New Delhi, Oct 25 A Delhi court made on Wednesday acquitted 11 men in a Delhi riots case where a mob had allegedly engaged in acts of vandalism and set fire to a sweet shop, leading to the death of 22-year-old Dilbar Negi.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of the Karkardooma Courts, after carefully examining the evidence and circumstances, concluded that although the 11 accused individuals were present at various times during the mob's activities and were linked to other riot-related incidents, it could not be established that they were vicariously responsible for the incident resulting in Negi's tragic death.
However, charges of murder, rioting and unlawful assembly were framed against one of the accused Mohd. Shahnawaz.
"There remains no doubt in respect of involvement of accused Shanu alias Shahnawaz in setting this godown on fire somewhere after 9 p.m. However, other accused persons were not identified to be companions of Mohd Shahnawz alias Shanu at this time.
"It is worth to mention here that many accused persons were identified in the video of riots of different times, but they were not identified even on the basis of video by any of these two eye witnesses to say that these accused persons had also accompanied Shanu while entering into the godown just before the godown being set," the order said.
"As far as accused Shanu is concerned, the evidence on the record shows him to be part of the riotous mob, which was indulging into acts against persons from Hindu communities and their properties, so as to vandalise and set on fire such properties," it further.
Charges against him have been framed for the offences under Section 148, 153A, 302, 436, 450, 149 and 188 of Indian Penal Code.
"However, for the purpose of criminal conspiracy, something more is required to be shown by prosecution i.e. to show a prior agreement among members of such mob to do a particular act," the order said.
"It is also possible that on spur of the moment or on instant call a person joins a mob indulging into any act as per motive of the mob. Therefore, I do not find any evidence in support of charge u/s 120-B IPC or 34 IPC," it added.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor