Delhi District Court
State vs Sh. Rohit on 17 January, 2023
CNR No. DLNE01-003352-2021
State v. Rohit
SC No. 334/2021, FIR No. 135/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 17.01.2023
DLNE01-003352-2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
INDEX
Sl. HEADINGS Page Nos.
No.
1 Description of Case & Memo of Parties 2
2 The case set up by the Prosecution 3-4
3 Charges 4-5
4 Description of Prosecution Evidence 6-10
5 Plea of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 10-11
6 Arguments of Defence & Prosecution 11
APPRECIATION OF LAW, FACTS AND EVIDENCE
7 Unlawful Assembly and Riots 11-12
8 Identification of accused Rohit 12-14
9 Conclusion and Decision 15
Page 1 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-003352-2021
State v. Rohit
SC No. 334/2021, FIR No. 135/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 17.01.2023
Sessions Case No. : 334/2021
Under Section : 147/148/380/427/436 IPC r/w.
Sec. 149 IPC and Sec. 188 IPC
Police Station : Gokalpuri
FIR No. : 135/2020
CNR No. : DLNE01-003352-2021
In the matter of: -
STATE
VERSUS
SH. ROHIT
S/o. Shri Ram Pratap,
R/o. H.No. C-21, 2nd Floor,
Gokalpuri, Delhi.
.....Accused
Complainants : 1. SMT. MEHRUNISHA
W/o. Sh. Shokeen Khan,
R/o. D-2, Gokalpuri, Delhi.
2. MOHD. KHALID
S/o. Sh. Khalik Ahmad,
R/o. H.No.A-94, Block-A,
Gokalpuri, Delhi.
3. MOHD. HAMID ALI
S/o. Late Mohd. Ali,
R/o. A-42, Gali No.1/4,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 11.01.2021
Date of reserving order : 09.01.2023
Date of pronouncement : 17.01.2023
Decision : Acquitted.
(Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with by accused)
Page 2 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-003352-2021
State v. Rohit
SC No. 334/2021, FIR No. 135/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 17.01.2023
JUDGMENT
THE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION: -
1. Briefly stated, FIR in this case was registered on 04.03.2020 for offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/380/427 IPC, on the basis of a written complaint dated 01.03.2020 from one Smt. Mehrunisha. In her complaint, she alleged that during intervening night between 25.02.2020 and 26.02.2020 at about 03:00 AM, the rioters broke open the locks of her house bearing no. D-2, Gokalpuri and robbed the gold, golden/silver ornaments, cash, valuables etc. Thereafter, they damaged the entire house setting it on fire.
2. Thereafter, one another complaint dated 02.03.2020 of Mohd.
Khalid was also received in the PS. In his complaint, he alleged that his tailoring shop in the name and style of M/s. Unique Tailors situated at D-50, Gokalpuri, was robbed by the rioters on 25.02.2020 at around 6-7 PM. Sewing machines, suit lengths, pant shirt cloth, stitched clothes, raw material, Rs.25,000/- in cash raw materials etc. lying in the shop had been stolen. This complaint was also clubbed in this FIR. Thereafter, third complaint of Mohd. Hamid Ali was also received regarding the robbery at his shop in the name and style of New Age Boutique in D-50, Gokalpuri. This complaint was also clubbed in this FIR.
3. Later on, Section 436 IPC was added in this case. Accused Rohit was initially arrested in another case FIR No. 148/20. During interrogation in that case, on the basis of his disclosure statement thereby admitting his involvement in the incidents which are Page 3 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003352-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 334/2021, FIR No. 135/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 subject matter of the FIR in this case, IO arrested him in this case.
4. Witnesses Shoaib and Irsahd claimed to be eye witnesses in this case. IO examined beat officers of that area also, who also identified accused as part of riotous mob of 25.02.2020.
