Read Time: 06 minutes

"Charges cannot be framed against these accused upon taking into account the material annexed with the charge­-sheet on the basis of which there is no possibility of their conviction at the final stage", said a Delhi Court while discharging three persons accused in a Delhi riots case.

Judge Virender Bhat further remarked that it would be sheer wastage of judicial time if the charges are to be framed against the three accused person upon consideration of the evidence on the basis of which they have to be acquitted later on.

The three accused namely, Surender Soni, Nitin and Shiva were charge-­sheeted by the police for having committed offences u/s 147/148/149/308 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act.

On 2th February, 2020 after receiving information by the Duty Constable in RML Hospital that one Azim Ansari aged about 34 years had suffered injuries during the riots and was brought to the hospital by his paternal aunt/ bua, SI Amit Kumar was asked to take suitable action.

After Azim's statement was recorded, SI Kumar obtained the CCTV footage of the camera installed near the incident spot, upon analysis of which, one rioter was identified as Surinder Soni holding a stick in his hand. An enquiry was conducted of him and he was also identified as a rioter by the complainant Ansari, following which he was arrested in the case.

Surinder's disclosure statement was recorded wherein he disclosed the names of his associate rioters as Nitin and Shiva. 

One Anuj, another witness of the incident was also shown the CCTV footage of the incident who identified the person with pistol in his hand as Shiva and another person wearing blue colour lower and having sword in his hand as Nitin. 

Karkardooma Court noted that as a stone had hit the complainant Ansari amidst the rioting, his identification of Surinder Soni appeared to be immensely doubtful even at the current stage. 

Apart from complainant Ansari and Anuj there were no other witnesses who confirmed the presence of all three accused.

"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", said ASJ Bhat. 

Also, Surinder's disclosure statement naming the other two accused was not admissable as evidence.

Relying on the Supreme Court dictum in Masalti & Ors. v. State of UP, 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, the single judge bench noted, 

"...there is no sufficient evidence on record on the basis of which charges can be framed against these three accused."

Accordingly, the accused were discharged of all the offences and their bail bonds were released and sureties discharged.

Case Title: State vs. Surender Soni & Ors