New Delhi: A Delhi sessions court has remanded a 2020 northeast Delhi riots case back to the magistrate court, holding that offences under Sections 399 (preparation to commit dacoity) and 402 (assembling to commit dacoity) of the IPC were not made out from the material on record. Additional sessions judge Sameer Bajpai observed that the evidence indicated vandalism and looting during the riots, but did not show any preparation or plan to commit dacoity, as earlier suggested by the magistrate court. He directed the magistrate to proceed with the case under the offences mentioned in the original chargesheet. According to the prosecution, on Feb 25, 2020, investigating officer Ram Singh and constable Jitender were on duty amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) when they received information about rioting in the Meet Nagar area. On reaching 20 Foot Road and later 25 Foot Road, they allegedly saw a mob of around 200–300 people vandalising and looting shops. The FIR was registered two days later, the prosecution said, citing the prevailing law and order situation. Police alleged that several establishments, including cloth shops, bakeries, a salon and a fast-food outlet, were looted. Four persons were later arrested. Initially, police filed a chargesheet for rioting, theft and related offences. However, in 2022, the magistrate committed the case to the sessions court after observing that some witnesses had stated the assailants were armed with iron pipes or ‘dandas’ and that the accused were more than five in number, making Sections 399 and 402 IPC “prima facie” applicable. The sessions court disagreed, noting the legal requirement of preparation to commit dacoity under Section 399 IPC was not satisfied. The court observed that the prosecution’s case relied primarily on the statement of a single eyewitness, Mohd Aslam, who claimed to have seen rioters vandalising shops and taking away goods. “This is the only statement of an eyewitness who disclosed the acts of the rioters or accused persons,” the court noted. Holding the magistrate’s assessment to be incorrect, judge Bajpai said the eyewitness had not stated that the accused made any preparation or had any plan to commit dacoity, nor that he heard them discussing such intent. “In no stretch of imagination can the accused persons be said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 399 IPC,” the court held. The judge made similar observations regarding Section 402 IPC, saying the magistrate had wrongly concluded that the accused had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity. He also flagged the magistrate’s use of the word “may”, observing it reflected uncertainty about the existence of a prima facie case. Calling the approach improper, the court remanded the matter back to the magistrate court for further proceedings.
