A Delhi court recently questioned the investigation in a case where a Muslim man, Sajid, approached the police to file a complaint after allegedly suffering gunshot wounds on February 25, 2020.
While hearing the case, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat, observed, “Curiously, Sajid during the investigation was made an accused. One of the primary reasons was that since he had suffered a gunshot injury during the riots.”
Rawat further questioned the investigation stating that on one hand, the prosecution charged six persons under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, for an attempt to murder Sajid, who has been charged for rioting.
The court further noted that Sajid was one of the witnesses of the riots. It further said that attempt to murder can’t be proved unless the gunshot wound is proved, reported Live Law. They questioned how Sajid could appear as a witness in a case in which he himself is the accused.
It is to be noted that the police had registered cases against the man, under various sections of the IPC.
The man was charged under the following sections:
- Section 144 joining an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons
- Section 143 being a member of an unlawful assembly
- Section 145 dispute likely to cause a breach of peace
- Section 147 punishment for rioting
- Section 148 rioting and armed with a deadly weapon
- Section 149 damage to public property
- Section 188 disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant
- Section 307 attempt to murder
Following this, he was taken for a medical examination. Even after it was evident that Sajid suffered a gunshot, the police deduced that he was a part of the mob.
After studying the charge sheet the court observed that it seems as if the entire focus of the investigation has been to show the involvement of six accused persons as involved with the riotous mob which led to Sajid’s injury.
The court remarked that the prosecution showed Sajid’s injury as a result of him being a part of the mob. Hence, only parts of section 307 would be applicable. The sessions judge stated that the case is not triable in its jurisdiction, referring the same back to the concerned magistrate.
Follow on Twitter | Posted by Mohammed Baleegh | 
