New Delhi: A Delhi court has slammed a 2020 riots investigation, calling it “incongruous”, as the man who was a complainant in the matter and suffered a gunshot while escaping the riotous mob was himself named as an accused in the case.Sajid alleged that he suffered a gunshot injury while trying to escape a riotous crowd on February 25, 2020.“…curiously, Sajid during investigation was made an accused. One of the primary reasons was that since he had suffered a gunshot injury during the riots, he can be held to be … part of the riotous mob. By this logic, every injured person in a riots case can be made an accused,” additional sessions judge Amitabh Rawat observed, LiveLaw reported.The court made these observations while discharging six accused from the offence of attempt to murder in a case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.Sajid was one of the accused, who was to face trial in this case. The first information report (FIR) was also registered on the basis of Sajid’s complaint under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).“These aspects of investigation are incongruous in as much as if Sajid is stated to be an accused in this matter, he can’t be made as witness as then he would be as a witness who will give the testimony on behalf of prosecution and also the accused who does cross-examination of himself,” the court said.Also read: Delhi Police Affidavit Shows Muslims Bore Brunt of Riots, Silent on Who Targeted Them and WhyAccording to the report, Sajid was examined as part of the investigation and since he had suffered an injury during the riots, it was deduced that he was part of the riotous mob.In March 2020, a constable gave a statement identifying all six accused persons as part of the riotous mob.The court observed that for the purpose of proving the offence of attempt to murder, the prosecution had to show that a gunshot injury was caused to Sajid.“Either Section 307 IPC can’t be made the way prosecution seeks to make it or if the prosecution’s case is that all seven accused persons were part of the riotous mob due to their presence, Section 307 IPC cannot be attracted but only sections attracting riots,” it said.The judge also said that since only the constable’s statement was taken into account who claimed that he identified all accused persons as participating in the riots, all of them cannot be charged under section 307 of the IPC.However, the court added that it could be argued that all accused persons participated in the riots.