5. After completion of investigation, on 11.01.2021 a chargesheet was filed by IO/ASI Gajraj Singh before ld. CMM (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, against accused Rohit for offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/380/427/188/436 IPC. On 17.09.2021, ld. CMM (N/E) took cognizance of aforesaid offences, and the case was committed to the sessions court vide order dated 25.09.2021. Thereafter, on 12.09.2022, first supplementary chargesheet along with certain documents, was filed by IO/ASI Gajraj before this court. CHARGES: -
6. On 16.02.2022, charges were framed against accused Rohit for offences punishable under Section 147/148/380/427/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and 188 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The charges were framed in following terms: -
"That during the intervening night between 25.02.2020 and 26.02.2020 at house/shops belonging to Mehrunisha W/o Shokeen Khan R/o H.no.D-2, Gokalpuri, Delhi, Mohd Khalid S/o Khalik Ahmad, R/o. H.No. 94, Block A, Gokalpuri, Delhi (Shop Address: - R/o. D-50, Gokalpuri, Delhi) and Mohd. Hamid Ali S/o Late Md. Ali, R/o A-42, Gali No. 4, Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi (Shop Address: D-50, Gokalpuri, Delhi) within the jurisdiction of PS Gokalpuri, you alongwith your other associates (unidentified) from a particular community had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing riots by carrying stones, sticks, and other weapons of rioting and to create fear & insecurity in the minds of the members of the other Page 4 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003352-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 334/2021, FIR No. 135/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 community and by use of force or violence in prosecution of a common object of such assembly committed rioting and you, being members of the aforesaid unlawful assembly knew that offences were likely to be committed in prosecution of that common object of the assembly and thereby you alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed offences punishable under Section(s) 147/148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you being members of unlawful assembly alongwith your other associates (unidentified) broke open the locks of the house of complainant Mehrunisha and committed mischief by fire or explosive substance by setting on fire that house with the intent to destroy the same and as such, committed offence punishable under Section 436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC within my cognizance.
Thirdly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you all being members of unlawful assembly alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed mischief by causing wrongful loss and damage in the aforesaid shops of complainants Md. Khalid and Md. Hamid Ali and as such, committed offence punishable under Section 427 IPC read with Section 149 IPC within my cognizance.
Fourthly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you being a member of unlawful assembly alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed theft of gold/silver ornaments, cash, valuables, sewing machine, suit lengths, pant shirt cloth, stitched clothes, raw materials etc. lying in the above noted shops of complainants and as such, committed offence punishable under Section 380 IPC read with Section 149 IPC within my cognizance.
Fifthly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you being members of unlawful assembly alongwith your other associates (unidentified) were resorting to violence and you being part of unlawful assembly having wooden rods, iron rods, stones, bricks etc. in your hands, indulged in the acts of rioting, stone pelting thereby frightened the victims/complainants and then looted and burnt the vehicles and houses of the complainants by the use of force and violence in prosecution of the common object of such assembly and in violation of the proclamation issued u/s 144 Cr. PC by the competent authority and you knew being members of the aforesaid unlawful assembly that an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of that common object and thereby you committed offence punishable under Section 188 IPC and within my cognizance."Page 5 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003352-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 334/2021, FIR No. 135/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE: -
7. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case, as per following descriptions: -
Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description Proved Name of of documents documents/ case Witness properties PW1/Sh. PW1 was one of the eye witnesses. He deposed that Irshad he had identified one Manoj. He did not support the case of prosecution to identify the accused as one of the rioters. He denied that he had taken name of Rohit before police.
PW2/HC Being MHC(M) he made Ex.PW2/A
Mahesh relevant entries in malkhana (Copy of relevant
register at PS Gokalpuri on pages entered by
15.03.2020, 06.09.2021 and PW2 in
15.02.2022 regarding depositing malkhana
pullanda by Ram Dass, sending register)
the same to FSL and receiving
the same, respectively.
PW3/Mohd. He is one of the complainants in Ex.PW3/A
Khalid this case. PW3 submitted his (complaint of
complaint dated 02.03.2020 at PW3 dated
PS. PW3 identified his signature 02.03.2020)
at point A on aforesaid complaint
dated 01.03.2020 as well as on
the site plan dated 11.05.2020.
However, he did not see the
incident.
PW4/Ct. On 14.08.2020, he received certain pullandas from
Sandeep MHC(M) and deposited them in FSL Rohini.
PW4 obtained acknowledgement from FSL and handed over the same to IO.
