Delhi riots 2020: Charges framed against 57 accused, including Wasim, Sajid, Saleem, Suhail, Parvej and others, for violence and arson
On 15th April, Karkardooma Courts, Northeast Delhi, framed charges against 57 accused for their involvement in the Delhi Riots 2020. A single bench comprising Justice Pulastya Pramachala ruled that a prima facie case for offences punishable under Sections 148, 435, 436, 323, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Sections 149 and 188 of the IPC, against all accused is maintainable and that the accused persons are liable to be tried accordingly.
The matter was related to FIR No 99 registered at Dayalpur Police Station on the complaint of three different complainants accusing persons involved of torching and stealing their vehicles, including a truck, a scooty and a bike, and destroying property. Notably, the driver of the truck that was torched, Om Prakash, tried to save it, but the rioters pelted bricks and stones at him, leading to serious injuries. He had to flee the scene.
Based on the evidence collected, including CCTV footage, police booked 57 persons in the matter, namely Wasim, Meharban alias Bitto, Sajid, Bajuddin, Saleem alias Ashu, Suhail, Zameer Hasan alias Tinku, Parvej, Mohsin, Mohd Nafees, Azhar alias Sonu, Mohd Arif alias Imran, Mohd Suhail alias Sohail, Salman, Shakeel Ahmed, Mohd Mansoor, Irshad Ali, Mansoor, Kasif, Wasif, Shamim, Mohd Aftab, Salman, Khalid, Hamid, Shibu Khan, Zuber Alam, Sameena Khatoon, Sameena, Jaan Mohammad, Shakeel Ahmed, Asif, Javed, Saqib Ali, Irfan Ali, Gulzar, Bablu alias Sajeb, Ubesh alias Manni, Dildar, Imran, Asrar, Siraj Ahmed, Mohd Ahsan, Firoz, Sharif, Firoz Alam, Rahisuddin, Imran, Shokeen, Abdul Rajjak, Mohd Nadeem, Mohd Shakir, Sajid, Waseem, Saleem, Mohd Anees, and Zakir Malik.
They have been charged under Sections 148 IPC (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), 435 IPC (mischief by fire causing damage to property above ₹100), 436 IPC (mischief by fire causing destruction of a building ordinarily used as a dwelling or for custody of property), 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 IPC (wrongful restraint), 149 IPC (offence committed by every member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of a common object), and 188 IPC (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant).
Complaints clubbed under FIR 99
There were three complaints that were clubbed under FIR 99. The first complaint was by Ashish Tiwari, a resident of Swaroop Nagar. He was working with Chartered Logistics. According to his complaint, on 24th February, at around 11 AM, one of the trucks belonging to his company was unloaded. Soon after unloading, riots broke out in the area and the truck was torched by the rioters and the driver was attacked when he tried to save the truck.
Another complaint was filed by Shankar Kumar, a resident of Munga Nagar, Karawal Nagar. According to his complaint, on 24th February, he left home on his scooty for work. Near Chand Bagh, he saw rioters assaulting and looting people. Shankar abandoned his scooty on the road and ran away fearing for his life. When he returned, he found that the scooty was missing.
The third complaint was from Shahzada, a sugarcane godown operator. In his complaint, he stated that on 24th February, his property was torched by the rioters. His office, important documents, two handcarts, sugarcane stock, an old motorcycle and a tractor were burnt to ashes, causing heavy losses.
All three complaints were clubbed in a single FIR based on proximity of date, place and time of the incidents.
Police investigation led to arrest of several rioters
During the investigation, police prepared site plans of the locations where the incidents took place. They recorded statements of eyewitnesses, including police personnel who were present at the sites on duty. CCTV footage from Public Works Department (PWD) cameras covering the 25 Foota Road area at Chand Bagh was obtained. The police personnel and public witnesses identified several rioters by face from the footage.
Mobile phones of several accused were seized and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for technical examination. Footage from 22nd February was also obtained from the Crime Branch. The footage was attached to FIR 59 in the same police station.
After collecting all the evidence, including witness testimonies, CCTV evidence, CDR analysis and FSL reports, the main chargesheet was filed on 18th February 2022. Two supplementary chargesheets were filed on 23rd February 2023 and 15th October 2024.
Arguments of the defence
Several advocates represented different accused in the case. They argued that there was an inordinate delay in registering the FIR and that the accused were identified much later, mainly based on CCTV footage. They claimed that the footage used to identify the accused did not capture the incident of arson or violence. One of the defence lawyers further contended that the footage was related to a different place and could not connect the accused to the actual incident in question, seeking discharge of his clients.
