge took exception to the submission made by the defence counsel that the general public witnesses weren’t trustworthy and were planted as their statements were recorded one month after the date of the alleged incident.
The judge noted that there was an environment of terror and trauma for several days even after these riots and therefore the public witnesses were terrified and reluctant to present their version of the incident before the investigating agency.
“Keeping these circumstances visible , it’d be a miscarriage of justice to disbelieve the statements of those witnesses at this very stage and throw out the prosecution case merely for the explanation that their statements were recorded after about one month of the incident,” ASJ Bhat stated in an order dated October 11.
He added, “In the opinion of this court, the delay in recording of the statements of witnesses doesn’t appear to be deliberate or contumacious. It appears to possess occasioned on account of things which prevailed within the area during and after the incident of rioting and so, the accused cannot claim discharge during this case merely on this score.”
During the course of the hearing, Delhi Police apprised the court that the nine accused created disharmony within the society by threatening and terrorizing the general public at large which their action wasn’t only antinational but also a challenge to Rules of Law in Delhi.
The defence counsels, however, submitted that CCTV video footage which forms a part of the police blotter within the case pertains to the date February 24, whereas the incident admittedly passed on February 25, 2020.
The counsels got wind that there was no CCTV video footage on record which pertains to the date February 25, a fact not disputed by the senior prosecuting attorney, per the court’s order.
However, the prosecutor said that they failed to depend upon the CCTV video footage which their case relies on other evidence on record, including the ocular version of the witnesses.
After considering the whole material on record, the judge said that it’s prima facie evident that the costs under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 380 (theft), 427 (mischief), 436 (arson), 452 (house-trespass) of the Indian legal code are vulnerable to be framed against all the accused.
