2020 riots: Delhi HC junks police plea to recall witness in arson case involving ex-AAP councillor Tahir Hussain

The trial is currently at the stage of defence evidence.

The discrepancy in deposition was over the date of the incident by inspector Shiv Charan Meena. He had deposed that it was on February 24, 2020, that he had gone to the house of the accused, Hussain, and found the godown of Aman e-rickshaw burnt. The prosecution’s case is that the incident happened on February 25, 2020.

On the other hand, the deposition of PW-26, head constable Ankit Malik — who had accompanied Meena (PW-23) — supported the prosecution’s case. He had stated that the e-rickshaw showroom was in normal condition on February 24 and was in burnt condition the next day.

On Monday, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, dismissing the prosecution’s plea, held that it had no merits.

The prosecution, in its petition, was challenging a February 7 order by a Karkardooma court that had rejected its plea to recall Meena, be allowed to ask a leading question on the date of the incident to him, and then declare him hostile.

The prosecution, represented by advocate Madhukar Pandey, told the HC that “it was an inadvertent error” on the prosecution’s part to have not picked on the discrepancy in deposition at the time.

However, Pandey was unable to explain the delay in challenging the trial court’s order on the point of law. Upon a pointed query on the delay by Justice Krishna, Pandey responded, “When we seek to file revision, we have to seek approvals (from the government/department) and that takes a little time…”

Hussain, represented by advocate Sonal Sarda, submitted before the court that no interference by the HC is required as there is no ambiguity per se in the trial court order dismissing the prosecution’s request.

Justice Krishna, dismissing the plea, also recorded that of the 26 prosecution witnesses examined, 10 have supported the prosecution’s case on the date of the incident.

Holding that the trial court’s order does not suffer from any infirmity, the court also reasoned that “it is a well settled law that if a single witness testimony inspires confidence, it can be relied upon by the trial court”.

It added that “there are 10 other witnesses which are supporting the case of the prosecution,” and it is not a case where the “prosecution is looking to fill the lacunae”.