Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala of the Karkardooma District Court, Delhi, on Thursday, framed charges against Former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Councilor Tahir Hussain, his brother Shah Alam, Tanveer Malik, Gulfam, Nazim and Kasim in a case related to the North-East Delhi Riots 2020.

The court charged all the six accused persons for offences punishable under Section 120B, read with Sections 147, 148, 149, 153A, 302, 307 IPC, and the accused Gulfam and Tanveer were also charged for the offences punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

ASJ Pramachala, observed that the mob acted out of a criminal conspiracy, and all accused are liable to be tried for hatching a criminal conspiracy to engage in riot and kill Hindus and harm Hindu property, consequently as part of the conspiracy firing caused a gunshot injury to Ajay Jha.

The court stated that the indiscriminate firing at others clearly demonstrates that this mob intended to kill Hindus, and it cannot be claimed that the accused were unaware of the mob’s goal. It appeared to be an unlawful assembly acting in furtherance of the aforementioned object. Tahir Hussain or any other accused for that matter is not supposed to be motionless, as different witnesses saw them in different ways.

An FIR was registered in February 2020 at Dayalpur Police Station, from Shushrut Trauma Centre, Delhi regarding firearm injury to one Ajay Jha in the Chand Bagh Khajoori Khas area. Jha while examining told the ASI that he got injured on February 25, 2020, when he reached Tahir Hussain’s house and was going towards Chand Bagh, he saw a group of people on Hussain’s terrace firing gunshots and hurling petrol bombs and stones at nearby houses.

Jha stated that Hussain along with his brother Shah Alam and others, were pelting stones and throwing petrol bombs at Hindu homes, and the mob present there was “raising religious slogans.” Jha claimed that some boys saw him and started pelting stones at him, meanwhile, Gulfam a resident fired at him causing injury to his shoulder and chest.

He stated that he knew Gulfam and also identified the other persons in the mob against whom the FIR is registered. Jha also stated that due to pain he did not give his statement on the same day of the incident.

Taking note of the submissions, the court opined that, “just because statements of the eyewitnesses were recorded in the case at a belated stage, without affording an opportunity to the prosecution and the witnesses to explain the reasons, the court cannot declare them to be unreliable.”

“Secondly, one must not forget that at the relevant time riots continued in Delhi for some days. Delhi Police and other security forces were pressed into service to stop the riots. Hence, the focus of the police was more on the aspect of controlling the riots rather than start investigating each incident of the riots,” the court added.

The court stated that everything cannot be expected to run smoothly during a time of crisis, even victims and witnesses lacked the courage to file complaints against anyone. They were more concerned with their own security. Following that, people fought the Covid pandemic, and there was a total lockdown.

Court also stated that the delay in filing an FIR or recording witnesses in a case may be due to any of these factors, and they must be investigated during the trial. As a result of the delay, the court cannot raise any presumption against the veracity of the cited witnesses' statements at this point.

Taking note of the statements of the witnesses, the court stated that the presence of all named accused in the mob is well reflected and it is apparent that this mob continuously indulged in firing gunshots, pelting stones, and petrol bombs toward Hindus and houses of Hindus.

“Indiscriminate firing at others makes it clear that this mob consciously wanted to even kill Hindus. It cannot be said that the accused persons were oblivious to the objective of this mob. Apparently, this was an unlawful assembly, acting in pursuance of the aforesaid object,” the court added.

Conclusively, the court stated that as per the witness statements several people were hit by bullets as a result of indiscriminate and pointed firing by members of this mob and one of them was Ajay Jha.

“Therefore, if police are prosecuting accused persons separately for separate incidents, it cannot be said that they are being prosecuted for the same facts and the same cause of action in different cases. Accused persons have to be prosecuted for every criminal act and incident, which took place because of their indulging in a riot with a particular common object,” the court added.

Case Title: State v. Tanveer Malik and Ors.