India News | NE Delhi Violence: Court Discharges Two Persons Accused of Burning Property
Get latest articles and stories on India at LatestLY. 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.
New Delhi [India], November 30 (ANI): 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.
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.
Also Read | MCD Elections 2022: AAP Announces '10 Guarantees' for Delhi Traders if Voted to Power.
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.
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. (ANI)
(The above story is verified and authored by ANI staff, ANI is South Asia's leading multimedia news agency with over 100 bureaus in India, South Asia and across the globe. ANI brings the latest news on Politics and Current Affairs in India & around the World, Sports, Health, Fitness, Entertainment, & News. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)