Observing that ex-AAP councillor Tahir Hussain instigated a mob to indulge in vandalism and arson in the Moonga Nagar locality of the national capital, a Delhi court Saturday framed charges against him in a case relating to the 2020 north-east Delhi riots. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge Pulatsya Pramachala also framed charges against nine other men including Hussain’s brother Shah Alam. However, three other accused – Deepak Singh Saini, Mahak Singh, and Navneet Singh – were discharged citing a lack of evidence. The accused were charged under Sections 148 (rioting with a deadly weapon), 380 (theft in dwelling house), 427 (mischief), 435 (mischief by explosive substance), 436 (mischief by fire), and 450 (house trespass), among others, of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Hussain was additionally charged under IPC Sections 107-120 (abetment). While framing charges against Hussain, the Court took note of statements by Surender Sharma and Shyam Bihari Mittal which pointed to his involvement in the crime. It was alleged that Hussain pointed toward some shops from his terrace and the shops were later vandalised and set on fire by rioters. It was also alleged that some people threw stones and petrol bombs from his terrace. “Such evidence shows that this mob was instigated by Tahir Hussain to indulge in vandalism, loot, and arson in the properties and shops situated in that area. That mob consequently attacked upon the nearby properties including the three properties in this case,” the Court said. Three FIRs were initially filed in this incident. The first one was registered based on a complaint by Irshad Ali who alleged that his shop, Royal Mattress, was looted and burnt by a mob during the riots. Two subsequent FIRs by Mohammed Zahid and Gunjan Sachdeva alleging looting of their shops were also clubbed with the former FIR as the incidents were of the same day, place, and time period. Advocates Țara Narula and Shivangi Sharma representing Hussain raised the issue of ‘delay’ in the registration of FIRs. They highlighted that several FIRs were filed against Hussain, resulting in a “multiplicity of proceedings” and causing “unnecessary harassment of the accused”. They also questioned the credibility of witnesses. The Court rejected the arguments of the defence calling them not “sustainable” at the stage of charges. The Court held that these arguments shall be looked at during the trial stage. While discharging the three accused, the Court flagged the response of the investigating officer (IO). The judge said that adding the names of Deepak Singh Saini, Mahak Singh, and Navneet Singh in the case, despite knowing well that a different mob was responsible, was not a “legal action on the part of IO”. The judge directed the station house officer to look into the matter.