PW5/Ms. She is also one the complainants. She deposed that Mehrunisha on 25.02.2020, mob attacked on her house between 11AM-12PM. She with her family managed to flee away, when that mob had moved ahead from her house. Subsequently, her neighbour informed her that on 25.02.2020 at about 3 PM, mob looted her house and set it on fire. When PW5 she found various Page 6 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003352-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 334/2021, FIR No. 135/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description Proved Name of of documents documents/ case Witness properties articles lying in her house viz. 3 T.V.s, fridge, laptop, jewellery i.e. 5/7 tolas gold and 1 kg silver, cash amount of Rs.2 lacs besides other articles were missing. First floor of her house was burnt. She made complaint at PS Gokalpuri regarding this incident. Police had prepared site plan of her house in her presence. Police had also taken photographs of her house. PW5 identified photographs P-1, P-4, P-5, P- 7, P-9 and P-10 as pertaining to her house. (These photographs with certificate u/s. 65-B I.E. Act are admitted documents as Ex. A-8.) On the point of identification of accused, she did not support the case of prosecution, stating that she could not identify anyone in the mob as everyone had covered his face.
PW6/HC On 25.02.2020 he along with HC Sachin Rana and Shailendra other police team was on patrolling duty in the area Singh of PS Gokalpuri. During patrolling, PW6 reached near property no. D-50 at around 6-7 PM. There were two shops in this property, one was probably boutique shop and other was a cosmetic shop. PW6 found shutter of both these shops in open condition and a mob was damaging articles in both the shops like counter etc. with danda. On seeing them, the mob fled away in different directions. PW6 identified accused Rohit in this mob. PW6 also saw accused in the mob at D-1. Statement of PW6 was recorded in this case by IO ASI Gajraj on 03.06.2020. PW6 identified accused Rohit before the court correctly.
PW7/HC On 24.02.2020, he was working as reader to SHO PS Pradeep Gokalpuri. On that day, he received an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. issued by DCP North East and on the direction of SHO, PW7 announced that order in the area of PS Gokalpuri through loud speaker. PW8/HC On 25.02.2020 he along with PW6/HC Shailendra Sachin was on patrolling duty. During patrolling, they Rana reached D-Block at around 10-11 AM and found a Page 7 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003352-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 334/2021, FIR No. 135/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description Proved Name of of documents documents/ case Witness properties mob vandalizing property no. D-1. On seeing them, the mob fled away and went towards C-block. PW8 had seen the same mob damaging property no. D-2 and throwing burning clothes inside that property. PW8 had seen accused Rohit in that mob and he knew him having seen him on several occasions during petrolling duty near D-Block Park, Gokalpuri. On same day i.e. 25.02.2020, at about 6-7 PM, PW8 reached near D-50, Gokalpuri and found this property in damaged condition, wherein there were two shops on the ground floor. PW8 had seen accused Rohit in the mob present near that property. PW8 identified accused Rohit before the court correctly.
PW9/Mohd. He is also one of the Ex.PW9/A Hamid complainants in this case, who (complaint of was running tailor shop at D-50. PW9) PW9 visited PS Gokalpuri on 03.03.2020 and made a written complaint there. PW9 identified his signature at circle X on the same.
PW10/ASI On 04.03.2020 he was assigned Ex.PW10/A (site Ram Dass investigation of this case. PW10 plan dated went to D-2 Gokalpuri and 04.03.2020) & prepared site plan. PW10 called Ex.PW10/B crime team on 15.03.2020 at this (seizure memo place and obtained SOC report. prepared by Crime team had also taken PW10 dated photographs of this place. PW10 15.03.2020) lifted some burnt materials from this house and kept them in a plastic box, which was seized vide a seizure memo.
PW11/ASI On 19.03.2020, he received case Ex.PW11/A (site Gajraj file for further investigation. On plan of D-50 Singh same day, he was handed over prepared by complaints of Hamid and Khalid, PW11 dated Page 8 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003352-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 334/2021, FIR No. 135/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description Proved Name of of documents documents/ case Witness properties which were clubbed in this case. 11.05.2020); PW11 recorded statement of Ex.PW11/B these two complainants. On (seizure memo of 11.05.2020, PW11 called crime photographs team at the shops of Hamid and handed over by Khalid in property no. D-50, complainant Gokalpuri. SI Surender handed Khalid.) & over SOC report to him and Ct.
Mohit took photographs. PW11 Ex.PW11/C collected photographs taken by (combined site crime team of property D-2 as plan prepared by well as D-50. PW11 also PW11 dated prepared site plan of D-50. PW11 10.12.2021) seized photographs handed over by Khalid, vide seizure memo.
