2020 Delhi riots: Murder charges to be framed against seven accused

All of them were accused of being a part of a riotous mob that attacked and killed a man named Vinod Kumar in Brahmpuri on February 24, 2020.
Scenes during riots in Northeast Delhi. (File photo| Parveen Negi, EPS)
Scenes during riots in Northeast Delhi. (File photo| Parveen Negi, EPS)

NEW DELHI: The Karkardooma Court has ordered the framing of charges against seven accused persons of murder, voluntarily causing hurt, and unlawful assembly among other crimes while five people were “completely discharged” in a case of riots that broke out in February 2020.

“I am of the opinion that prima facie, there are grounds for presuming that accused namely Arshad, Rais Ahmad, Mohammed Sageer, Mehtab, Gulzar, Mohammed Imran and Amiruddin Malik have committed offences” Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat noted in the recent order.

The sessions court, however, “completely discharged’’ five accused – Naved Khan, Javed Khan, Chand Babu, Aleem Saifi and Sabir Ali among the 12 people of all charges as they were not identified by any prosecution witness.

“It is clear that the prosecution has not put any concrete evidence on record against them and there is no sufficient material to frame charges against these accused persons. Hence, these accused persons are completely discharged in this case,’’ it said.

All of them were accused of being a part of a riotous mob that attacked and killed a man named Vinod Kumar in Brahmpuri on February 24, 2020. They were also accused of attempting to kill a few others.

The seven accused against whom the charges were framed are liable to be tried under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly) 188 (disobedience of order duly promulgated by public servant), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 435 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to an amount of Rs 100 or upwards).

In the order, the judge further pointed out that they had also “separately committed offences’’ under IPC sections 153 A (punishment for promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief), the court said. It rejected the defence counsel’s arguments seeking discharge because of the delay in recording the statement of witnesses.

“Not naming accused in FIR, that too during the period of riots, does not discredit the case of the prosecution at all,” the order added.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com