[Delhi Riots] Delhi Court discharges three for want of witnesses; says sheer waste of judicial time if put on trial

It would be a sheer wastage of judicial time if charges are to be framed against three accused in a Delhi Riots case, a Delhi Court observed recently while discharging them [State v. Surender Soni & Ors]..Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhatt discharged Surender Soni, Shiva and Nitin, and held, “Charges cannot be framed against these accused upon taking into account the material annexed with the chargesheet on the basis of which there is no possibility of their conviction at the final stage. It would be sheer wastage of judicial time if the charges are to be framed against the accused upon consideration of the evidence on the basis of which they have to be acquitted later on.".The three men were facing prosecution under Sections 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon) and 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 (punishment for using arms) of the Arms Act, 1959.The allegations against them stemmed from the statement of a riots victim who was assaulted during the violence. On the basis of his statement, the police retrieved CCTV footage of the area in question and reportedly identified Soni, who disclosed the names of the other two accused persons. The victim was stated to have identified Soni as one of the members of the mob that attacked him..The Court, on the other hand, pointed out that what was required at this stage, was to see whether their conviction was “reasonably possible if the material on record remained unrebutted or whether there is strong suspicion which may lead the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence”. The discharge order relied on Masalti & Ors v. State of UP to underline that when an unlawful assembly or a large number of persons take part in arson or in a clash between two groups, in order to convict a person, at least two prosecution witnesses have to support and identify the role and involvement of the persons concerned..It came on record that the magistrate court refused to take cognisance of offence punishable under the Arms Act in the absence of the requisite sanction under Section 39 of the Act.Raising doubts over the identification of Soni, the Court found “nothing on record” to demonstrate that the “person with a folding stick in his hand” as seen in the CCTV footage was Soni.“No statement of any eye-witness to this effect can be found on record. It is also to be noted here that the complainant Azim Ansari has nowhere mentioned in his statement dated 06.03.2020, on the basis of which FIR was registered, that he had identified any of the rioters in the mob in gully no 13 and that he can identify those later on also, if shown to him. It is for this reason probably that the CCTV footage was not shown to him for identification of the rioters,” the order said..As far as the identification of the other two accused persons was concerned, the Court observed that the disclosure statement of Soni was inadmissible. Besides, there was only a single witness brought on record to corroborate their identities.“Even if the evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecution against these accused remains unrebutted during the trial, their conviction cannot be ordered in view of the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in the above noted judgment in Masalti's case which mandates that there should be at least two prosecution witnesses to identify the role and involvement of the accused in the incident in question,” the Court highlighted..[Read Order]