Read Time: 07 minutes

A Delhi Court has framed charges against seven persons accused of allegedly killing a person belonging to the Muslim community in the North East Delhi Riots.

Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav observed that prima facie there was enough material on record to frame charges against all  the accused persons and accordingly framed charges  against Aman Kashyap, Arun Kumar, Ashish, Devender Kumar, Pradeep Rai, Krishan Kant Dhiman and Rahul Bhardwaj.

According to the prosecution a mob of people comprising the accused persons started beating deceased Monish with laathi/danda/talwar and also pelted stones, as soon as they came to know that deceased belonged to muslim community. Thereafter an FIR was registered on 1st March 2021 which stated that the deceased who got admitted in the hospital by unknown persons, was declared as brought dead.

 The accused persons argued that they have been falsely implicated in the matter by the investigating agency as they are residents of the same area/locality, where the alleged incident had taken place. The false implication of accused persons is further evident from the fact there is an “unexplained delay” of about five (05) days in registration of FIR in this case, as the alleged incident took place on 25.02.2020; whereas, the case FIR in the matter was registered on 01.03.2020. The accused persons have not been specifically named in the FIR.

It was very strenuously argued that identification of accused persons by public witness Shashi Kant is of no consequence as he is a “stock/planted witness” which is apparent from the fact that besides the case in hand, he is also a witness in several other cases.

The Court however observed that “the presence of PW Shashikant is quite natural at the spot/SOC. I find substance in the submissions of learned Special PP that PW Shashi Kant is not a “statue” who was merely lying stationary at one place and instead his bonafide cannot be doubted at this stage because he had duly made call to the PCR by dialing number 100 which is contemporaneous to the time of commission of incident in the matter.”

The Court further observed that Sufficiency of material or evidence is not required for framing of charges, unless Court finds that the materials are completely and absolutely absent for the purpose of trial. It is well settled that when there is evidence indicating strong suspicion against the accused, the Court will be justified in framing of charge and granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record entire evidence for the purpose of trial.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court was of the considered opinion that prima facie there is enough material on record to frame charges against all the accused persons under sec. 143, 147, 148, 302 IPC read with sec. 149 and 120-B of IPC .

Separate additional charge has also been framed under sec. 379 and 34 of IPC against accused Dhiman and Bharadwaj.

The Court however said that the prosecution could not establish the material with regard to offences punishable under Section 188/427/436 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3/4 The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984

 Case Title: State V/s Arun Kumar @ Munna Etc