A Delhi court has discharged five accused in a case related to vandalism during the north-east Delhi riots while noting that there was no sufficient evidence that has been presented by the police on the basis of which charges can be framed against them.
Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat, in his order dated November 22, stated that the material on record clearly indicates that a riotous incident in question has taken place wherein the shop as well as the house of the complainant was vandalised and looted.
“This court is not insensitive towards the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant due to this incident. However, 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,” the court stated.
ASJ Bhat said that there should be sufficient and legally admissible evidence on the basis of which charges can be framed against any accused and the same is lacking in the present case. “The perusal of the chargesheet does not indicate whether or not there were any efforts made by the IO (Investigating Officer) to trace any other witness. It is not clear as to whether the IO chose not to find any other witness or whether no other person who had seen the incident came forward,” the court order read.
While discharging the five accused for lack of sufficient evidence, the court also directed the DCP (North-East) to conduct an inquiry into the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the IO in the case to find out whether or not there had been any deliberate attempt to shield the offenders. It asked the DCP to submit a report on the next date of hearing.
According to the case records, the FIR pertains to an incident of rioting and vandalism of a medical shop on February 25 around 11.30 p.m. when a mob of around 100 people, who were armed with rods, pipes and petrol bottles, raised slogans, came towards complainant Firoz Khan’s shop in Sudamapuri and broke its shutter and the main gate and looted it. Mr. Khan was watching the incident from his roof all the while.
The court stated that there was only one witness, Mr. Khan, in the whole case.
