On 2nd November, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Virendra Bhat held that a delay of about five days in lodging the complaint and registration of the FIR is justified to any prudent person and cannot be considered fatal to the prosecution case when there existed instances of rioting, killing, looting, vandalizing, setting ablaze movable and immovable properties etc. by the members of each community against each other. There was an atmosphere of trauma that prevailed in the area for several days even after these riots.

The court further stated that since the delay was occasioned on account of the situation which prevailed on the area, therefore the truthfulness or otherwise of the statement of the witnesses can be assed only during the trial of the case. The court was of the view that at the time of framing of charges, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of material on record.

Facts of the case:

The four accused in the present case were recorded to have been a part of a riotous mob which looted, damaged and set ablaze the houses as well as the shops on Brijpuri Road, Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi. During the course of investigation, it came to be known that all four accused had been arrested by the crime branch t that all the four accused had been arrested by the Crime Branch and they had also made confessions admitting their role in the incident in question.

Contention of the Complainant:

Ld. Special PP had made the following submissions:

  1. It was submitted that in the view of the submissions of the two public witnesses and two police witnesses it was evident that the four accused were a part of the riotous mob which had resorted to loot, damaging and setting ablaze of properties on Main Brijpuri Road.
  2. It was also contended that there is prima­facie sufficient evidence on record to frame charges against the accused.
  3. It was argued that the evidence qua which cognizance had been taken of this case offence u/s 392, 454 and 506 IPC had been committed.

Contention of the accused:

Learned counsel for the accused contended the following:

  1. It was argued that all the accused have been falsely implicated ijn the present case only for the reason that they are the residents of the same area where the said incidents had taken place.
  2. It was further pointed out that there was unexplained delay of more than one month in recording the statements of the alleged eye witnesses to the incident, and therefore, their version cannot be believed.

Order of the court:

The following observation has been made by the learned bench of the court:

  1. The bench agreed that the offences under section 454 and 392 of the IPC has been made out against the accused.
  2. From   the   statements   of   Shekhar and Jagadish, it is evident that on account of violent act of the mob, fear of instant death and hurt got instilled in them due to which they immediately ran away from the spot. 

Considering the entire material of the case on record, the court framed charges against the four accused under section 147/148/149/392/427/436/454   IPC.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Picture Source : https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*smR6Qt26fhiJQB5LRfkWPw.jpeg

 
Anusree