The defence further submitted that no Test Identification Parade was conducted to confirm the identities of the accused. They cited Supreme Court judgments, claiming that identification of a few individuals from a large mob without TIP cannot inspire confidence and cannot be used to frame charges.
Furthermore, they claimed that there was no evidence that the accused burnt the godown and the vehicles. They further argued that the material on record did not create a strong enough prima facie case against the accused. The defence also argued that only the police witnesses were included, pointing towards a lack of reliable eyewitnesses.
Prosecution arguments
The prosecution countered the arguments presented by the defence and stated that all the accused had been identified by police witnesses and some public witnesses either directly at the scene or later using CCTV footage. The prosecution argued that the accused were present in an unlawful assembly that indulged in rioting, vandalism, and arson with a common object, leading to the burning of the truck, the scooty, and the sugarcane godown.
They further argued that the presence of the accused on the spot was corroborated using mobile phone CDR analysis, which placed several of them in the vicinity of the crime scene at the relevant time. The prosecution further stated that the evidence on record, primarily based on police identification, was sufficient at the stage of framing of charges.
Court’s observations and sentencing
The court observed that the statements of witnesses and materials on record clearly established that a large mob had assembled near the crime scene despite prohibitory orders on 24th February 2020. The mob became aggressive at around 3–3:30 PM and indulged in rioting, vandalism and arson.
The court found that several of the rioters were carrying weapons including lathis, iron rods and dandas. They set ablaze a truck, a scooty and a sugarcane godown, besides damaging property. Specific allegations such as burning the truck, setting fire to the godown, pelting stones, carrying petrol bottles, and attacking Om Prakash, the truck driver, were attributed to some of the accused, while others were found liable by virtue of being members of the unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the IPC.
While witnesses saw Wasim damaging the truck and godown, Sazid was seen pouring petrol on the truck. Meharban instigated others to set it on fire, and Salim, Nadeem and Gulzar were part of the mob. Javed was also carrying petrol in a bottle and was involved in setting the godown on fire. The court observed that the witnesses who identified different accused persons in the footage also vouched for having seen them in the mob of rioters during the incidents.
The court further observed that for offences involving an unlawful assembly, it is not essential to attribute specific overt acts to each accused. The court said that every member of such an assembly is liable for acts done in prosecution of the common object. The court relied on the principles laid down in Masalti v. State of UP and State of Maharashtra v. Ramlal Devappa Rathod, and stated that even those without direct participation can be held guilty if found to have shared the common object of the unlawful assembly.
The court said, “As far as specific role of every accused person is concerned, I find that it is not so required to explain overt act on the part of every member of an unlawful assembly. The evidence on the record prima facie shows that accused persons were part of unlawful assembly, which was present there at the spot and which came into action with common object to go on rampage and damage the properties. In pursuance to that common object, they set fire in the Truck, Scooty and Godown alongwith other articles.”
The court further observed that TIP is only a rule of prudence and not a mandatory requirement. It clarified that substantive evidence is the identification of the accused in court. However, the court found no supporting evidence to charge the accused under Section 120B of the IPC, stating that the prosecution could not prove any existence of a prior agreement or a plan among the accused to commit the acts of rioting and arson. The scenario reflected that a mob gathered and turned violent on the spot rather than a pre-planned conspiracy.
Finally, the court found that a prima facie case was made out for rioting with deadly weapons (Section 148 IPC), mischief by fire (Sections 435 and 436 IPC), causing hurt (Section 323 IPC), wrongful restraint (Section 341 IPC), committing offences as part of an unlawful assembly (Section 149 IPC), and disobedience to public orders (Section 188 IPC). It ordered that all 57 accused be put on trial under these charges.
Anti-Hindu Delhi Riots 2020
The anti-Hindu Delhi riots of 2020 were a premeditated attack on the Hindu community. The riots were orchestrated under the guise of anti-CAA protests. The violence erupted in Northeast Delhi from 23rd February to 26th February 2020. Fifty-three individuals, including Head Constable Ratan Lal, IB officer Ankit Sharma, and Hindu labourer Dilbar Negi, were killed. Around 200 people were injured. The riots were marked by the destruction of Hindu-owned properties, including homes, shops, and temples. The riots were allegedly meticulously planned to incite communal tensions and challenge India’s sovereignty. Individuals like Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain, Gulfisha Fatima, Safoora Zargar, Natasha Narwal, and Devangana Kalita are among the accused in the larger conspiracy case. OpIndia’s detailed coverage of the riots can be checked here.
News