North East Delhi violence: Court convicts two accused of firing on police constable during riots

New Delhi [India], September 1 : Delhi's Karkardooma Court on Thursday convicted two men in a case of firing on a police constable and injuring him during the riots of February 2020. The injured constable was on duty at Brijpuri Pulia, in the Dayalpur police station area.
The present FIR was registered on February 26, 2020, on the statement of Constable Deepak (now HC Deepak).
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala held Imran alias Model and Imran guilty of the offences alleged against them.
The court has convicted them for committing offences under sections 148 (Rioting with a deadly weapon), 188 ( violation of orders passed by a public servant), 307 (attempt to murder), and 332 (Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty) IPC read with Section
149 IPC.
"I find that the prosecution has proved that both the accused persons were part of the riotous mob, which had assembled in defiance of orders under Section 144 (Prohibitory Orders) Cr.P.C.," ASJ Pramachala said in the judgement passed on August 31.
The Judge further said that It is also well proven that accused Imran alias Model fired a gunshot towards the police team while accused Imran remained present with him during this firing.
" It is within the knowledge of any normal person that a gunshot may cause the death of the person who is hit by such a shot. It was a matter of chance that the gunshot fired by Imran alias Model did not hit Constable Deepak at a vital part of his body and that it hit him on his leg only," the judge observed in the judgement.
The court further observed, "But the fact remains that firing a gunshot is not a normal act to be done in a casual manner. The person firing a gunshot knows that it may kill the person aimed at or any other person present near the aim, unless it is fired in the air for a different purpose."
However, the court acquitted the accused persons of the offence under section 186 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) of the IPC for want of complaint under section 195 ( Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence)
The court said that though the charge was also framed as an offence under Section 186 IPC, the prosecution did not prove a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. in respect of this offence.
" Therefore, though facts proved on the record show that police officials were obstructed by this mob, including both accused, but for want of such a complaint, accused persons cannot be convicted for this offence," the court said.
The court further said, "However, it is well proven that public servants, i.e., police officials, were obstructed while suppressing the riot by this mob, including both accused persons."
Both accused were instrumental in using criminal force to deter the police officials in the discharge of their duty, and they caused simple injury to Constable Deepak in this process, the court said in the judgement.
Constable Deepak alleged that on February 25, 2020, he was performing his duty at Brijpuri Pulia, an anti CAA protest site.
It was further alleged by him that a mob of around 1000-1200 persons had gathered, and the persons in the mob were equipped with dandas and iron rods. Persons in the mob started setting fire to properties (shops, schools, and houses) situated near Brijpuri Pulia. They also set fire to the vehicles parked on the road.
He further alleged that despite an appeal to them by the SHO with the help of police staff, thereby making a request to return to their home, the mob continued becoming more aggressive and raising slogans.
It was further alleged that the mob was also not allowing the fire brigade vehicle.
He alleged that police staff present there had fired tear gas to disperse and pacify the mob and at that moment, some unknown person fired a gunshot, and he received a gunshot injury in his right leg.
Thereafter, Constable Rohit took the injured man to GTB Hospital for medical treatment.
Defence counsel had argued that there is no CCTV footage of the incident or photograph of the injury to constable Deepak.
The court rejected the submissions and said, "However, it is not necessary that every incident would be covered by some CCTV camera, especially when during the riot many cameras were also damaged. Similarly, taking photographs of injuries was not a mandatory procedure. "
Hence, the absence of the same cannot wash away the testimony of PW6, the report of the FSL expert, and the MLC. MLC does mention the same alleged history, as deposed by Deepak and other witnesses. Therefore, there is no reason to discard such evidence, the court said in the judgement.