[ad_1]
Noting that they are trying to “aim at an unknown target in the darkness” with an “intention to delay the trial”, a Delhi court dismissed two separate applications filed by multiple accused in the Northeast Delhi riots that sought production of documents which police may have relied on but withheld in their chargesheet since it allegedly favoured the accused.
The applications moved by activists Gulfisha Fatima, Devangana Kalita and seven others sought copies of documents collected by police in a murder case of a bystander, Arman. Five other accused persons, including United Against Hate founder Khalid Saifi, had moved similar applications in connection with the violence, which took place at the Khureji anti-CAA protest site.
Metropolitan Magistrate Abhinav Pandey observed, “Even if there is an allegation regarding documents being collected by the prosecution which favour the accused and, therefore, are not relied upon by the prosecution, they shall not be considered necessary and desirable to be produced at the stage before framing of charge.”
The court has said the necessity and desirability shall only arrive at the time of confrontation of prosecution witnesses and at the time of leading defence evidence, and it is during this stage that accused may be within his right to move an application for the purpose of their production.
The court said the applications filed by the accused appear to be absolutely vague and “from the arguments, it can be gathered that the accused persons/ applicants have been trying to aim at an unknown target in the darkness”.
“Merely stating that some alleged documents, which were undisclosed, were necessary for the defence of the accused and may even entitle them to a discharge is no argument and seems to be with an intention to delay the trial, and not to take any specific defence, unless the contents and the nature of the documents are not sufficiently disclosed,” the court said.
The court said the prosecution has been relying on numerous other evidence material like the statement of protected eyewitnesses and video footage. However, it “does not prima facie appear to be a case wherein the accused may be entitled to a discharge, merely on the basis of a compilation of video footage of different incidents of riots or certain material allegedly withheld by the prosecution”.
In this case, the court previously observed in 2021 that it noted no deficiency in documents supplied to the accused and advised them and their counsel to “show some sincerity and pragmatism regarding their issues on committal of the present case to Sessions Court at the earliest”.
[ad_2]
Source link