[Delhi Riots] Emotions cannot take place of evidence: Delhi court discharges five, orders probe into police investigation

A Delhi court on Monday discharged five persons accused of looting a medical store during the Delhi riots on the ground that the evidence against them was not sufficient [State v. Raj Kumar etc]..Additional Sessions Judge Virendra Bhat of the Karkardooma Court also ordered an enquiry into the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer so as to make sure that the IO had not attempted to shield any real offenders."This Court is not insensitive towards the mental agony and the financial loss suffered by the complainant due to this incident. The sensitivity or the emotions alone are not the factors to be taken into consideration by the court while deciding the fate of any accused. These cannot take place of evidence," the Court said while discharging the accused..The Court was hearing a case in which a mob of rioters allegedly chanting "Jai Shree Ram" made their way towards a medical store and looted it, apart from vandalising the owner's house. It was alleged that they took medicines and cosmetics worth about ₹22-23 lakh as well as ₹25,000 from the shop. They also allegedly took ₹9 lakh in cash and jewellery worth of ₹4.5 lakh belonging to the complainant's wife from the second floor of the house..As per the prosecution, two of the accused, who were arrested in relation to another offence, were stated to have made a disclosure statement in that case admitting their involvement in the present case. The complainant had also identified four of the accused from photographs shown to him by the police. On this basis, a chargesheet was filed against the accused..After going through the evidence, the Court noted that at this stage, it was not supposed to decide whether the material collected by the investigating agency provides sufficient grounds for conviction of the accused.Placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Masalti & Ors. v. State of UP, the Court stated that in a case involving a large number of offenders and large number of victims, the normal test is that the conviction should be sustained only if it is supported by two or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident in question."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," Court stated..However, in this case, the Court found that there was only one witness - the complainant - who identified the accused from photographs shown to him in the police station. There was no other witness who identified the accused to be the assailants either directly or indirectly, the Court noted..In this light, the Court was of the view that the conviction of the accused cannot be ordered. Accordingly, it ordered the five accused persons to be discharged."Charges cannot be framed against the accused upon taking into account the material annexed with the chargesheet on the basis of which there is no possibility of the conviction of the accused at the final stage. It would be a sheer wastage of judicial time if the charges are to be framed against the accused upon consideration of the evidence on record on the basis of which he has to be acquitted later on.".Before parting, the Court admitted that the accused are being let off not because the incident in question had not happened or the accused were falsely implicated, but merely for the reason that there is no sufficient evidence produced against them.It thus directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District to conduct an enquiry into the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer, to make sure no deliberate attempt was made to shield the offenders..[READ ORDER]