Add The Wire As Your Trusted Source
For the best experience, open
https://m.thewire.in
on your mobile browser.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Delhi Riots: Court Frames Arson Charges Against Man, Son For Setting Mosque on Fire

As per complainant Israfil, Mithhan Singh and his son Jony Kumar were allegedly part of the violent mob that raised slogans of 'Jai Shree Ram' on February 25, 2020, near his house and set it ablaze.
As per complainant Israfil, Mithhan Singh and his son Jony Kumar were allegedly part of the violent mob that raised slogans of 'Jai Shree Ram' on February 25, 2020, near his house and set it ablaze.
delhi riots  court frames arson charges against man  son for setting mosque on fire
A man sifts through items at a shop set on fire at Khajuri Khas. Photo: PTI
Advertisement

New Delhi: A Delhi court has framed charges of arson and rioting against a father-son duo for allegedly damaging, vandalising, stone pelting and setting a Mosque on fire during the February 2020 riots.

Mithhan Singh and his son Jony Kumar are accused of allegedly being part of a violent mob that raised slogans of "Jai Shree Ram" and damaged the mosque in Delhi's Khajuri Khas area on February 25, 2020, as per the complainant.

Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat framed charges under requisite sections against the two accused and explained it to them in vernacular in the presence of their lawyers, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial in the case.

The judge, in an order dated November 20, also rejected the argument put forth by the counsel of the accused that they are entitled to be discharged in the case as there was a delay in reporting of incident and recording of statements of the witnesses.

He said that accused can not claim discharge merely on this score.

Advertisement

Also read: ‘Calculated Attack': Court Frames Murder Charges Against 4 Accused in Delhi Riots

The court said that the delay in recording witnesses' statements was not intentional and was occasioned on account of the situation which prevailed in the area during and after the incident of rioting.

Advertisement

"There was an atmosphere of terror and trauma which prevailed in the area for several days even after the riots. In these circumstances, the delay of about one week in reporting the incident to the police would appear justified and can not be considered fatal to the prosecution case at this stage," the court further said.

As per complainant Israfil, Mithhan Singh and his son Jony Kumar were allegedly part of the violent mob that raised slogans of 'Jai Shree Ram' on February 25, 2020, near his house and set it ablaze.

Advertisement

This prompted the complainant to climb the Fatima Masjid to save his life, he stated, adding that the mob then damaged the mosque and set it on fire.

Advertisement

Mithhan Singh also exhorted his son to throw a small gas cylinder into the mosque, he alleged.

Following this, the father-son duo, along with the mob threw bottles containing inflammable material upon the houses belonging to a particular community, the complainant claimed.

The Special Public Prosecutor told the court that apart from Israfil, eyewitnesses Mohd Tayyub, Mehboob Alam, Shadab, and Mohd Akram had also seen the two accused in the mob damaging and setting ablaze their houses as well as Fatima Masjid.

He argued that given clear-cut statements of these witnesses, who knew the two accused very well as all of them resided in the same neighbourhood, it is manifested that the two accused had resorted to vandalism, stone pelting, and burning of private and public properties.

On the other hand, counsel for the duo argued that they have been falsely implicated and that the witnesses were planted by the police.

The judge, however, held that charges under sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), 149 (member of unlawful assembly guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of common object) and 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance) of IPC are liable to be framed against the duo.

Charges have also been framed under sections 451 (house trespass), 392 (robbery) and 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees). Two additional charges have been framed against Mithhan, which include sections 109 (Punishment of abetment) and 114 (abettor present when the offence is committed).

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), an accused should be informed of the offence under which he is charged. The basic purpose of the charge is to let them know of the offence that they are charged with so that they can prepare a defence.

Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi in February 2020, after violence between the Citizenship (Amendment) Act supporters and its protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

(PTI)

This article went live on November twenty-third, two thousand twenty one, at zero minutes past seven in the morning.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.

Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Series tlbr_img2 Columns tlbr_img3 Multimedia