The Additional Sessions Judge had asked the police why five incidents of alleged rioting, theft and arson in three different blocks were included in a single FIR and chargesheet.
A Delhi court interrogates police on a falsely clubbed FIR based on several complaints of alleged riots 2020 Communal Violence, it decided to separate and file separate charge sheets in the cases involved.
Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav had asked the police to list five incidents of alleged rioting, theft and arson on different dates in three different blocks C, D and E of Delhi’s Bhajanpura area in a single FIR and charge sheet. Why was it included? .
In the status report submitted on September 10, the SHO of Bhajanpura replied that the complaints of riots in D and E blocks would be investigated separately and separate charge sheets would be filed in these three incidents. The court agreed.
Besides, in the other two complaints related to the alleged riots in C Block, the court has agreed to consider the charge sheet already submitted in the case.
In this case, two accused, Neeraj and Manish, were arrested on the basis of two complaints filed by shopkeepers who alleged that their shops were allegedly looted and ransacked by rioters during the communal violence .
While framing the charges, the Sessions Judge quashed the charges of arson against the accused, observing that the shopkeepers did not allege the offense and there was no CCTV footage.
ASJ Yadav, in an order dated September 10, said, “A good tooth-comb analysis of the complaints and statements reveals that none of them have considered the accused persons to be part of the mob of rioters who ransacked their shops.” Was.”
He said that no allegation has been made by complaints regarding the arson in his shops and the contents of section 436 IPC. [mischief by fire or explosive substance] Not made at all.
“Even from the photographs on record, no incident of mischief with fire or explosive substance has come to the fore,” he said, adding that no CCTV footage or video clip of the incident is on record.
The court also noted that the complaints of different dates were clubbed together. While one of the complainants alleged that the alleged crime took place on February 24, others claimed that it happened on February 25.
“Whether these complaints of different dates could have been included in an FIR by the investigating agency is a question which will be looked into during the trial,” the judge said.
Other sections included in the chargesheet are sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 380 (theft), 427 (mischief), and 455 (house-trespass). “Specially triable” by a magistrate, said ASJ Yadav.
He ordered to transfer the matter to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
Violence between supporters of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and its protesters was followed by communal clashes in north-east Delhi in February 2020. At least 53 people died and more than 700 were injured.
.