On 03.06.2020 PW11 was informed by ASI Sushil that accused was arrested in FIR No.148/20. PW11 interrogated and arrested accused Rohit in this case, after his identification by Ct. Satender, HC Sachin Rana and one Shoaib in the police station on same day. Arrest memo of Rohit is Ex.A-11 and personal search memo is Ex.A-
12 (admitted documents). PW11 also recorded statement of another eyewitness namely Irshad and Chanderkala and thereafter, he filed main chargesheet.
On 19.04.2021, PW11 obtained complaint u/s. 195 Cr.P.C, which is Ex.A-18, which was for violation of order u/s. 144 Cr.P.C.
i.e. Ex.A-13 (admitted documents).
Page 9 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003352-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 334/2021, FIR No. 135/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description Proved Name of of documents documents/ case Witness properties PW11 had also sent exhibits of this case to FSL, Rohini and had prepared a combined site plan i.e. Ex.PW11/C. PW11 also obtained report from FSL, recorded statement of Ct. Pradeep and obtained certificate u/s. 65-B I.E. Act from Khalid in respect of photographs collected from him.
PW11 filed a supplementary chargesheet alongwith aforesaid materials.
Admitted documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. Complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC as Ex.A-1, FIR as Ex.A-2, certificates u/s 65B of I.E. Act as Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4, GD no.42A as Ex.A-5, GD no.38A as Ex.A-6, Inspection report by District Mobile Crime Team as Ex.A-7, photographs (10 in numbers) as Ex.A-8 (colly), finger print expert report as Ex.A-9, photographs (8 in numbers) as Ex.A- 10, arrest memo of accused Rohit as Ex.A-11, personal search memo of accused Rohit as Ex.A-12, prohibitory order u/s 144 Cr.PC as Ex.A-13, certificates u/s 65B of I.E.Act as Ex.A-14, endorsement on rukka as Ex.A-15, Photographs as Ex.A-16; CDR of mobile no.9354443025 as Ex.A-17 (colly. 4 pages); copy of complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. as Ex.A-18; forwarding letter dated 10.02.2022 of FSL, Rohini as Ex.A-19; FSL report dated 10.02.2022 as Ex.A-20; certificate under Section 65-B of I.E. Act as Ex.A-21 and acknowledgment of case acceptance in FSL dated 06.09.2021 as Ex.A-22.
PLEA OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C.
8. Accused Rohit took plea in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was falsely implicated in this case by the investigating agency in order to work out the case. He challenged his identification by the witnesses in this case taking plea that they have deposed falsely against him being interested to show that Page 10 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003352-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 334/2021, FIR No. 135/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 the case was solved. He denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. He did not lead defence evidence. ARGUMENTS
9. Sh. Vimal Kumar Singh, ld. counsel for accused Rohit argued that PW5 was present at D-2 and she deposed that rioter had covered their faces, which means that even PW6 and PW8 could not have seen and identified anyone. He further argued that no video or other evidence is available on the record to show presence of accused Rohit at the place of incident. PW6 and PW8 did not record any information about having seen accused in the riot. They were introduced as eyewitnesses falsely, only to solve the case.
10. Per contra, Sh. R.C.S. Bhadoria, ld. Special PP for State along with Ms. Simran Chawla argued that public witnesses proved damage to properties. He further argued that PW6 and PW8 identified accused as member of the mob. He further argued that this case relates to properties no. D-2 and D-50 having two shops, hence, their statements have to be read only in respect of D-2 and D-50. He further argued that due to large mob, PW6 and PW8 could not apprehend anyone.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY AND RIOT
11. PW1 was cited as one the eye witnesses of the incidents probed in this case. However, in his testimony before the court this witness could not remember the date, when he had seen the mob collecting near his house. Moreover, the places of incidents were in B and C block Gokalpuri. PW1 was resident of A-21, Page 11 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003352-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 334/2021, FIR No. 135/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 Gokalpuri and prosecution did not explain as to whether his house was in close proximity to places of incidents probed in this case. Therefore, his evidence is of no use to reach any conclusion.
