You are here: Home » Current Affairs » News » National
Business Standard

Delhi Police clarifies accused not acquitted in N-E Delhi violence case

Delhi Police has clarified that one accused Javed has not been discharged or acquitted in connection with a north-east Delhi violence case

Delhi Police | violence


Northeast delhi violence, delhi riots
Representative image

has clarified that one accused Javed has not been discharged or acquitted in connection with a north-east Delhi case, however, charges dealing with Section 436 IPC have been dropped against him by a Sessions Court.

Delhi Police, in a press statement, said that the matter has been remanded back to magistrate court, which is competent enough for conducting the trial of the case except for section 436 IPC.

"Reporting of the matter in the sense that accused has been discharged/acquitted is totally wrong that too after a gap of two days from date of order. The accused person arrested in the case is the subject matter of trial by the concerned CMM court which is competent enough for conducting the trial of the case except for section 436 IPC," said the

"The matter pertains to case FIR on March 3, 2020, under various sections of IPC which was registered at Dayalpur Police Station on the complaint of a woman wherein complainant stated that on February 25, 2020, at about 5.00 pm, a rioters mob after breaking open the shutter of her shop and looted the articles lying therein," said in its report.

Similarly, three other complaints were received with similar evidence in the same vicinity where the mob had committed vandalism.

As per the statement released by Delhi Police, it said that after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused named Javed with sufficient evidence/material including Call Detail Record (CDR) of accused persons and statement of witnesses.

On September 7, at the time of framing of charges against the accused person, ASJ discarded the evidence to prosecute the accused person under section 436 IPC and remanded back the case to the concerned CMM court.

"The reporting of the matter in such a manner gives a grossly misleading impression about the investigating agency which is far away from reality. It may be put on record that technically case has been remanded back and it is very much subject matter of trial for the offences of riots, committing theft, etc. except section 436 IPC," said in the statement.

"It is also to add that out of the cases which are on charge stage, charges have been framed in 40 cases. This itself shows that despite the unprecedented challenge posed by global pandemic Covid-19, investigating agency has done his work," Delhi Police further said.

Earlier, a Delhi Court dropped the charge against accused Javed under Section 436 IPC dealing with mischief by fire or explosive substance, after noting that the complainant's statements do not show that the particular act was committed.

The court has sent the case to magistrate court to further deal with the matter observing that all the offences invoked in the matter are exclusively triable by the court of Magistrate.

"Except Section 436 IPC, all the offenses invoked in the matter are exclusively triable by the court of learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the case file is placed before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (NorthEast), Karkardooma District Courts on September 8 at 2.00 pm, with a request to either try the matter himself or assign it to some other competent Court/learned MM. Accused is directed to appear before learned Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates (CMM-NorthEast) on the said date," the court said.

"This court is conscious of the fact that cases of communal riots have to be considered with the utmost sensitivity, but that does not mean that common sense should be given go-by; the mind has to be applied even at this stage with regard to the material available on record," said the Court.

The court noted that a careful perusal of the charge-sheet filed in the matter reveals that sections 147/148/149/427/436/380/454/120B/34 IPC have been invoked by the investigating agency. It is relevant to note that except for section 436 IPC, all the sections invoked in the matter are exclusively triable by Magistrate.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Dear Reader,

Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

First Published: Fri, September 10 2021. 15:14 IST