North-East Delhi violence: Court discharges 5 people of offences of arson, dacoity

New Delhi [India], June 6 (ANI): Delhi's Karkardooma Court on Tuesday discharged five persons accused of committing the offences of arson, dacoity and other offences during North-East Delhi riots of 2020.
This case was registered at the police station Khajuri Khas. However, they have been charged with the offences of rioting and unlawful assembly.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala discharged five accused persons namely Mehboob Alam, Manjoor Alam alias Raja, Mohd. Niyaz, Nafees and Mansoor Alam alias Lala of the offences under sections 395 (Dacoity), 427 (Mischief by fire) and 435 (damage to property by using Fire or Explosive) of IPC.
The ASJ Pramachala said, " I find that there is no evidence on the record in support of allegations for offence punishable under Section 427/435/395 IPC against accused persons. Therefore, they are entitled to be discharged for offences punishable under sections 395/427/435 IPC."
"However, on the basis of the evidence placed on the record I find these accused persons liable to be tried for offence punishable under sections 147/148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC; as well as Section 188 IPC," the judge ordered on June 6.
As per prosecution on 28.02.2020 a written complaint was given by.Mithhan Singh in Police Station Khajuri Khas. On the basis of the same and accordingly, FIR in this case was registered on 04.03.2020 under sections 147/148/149/435/427/392/34 IPC.
The complainant had alleged that On 25 February (Tuesday) during riots on due to arson in his neighbourhood, his house in Khajuri Khas had suffered severe damage and cracks had developed in his house.
He further alleged that rioters had looted 10 tola gold jewellery and Rs 90,000 cash amount from the almirah in his house.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) RCS Bhadauria had argued that all the accused persons are seen in the video, which pertains to the same gali. He further argued that these persons were also carrying danda etc.
The SPP had further argued that witnesses like complainant, Pawan, Sandeep etc. duly identified these accused persons and therefore, there is sufficient material to frame charges against them.
While discharging the accused persons the court said, "First of all in respect of allegations qua offence u/s. 427/435 IPC, I find that on the record neither is there any concrete statement of any witness in respect of any particular property which would have been damaged or would have been set on fire."
"All the statements are vague in this respect, wherein general terms of vandalism is used (paththarbazi wa tod fod karne lage)," the court noted.
"There is no photograph of any vandalized property on the record. The photographs placed on the record pertained to house of the complainant. Some were taken by crime team official and some were provided by Pawan Kumar (Son of the complainant)," it added.
"These photographs show crack on the walls and subsequent cement plaster on the same. In one photograph a sofa set is shown, however, it is also not in damaged condition. There is no material shown to be in burnt condition at all, " the court observed.
The court said, "As far as cracks in the wall of house of complainant are concerned, as per complainant and his son Pawan, same were developed because of arson in the property situated on the west side of his house."
'Meaning thereby, even as per complainant, these cracks were not caused by the rioters by doing something inside or outside directly against his house. The cause for these cracks was imputed to the fire in the adjacent property, which was a remote cause in the estimation of complainant," the court added.
The court said, "In respect of the gold jewelleries, neither complainant nor his son stated about source of the same nor IO obtained any information in respect of procurement of the same, so as to.confirm if actually such materials were there in the house of complainant."
"It is worth to mention here that unlike many other cases like riots, house of the complainant is not alleged to have been burnt. It is also not part of the allegations that except for jewelleries and cash Rs 90,000, anything else including documents were taken away," the court said. (ANI)