12. Two complainants in this case i.e. PW3 and PW9 were not present at the time of the respective incidents. Therefore, they were not expected to say anything about the incident. PW5 was though not present at the time of incident at her house, but she was in her house on that day, when a mob had attacked at her house between 11Am-12PM. On the other hand, PW6 and PW8 were police officials on duty in the said area. They did depose about a mob of around 30-40 persons indulging into vandalism in the area of Gokalpuri. Both of them deposed about properties of PW3, PW5 (D2 being adjacent to D1) and PW9 being vandalized and set ablaze by this mob. The given description of acts of this mob in the background of prevailing situation, do indicate about formation of unlawful assembly with a common object to vandalize and damage the properties. The photographs taken by official from crime team i.e. Ex. A-8 read with certificate Ex. A-4 leave no doubt that property no. D-2 was set ablaze. Hence, I find it sufficiently established that an unlawful assembly looted articles and vandalized the properties of PW3, PW5 and PW9, and they set ablaze property of PW5 as well. IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED ROHIT
13. As already noted herein above, PW1 did not help the prosecution in establishing presence of accused in the mob. Ld. Special P.P. relied upon the testimony of PW6 and PW8, to say that presence Page 12 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003352-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 334/2021, FIR No. 135/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 of accused in the mob behind the incidents, is well established. It is true that both these police officials claimed having seen accused in the mob at both the places of incident. However, they did not disclose their such knowledge prior to 03.06.2020 in the formal manner before anyone. It was only on 03.06.2020, when accused was called in the police station, that these two officials purportedly informed the IO that accused was present in the mob. PW8 in his cross examination claimed that he had seen incident at D2 between 10-11am. Though PW5 deposed that though mob had attacked on her house between 11am-12pm, but aaparently by the time she left her house, mob did not vandalize he rhouse nor was it set on fire. PW8 further deposed that prior to 03.06.2020, he did inform his senior officer about seeing accused in the mob. However, after making such claim, PW8 came up with only evasive answers. Firstly, he claimed that he had informed Duty Officer, but he again changed his version to say that he did not remember as to whom had he given such information. He could not tell the time of giving such information. Thereafter, he retracted from his claim and said that he did not remember if he had informed any officer about seeing and identifying accused in the mob prior to 03.06.2020. Both of these witnesses had admittedly not made any DD entry to record identifying accused in the mob. Both of them claimed identifying only one person in the mob i.e. accused.
14. In the case of Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202, the Supreme Court while dealing with the aspect of identification of members of a mob, approved the test of consistent testimony by Page 13 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003352-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 334/2021, FIR No. 135/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 four witnesses as applied by High Court in that case. It was done as a rule of prudence. Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramlal Devappa Rathod, (2015) 15 SCC 77, dealt with the same question and reiterated the rule of prudence as laid down in the case of Masalti (supra), with some clarifications. The thrust of the court remained on the aspect of credibility and reliability of the evidence and precaution to be taken before reaching conclusion of guilt of an accused, who is prosecuted with aid of Section 149 IPC.
15. Coming back to the evidence of this case, I find that having knowledge of a person involved in the riot was not an ordinary information for PW6 and PW8. Subject to any exigency, such information should have been recorded in formal manner at the earliest possible time, in the police station. Prosecution record shows that one Shoaib had claimed having prepared video of riot of 24.02.2020, wherein accused was seen among rioters. He provided that video to another police officer in other case. It is possible that on the basis of that video, after ascertaining particulars of accused, he would have been named and shown to be identified in other cases also, which related to same area, even though other incidents took place at different point of time. In the background of this possibility and rule of prudence mentioned in the above-mentioned judgments, I find that on the basis of testimony of PW6 and PW8, assuming presence of accused in the mob behind the incidents probed in this case, will not be safe. Hence, accused is found entitled for benefit of doubt.
Page 14 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003352-2021 State v. Rohit SC No. 334/2021, FIR No. 135/2020, PS Gokalpuri Judgment dated 17.01.2023 CONCLUSION
16. My foregoing discussion and observations lead me to hold that prosecution though established the incident of riot, vandalism and arson, but it failed to prove presence of accused in the unlawful assembly responsible for such incidents, beyond reasonable doubts.
DECISION
17. In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, accused Rohit is hereby acquitted of all the charges leveled against him in this case. Digitally signed by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2023.01.17 13:18:23 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 17.01.2023 ASJ-03 (North- East) (This order contains 15 pages) Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Page 15 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi