New Delhi: Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court order framing charges against a man booked in a case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
In an order dated Dec 17, a single-judge bench of Justice Anish Dayal rejected Salim Malik‘s plea, saying, “Any decision by this court in its revisional jurisdiction to discharge the accused by setting aside the trial court’s order, at the stage when the trial is just about to conclude, would be unmerited. The evidence, which either the prosecution or the defence relies upon, will be filtered, distilled and tested in the crucible of the trial.”
The trial court had framed charges against Malik for offences under IPC sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of Rs 50), 435 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of Rs 100), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house), 450 (trespass), 149 (unlawful assembly) and 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant).
The FIR was registered after the general manager of a car showroom complained that Malik was part of a mob which damaged the showroom and set it on fire.
Malik challenged the framing of charges against him on the grounds of inadmissible disclosures, delayed, unreliable witness statements, and lack of cogent evidence linking him to the alleged offences of arson and vandalism in the showroom.
Dismissing his plea, the court said the statement of a constable did not prima facie completely exclude the possibility of his presence at the site of the incident or as part of the mob. “As per constable Mukesh’s statement, the presence of the petitioner at the stage is clearly indicated. It also indicates that when the protesters surrounded them, there was tussle amongst the crowd, the police personnel had to escape, and the incident at the showroom happened a bit later,” the court noted in the order.
Further observing that evidence is yet to be tested in the trial, which is at the stage of completion, the court concluded, “In view of the above assessment, this court does not find any impropriety, illegality or infirmity with the impugned order passed by the sessions court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.”
