[Delhi Riots] Court frames murder, rioting charges against seven; puts them on trial after finding 'enough material'

After prima facie finding “enough material” on record, a Delhi court has put seven persons on trial for murder and rioting in a case connected to Delhi Riots that took place in February, 2020 [State v. Arun Kumar @ Munna etc]..Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav accordingly framed charges under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 149 (offence committed by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code against Aman Kashyap, Arun Kumar, Ashish, Devender Kumar, Pradeep Rai, Krishan Kant Dhiman and Rahul Bhardwaj..I am of the considered opinion that prima facie there is enough material on record to frame charges against all the accused persons under requisite sectionsAdditional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav.However, the Court noted that the prosecution hadn’t been able to establish offences punishable under Sections 188 (disobedience to order promulgated by a public servant), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc) of IPC and relevant provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984..The seven persons were put on trial in a case where a man named Monish was killed during the riots. An eye witness in the case reportedly identified the deceased, saying that he had seen him carry sweets when a mob, of which the accused persons were part, thrashed him on February 25. Though Monish had tried to escape, he fell on the ground. He was later picked up by the police and rushed to the hospital, where he was declared dead on arrival..Claiming that their clients had been framed by the police, counsel for the accused persons argued that all seven persons resided in the same area where the incident allegedly took place.They pointed out that there was an “unexplained delay” of about five days in the registration of the FIR in the case. The incident was stated to have occurred on February 25, 2020 while the FIR was registered on March 1. Besides this, they were not specifically named in the FIR. The eye witness was termed a “planted witness” by the defence counsel..Explaining the delay in filing the FIR, it was argued by the prosecution that police officials of the Dayalpur police station were busy in fulfilling their law and order duties amid the riots.The prosecution also contested the claims stating that the eye witness had made a call on 100, meaning thereby that his presence at the scene of crime was natural..The Court recorded in its order that the identity of the deceased had been confirmed through the clip from a CCTV installed at the GTB Hospital as well as by his father Ali Sher.“Prima facie, the call data record (CDR) locations of the applicants nails their presence at the spot on the date and time of incident. The mere assertion on behalf of accused persons that since their residences are located/situated in the vicinity of the spot and as such, the CDR location is of no consequences to the prosecution, it is noted that the same will not suffice as it is quite apparent from their CDR details that they have been on constant move/shuffle from one spot to another spot,” it noted.The Court, however, remarked that it was not the appropriate stage to dwell upon this issue..The order underlined that it was permissible for the Court to sift through and weigh the evidence for the purposes of finding out whether or not there was a prima facie case against the accused.It was observed that in the presence of evidence indicating a strong suspicion against the accused, the Court was justified in framing charges and granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence for the purpose of the trial..Special Public Prosecutor Manoj Chaudhary represented the State whereas Advocates Rajeev Tiwari and Prince Bhardwaj appeared for the accused..[Read order]