[Delhi Riots] "From a hundred rabbits you can't make a horse:" Delhi Court quotes Dostoevsky, discharges two of attempt to murder

A Delhi Court recently discharged two persons of the charge of attempt to murder in relation to the 2020 Delhi riots after noting that nothing in the chargesheet supported the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (State v. Imran)..Quoting Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat of the Karkardooma Court said, "From a hundred rabbits you can't make a horse, a hundred suspicion don't make a proof.".The two accused, Babu and Imran, were facing criminal proceedings for offences under Section 143 (punishment for unlawful assembly),144 (Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon),147 (Punishment for rioting),148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon),149 (common object of unlawful assembly), 307(attempt to murder) IPC and Section 27 (Punishment for using arms) of the Arms Act..The prosecution argued that the accused must be charged with the above offences for having joined an unlawful assembly armed with weapons and for participating in the riots that took place on February 25, 2020 near Maujpur red light. .It was also asserted that the accused acted with intention or knowledge to cause a gunshot injury to one Rahul..In view of the material before it, the Court observed that there was a prima facie case and sufficient grounds for presuming that the two accused persons have committed offences under Section 143/144/147/148 IPC as they were part of unlawful assembly armed with weapons, and committed rioting..However, no case under Section 307 IPC was made out, the Court added. .The Court observed that the alleged victim was himself absent from the police investigation and even the police never saw him."...the police have, after long investigation, concluded that the Rahul, who is stated to have been shot by the mob/rioters comprising the accused persons, had given a wrong address as also a wrong mobile phone number in his Medico Legal Case (MLC). So by the time, police arrived at the hospital, the alleged victim Rahul had vanished. It is not as if Rahul gave any initial statement and then vanished. The State is categorical in saying that the police never saw Rahul. That being the case, who is going to say that who shot whom and by whom and where. The alleged victim has never been seen by the police. He has never given any statement about any gunshot injury or about any mob/rioters. So how is Section 307 IPC made out against the accused persons when the victim is absent from even the police investigation. How is the gunshot injury established. There is no murmur of that.".The Court thus stated that Section 307 IPC was "out of bounds". "With nothing in the chargesheet to dig in, no case under Section 307 IPC is made out and there is no ground for presuming that these two accused persons have committed the offence of attempt to murder as defined under Section 307 IPC.".The Court also rejected the prosecution's argument that since the accused persons were part of the rioting mob, it must be presumed that they committed the offence under Section 307 IPC."The criminal jurisprudence says that there must be some material against the accused persons to frame a charge. Presumption can't be stretched to take the shape of proof/evidence. The chargesheet depicts nothing for charging them under Section 307 IPC or Arms Act," the order said. .The charge against the accused under the Arms Act was also disapproved after the Court said that no case under Section 27 was made out..[Read Order]