The Karkardooma District Court in Delhi has discharged three men namely – Surinder Soni, Nitin and Shiva of all the offences that were charge-sheeted by the police over accusations under the Delhi riots case. The three were accused of having attacked a 34-year-old Azim Ansari, while upon their dismissal today the court observed that no sufficient evidence is recorded upon which charges can be upheld.
Delhi Court discharges three accused namely, Surender Soni, Nitin and Shiva in a Delhi Riots case. Court said that a disclosure statement of Surinder is not ample evidence to state they hit Azim Ansari with a stone @AishwaryaIyer24 reportshttps://t.co/Bo7MC1v9oT
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) April 4, 2022
During the hearing, Justice Virender Bhat asserted that it would be a sheer waste of time if the charges are to be framed against the three accused upon consideration of the evidence on the basis of which they have to be acquitted later on. While the anti-Hindu riots broke out in February 2020, a person named Azim Ansari had suffered injuries and was admitted to a hospital. Sub-Inspector Amit Kumar was asked to initiate action on the incident.
SI Kumar obtained the CCTV footage of the attack on Ansari whose statement was also recorded. After the analysis, it was concluded that a person named Surinder Soni who was holding a stick is behind the attack. When Soni was detained, he disclosed the names of Shiva, who was carrying a pistol and other Nitin who was having a sword. A witness named Anuj who was also shown the CCTV footage identified the associate rioters as Nitin and Shiva.
Apart from Ansari, who was in the hospital while recording the statement and the witness Anuj, there were no other witnesses who confirmed the presence of all three accused. The Karkardooma Court observed that while a stone had hit the complainant Ansari amidst the rioting, his identification of Surinder Soni appeared to be immensely doubtful even at this stage. “There is no other witness, who has identified, either directly or indirectly the said accused to be one of the members of the unlawful assembly,” observed the Aditional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Bhat.
The court also observed that Surinder Soni’s disclosure statement where he named Nitin and Shiva cannot be termed as evidence. While giving the judgement, the court relied on Masalti & Ors. v. State of UP judgement, which mandates that there should be at least two prosecution witnesses to identify the role and involvement of the accused in the incident in question. “There is no sufficient evidence on record on basis of which charges can be framed against the three accused,” the single-member bench stated.
While concluding the judgement, all the three accused Surinder Soni, Nitin and Shiva were discharged of all the offences and their bail bonds were released.
