Court Discharges 2 Accused Of Charge Of Burning Property

2020 Delhi Riots: Court Discharges 2 Accused Of Charge Of Burning Property

A Delhi Court on Tuesday discharged 2 accused of allegation of burning property during 2020 Delhi riot.

New Delhi:

 A Delhi Court on Tuesday discharged two accused of the allegation of burning property during the North East Delhi riots. On the basis of photographs, the Court noted that the case of destruction of property by fire is not made out against the accused persons. This case was registered in Dayal Pur police station under rioting and other sections.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulsatya Pramachala discharged Johny and Sunney of the allegation of the destruction of property by fire under Section 436 IPC. The Court has remanded back the matter to the magistrate court as other sections invoked in the matter are not sessions triable.

See also  BJP's "Dirty Politics" Hindering Education Of Children In Delhi: AAP Leader Manish Sisodia

Section 436 IPC refers to the destruction of any building, which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property.

The present case was registered on the complaint of Mohsin Ali. Later on, three more complaints were clubbed as made by Irshad Malik, Hamsuddin and Kafil Ahmed.

They noted that except for Irshad Malik, the other complainants mentioned the allegations of theft or looting of material from their gym, and house and allegations of burning of the articles after taking them out on the road.

However, Irshad Malik had referred to a godown and the burning of cycle rickshaws parked therein. The complainant also produced some photographs.

See also  Nagaland Bans "Mass Casual Leave" Stir Of Doctors

The court said that the photographs show that it was an open area having one tin shed with support of an adjacent wall and nothing else.

Allegedly, this was the place to keep cycle rickshaws, but this was apparently not a building, instead it was an open place and at the most, it was having a tin shed, it added.

The description of this place/ godown does not fulfil the criteria of Section 436 IPC i.e. being a building. Therefore, I find that a case of an offence under section 436 IPC is not made out from the alleged facts and materials placed on the record, the court said.

See also  Twitter User Shares How Successful Businessmen Have Been Financially Supported By Spouses

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Featured Video Of The Day

Anupam Kher To NDTV On ‘Kashmir Files’ Row: “Planned Strategy By Toolkit Gang”

More Topics to Follow

Auto & Bike Auto & Bike
Entertainment Entertainment
Electric Vehicles Electric Vehicles
Gadgets Gadgets
India India
Lifestyle Lifestyle
Technology Technology
World World
OnlineWiki OnlineWiki
IPL 2023 IPL 2023
User Review
( votes)