A Delhi court on Monday convicted one person, Dinesh Yadav in the North East Delhi riots case that tremored the national capital in February 2020.
The Newster/Kaleem Ullah Fasihi
A Delhi court on Monday convicted one person, Dinesh Yadav in the North East Delhi riots case that tremored the national capital in February 2020. It is the fist conviction in the case.
Dinesh Yadav was accused of being involved in the riotous mob who vandalized the house of a complainant, Manori.
Yadav is convicted under “Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon), 457 (house trespass), 392 (robbery), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.) read with Section 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object)” of the Indian Penal Code, as reported by the Bar and Bench.
The court said, “The fact that the accused also belongs to Hindu community and was present in the mob armed with a wooden rod which mob resorted to violence against the Muslims, indicates that he shared the common object of the unlawful assembly. The mere fact that he was not seen entering complainant’s house or vandalizing or looting or putting it on fire, does not mean that he was mere a bystander”.
Read More:Babri Masjid, a Timeline of How Indianness was Safforanised
The court also noted that there was nothing substantial to prove that Dinesh was not involved in the unlawful assembly at the time of riots.
“It does not appear that his presence at the incident spot was only because he is a resident of that very area, as sought to be argued by his Ld. Counsel. The circumstances in which the members of Muslim community were identified & beaten, their vehicles damaged and their houses broken open, robbed and set ablaze by the rioters comprising the members of the other community coupled with the object of the unlawful assembly i.e. to assault the Muslims & damage their properties and the fact that the accused was seen amongst the rioters armed with a wooden rod, are sufficient to indicate beyond any doubt that he too shared the common object of the assembly and had knowledge that these types of incidents would be indulged into by the members of the assembly”, the court added.
Yadav was identified by the plaintiff herself and her nephews Arif and Ashiq. Additionally, Yadav was also identified by the police constable deployed at the riot site.
About Author
