Delhi riots: Court says 100 suspicions don’t make a proof

Delhi riots: Court says 100 suspicions don’t make a proof

Aamir.khan2@timesgroup.com

New Delhi:  03.03.2021 

“From a hundred rabbits you can’t make a horse, a hundred suspicions don’t make a proof.” Quoting these lines from Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel, ‘Crime and Punishment’, additional sessions judge Amitabh Rawat discharged two men from the charge of attempt to murder in a north-east Delhi violence case on Monday. “Both the accused persons are discharged of the offences under Section 307 (attempt to murder) IPC and Arms Act,” said the order.

The court had earlier observed that according to criminal jurisprudence, there must be some material against the accused persons to frame a charge. “Presumption can't be stretched to take the shape of proof/ evidence,” it remarked.

The prosecution wanted framing of charges against the two men – Babu and Imran – for being members of an unlawful assembly which was armed with weapons and participated in the rioting on February 25, 2020, near Maujpur.

Alleged victim never seen by police: Judge

Despite the police’s warning, they refused to leave the area, flouting the prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC, it was argued. The accused said the charges were false. The court, however, found a prima facie case and sufficient grounds for presuming that both accused persons had committed rioting and other offences under sections 143, 144, 147 and 148 IPC being part of an unlawful assembly, armed with weapons and committing rioting.

When the court enquired if these offences were the reason why the accused were before it, the state denied it, adding that they had committed their act with the intention or knowledge to cause the death of a gunshot victim.

“The gunshot injury is stated to be caused to Rahul but where is he. His statement is not on record,” judge Rawat noted. His order also highlighted that the police had, after carrying out a long investigation, concluded that the Rahul, alleged to have been shot at by a mob, including the two men , had given a wrong address and a wrong mobile phone number in his medico-legal case (MLC).

“So, by the time, the police arrived at the hospital, the alleged victim, Rahul, had vanished. It is not as if Rahul gave any initial statement and then vanished. The state is categorical in saying that the police never saw Rahul. That being the case, who is going to say who shot whom and by whom and where? The alleged victim has never been seen by the police,” the court observed.