Four people charged with murder and rioting

Two Muslim men gets killed during northeast Delhi riots, four men charged under sections 144,147,148,149 and 302

Four people have been charged with murder and rioting in two cases connected to the deaths of two Muslim men during the northeast Delhi riots. Reportedly they were members of an unlawful assembly, part of the riotous mob that killed the victims and the motive was to cause riots, vandalism and destruction of property etc.

“They were identified by the eyewitness Shashikant Kashyap and have been specifically named by him. Electronic evidence produced along with the charge sheet shows their presence at the place of incident and in the mob. Thus, the material on record prima facie discloses commission of offence of rioting, murder etc. by the accused,” said additional sessions Judge Virender Bhat. “It appears that the accused developed the common intention to kill at the spur of the moment during the riotous clashes. The material on record does not indicate any prior agreement between the accused to kill deceased Zakir, which is the sine qua non for the charge of conspiracy. Therefore, the charge of criminal conspiracy u/s 120 B IPC is not made out against the accused,” it was observed as the court suggested.

Charges of 144 (joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon), 147 and 148 (rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly), 302 (murder) were framed against Ashok Kumar, Ajay, Subham and Jitendra Kumar. Accused Arif was discharged from the charge of murder. Though special Public Prosecutor submitted that Arif belonged to the Muslim community and was present with another faction of mob comprising people belonging to his community which has allegedly resorted to violence. To its effect advocate Abdul Gaffar Khan submitted that it was the case of prosecution itself that he was in the mob consisting of people belonging to Muslim community which was not involved in killing of the deceased.

On the other hand, Kashyap was deemed to be an unreliable witness by another accused’s counsel. And since the witness was not seen in any photograph or CCTV footage, his presence at the spot became questionable. The court later addressed considering the manner in which the entire has been narrated, it is difficult to say for sure if he was present at the crime spot and witnessed the killings.