NEW DELHI: A city court has framed charges against Shahrukh Pathan, who had pointed a gun at head constable Deepak Dahiya during the northeast Delhi riots, saying it was not an ordinary case of individuals or groups committing an unlawful act.
“These riots are of such a nature as have not been witnessed since the anti-Sikh riots of 1984,” Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat said in the order.
The charges were framed against Pathan, Shamim, Abdul Shehzad and Ishtiyaq Malik for the offences under IPC sections 147 and 148 (rioting), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of duty) and 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), in addition to sections 353 (assault) and 307 (attempt to murder) read with 149 (unlawful assembly).
Pathan was also charged under the Arms Act. Kaleem Ahmed was charged for committing an offence under IPC Section 216 (harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered).
It was observed that Dahiya, in the face of such an attack, resolutely stood his ground and even showed his danda in front of a gun-wielding accused. He showed his devotion to duty, which might have played into the mind of the accused.
“In any event, this incident occurred in a flash. To diminish the valour of a brave policeman by arguing it as an act of magnanimity of the accused in not killing the policeman is neither palatable nor legally sound,” the court said.
The court noted that from Dahiya’s statement, it was quite apparent that Pathan led a group of rioters, who formed an unlawful assembly on February 24, 2020, fully armed with deadly weapons. It further observed that there was not only the specific statement of Dahiya implicating the accused, but also additional electronic evidence in the form of video footage to nail Pathan’s alleged conduct.
“It has been specifically stated that Pathan aimed at the head of Dahiya and fired at him, but he escaped. This statement is enough for attracting Section 307 IPC at the stage of framing of charge,” said the court.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Pathan, argued that a careful perusal of the video footage would show that there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill Dahiya. She had further claimed that Pathan was only trying to threaten or intimidate the police officer by firing in the air and his hands, being raised upwards, showed only an intention to scare and not to kill.
Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, appearing for police, argued that Pathan was visible in the video footage allegedly firing at Dahiya, who was taller than the accused, and missing the target.
