City
Epaper

NE Delhi violence: Court discharges two persons accused of burning property

By ANI | Updated: November 30, 2022 05:40 IST

A Delhi Court on Tuesday discharged two accused of the allegation of burning property during the North East Delhi ...

Open in App

A Delhi Court on Tuesday discharged two accused of the allegation of burning property during the North East Delhi riots. On the basis of photographs, the Court noted that the case of destruction of property by fire is not made out against the accused persons. This case was registered in Dayal Pur police station under rioting and other sections.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulsatya Pramachala discharged Johny and Sunney of the allegation of the destruction of property by fire under Section 436 IPC. The Court has remanded back the matter to the magistrate court as other sections invoked in the matter are not sessions triable.

Section 436 IPC refers to the destruction of any building, which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property.

The present case was registered on the complaint of Mohsin Ali. Later on, three more complaints were clubbed as made by Irshad Malik, Hamsuddin and Kafil Ahmed.

They noted that except for Irshad Malik, the other complainants mentioned the allegations of theft or looting of material from their gym, and house and allegations of burning of the articles after taking them out on the road.

However, Irshad Malik had referred to a godown and the burning of cycle rickshaws parked therein. The complainant also produced some photographs.

The court said that the photographs show that it was an open area having one tin shed with support of an adjacent wall and nothing else.

Allegedly, this was the place to keep cycle rickshaws, but this was apparently not a building, instead it was an open place and at the most, it was having a tin shed, it added.

The description of this place/ godown does not fulfil the criteria of Section 436 IPC i.e. being a building. Therefore, I find that a case of an offence under section 436 IPC is not made out from the alleged facts and materials placed on the record, the court said.

( With inputs from ANI )

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

Tags: Pulsatya pramachalacourtMohsin AliDelhi CourtUk court
Open in App

Related Stories

NationalCoal Block Allocation Case: Former MP Vijay Darda, Son Devendra Darda Acquitted After 11-Year Trial

CricketBombay High Court Allows Raj Kundra to Challenge UK Order in Rajasthan Royals Stake Dispute

MumbaiMumbai Crime Branch Files 689-Page Chargesheet Against Fake BARC Scientist

NationalGoa Nightclub Fire: Delhi Court Withholds Interim Bail Protection for Luthra Brothers; Final Hearing Tomorrow

NationalCPI(M) Poll Candidate Gets 10-Year Jail Term for Bomb Attack on Police

National Realted Stories

NationalMamata Banerjee vs Suvendu Adhikari: LoP ahead of CM in assets, number of police cases

NationalKerala voters seek development, govt stability; unemployment remains key concern

NationalPuducherry polls: BJP says NDA will form govt, Cong calls situation 'favourable' for INDIA bloc

National10 Indian fishermen from TN arrested by Sri Lankan Navy; boat seized

NationalPak's 'emergence' as mediator in Iran-US conflict shows Modi govt’s diplomatic failure, says Shiv Sena(UBT)