Court inquires about “incongruous investigation” in which the injured complainant was also charged

A Delhi court has questioned the investigation in a case involving the 2020 riots in which Sajid, a complainant in the case, was later named as an accused party. Sajid had claimed that on February 25, 2020, he had been shot.Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat observed.

“…curiously, Sajid during investigation was made an accused. One of the primary reasons was that since he had suffered a gunshot injury during he riots, he can be held to be the part of the riotous mob. By this logic, every injured person in a riots case can be made an accused, …the inquiry begs question as to how the prosecution, on the one hand, has charged six accused people under sec. 307 IPC, which is an attempt to murder for the attempted murder of wounded Sajid who has also been made an accused in this case for the act of rioting,”.

The Court stated that without showing the gunshot injuries, the attempt to kill accusation could not be proven. Sajid was one of the primary witnesses and one of the accused who had to stand trial according to the prosecution.

The FIR was filed as a result of Sajid’s complaint regarding several offences under sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 307, and 188 of the Indian Penal Code.

Sajid said that on February 25, 2020, he was assaulted from behind by something as he attempted to flee from a raucous throng. He was afterwards transported to the hospital where it was discovered that he had been shot.

Sajid was inspected during the inquiry, and since he had been hurt during the disturbances, it was concluded that he belonged to the riotous throng. A constable testified in March 2020 that all six defendants were members of the unruly group. While five of them were detained on the grounds of illegal assembly, the constable later detained the sixth suspect when he was recognised.

The prosecution had to demonstrate that Sajid was injured by a gunshot in order to prove the attempted murder charge. According to the court, either Section 307 IPC cannot be invoked in the manner proposed by the prosecution, or if all seven accused individuals were present during the riot, only sections that encourage riots can be invoked.

The judge continued by saying that all of the accused cannot be tried under section 307 IPC because only the policeman’s testimony remained, in which the constable claimed to have identified all of the accused as having taken part in the disturbances.

The Court did note, however, that it can be maintained that each and every accused individual took part in the disturbances. Thus, the court determined that Section 307 IPC was not made out due to the manner in which the inquiry was conducted and the charge sheet was created, and that this matter was not primarily triable by the Court of Sessions. As a result, the court cleared all seven of the attempted murder accusations and referred the case to the designated magisterial court to frame charges for further offences.