New Delhi: A court here convicted nine accused in a case related to the 2020 North East Delhi riots of various offences, including arson and theft, officials said. The Additional Sessions court held guilty Mohd. Shahnawaz, Mohd. Shoaib, Shahrukh, Rashid, Azad, Ashraf Ali, Parvez, Mohd. Faisal and Rashid. The court posted the case for March 29 for the convicts and the prosecution to file their respective affidavits and to make submissions regarding the jail sentence and remanded the suspects in Judicial Custody until then.
As per the case, they were accused of being party to indulging in robbery, damaging property and setting ablaze the house of Rekha Sharma on the intervening night of Feb. 24 and 25, 2020 in Chaman Park on Shiv Vihar Tiraha Road. Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala pronounced the verdict on Monday.
The judge held that an unlawful assembly was formed, which indulged in riots, vandalism and arson, besides damaging and burning the complainant's property. The judge said there was no material contradiction or infirmity in the testimony of Head Constable Hari Babu, who had identified the suspects as part of the riotous mob. Advocate Babar Chauhan, counsel for the accused, had argued that two including Rekha Sharma who were relied upon as eye-witnesses did not identify any of the accused.
The investigating officer's (IO's) reasons for the delay in the examination of both police officials were accepted by the Court which noted that the Delhi Police would have been recovering from the impact of the 2020 riots while they were also expected to enforce the norms because of Covid-19. The Court noted that the IO's explanation could not be treated as an afterthought or said to be artificial. The defence had argued there was no cogent reasons for delay in recording the witness accounts.
The Court noted that the accused outnumbered the police and the appeals by the police to disperse the mob was not paid heed to. The mob continued to g on a rampage and with their riotous acts by entering into the house of the complainant which was looted and vandalised before being set on fire, the court noted.
