Top News

Karkardooma Court acquitted 12 accused including Lokesh Solanki, Pankaj Sharma in the Mursaline murder case to the February 2020 Delhi riots. The court said that the prosecution could not present sufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

New Delhi: Karkardooma Court has given major relief to 12 accused in the Mursaline murder case to the communal riots in North-East Delhi in February 2020. The court acquitted all the 12 accused including Lokesh Solanki, Pankaj Sharma of many serious charges like murder, rioting, arson, dacoity, unlawful assembly and inciting enmity or feelings among the people. The court said in its decision that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Additional Sessions Judge Praveen Singh pronounced the verdict in the case on August 25. The court, after evaluating the witnesses and other evidence presented in the case, said that sufficient and reliable evidence is not present on record to prove the serious offenses charged against the accused. However, the accused Himanshu Thakur was convicted of the crime of possessing stolen property.

Relief to 12 accused in Mursaline murder case

The accused who were acquitted by the court include Lokesh Solanki, Pankaj Sharma, Ankit Chaudhary alias Fauji, Prince alias DJ Wala, Jatin Sharma alias Rohit, Himanshu Thakur, Vivek Panchal alias Nandu, Rishabh Chaudhary alias Tapas, Sumit Chaudhary alias Badshah, Tinku Arora, Sandeep alias Mowgli and Sahil alias Babu.

The case pertains to the violence that took place in Gokulpuri area of ​​north-east Delhi in February 2020. According to the prosecution, Mursaline was murdered during the riots. Following the police investigation, several people were made accused in the case and prosecuted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The court, however, held that the material presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove the major charges leveled against the accused. On this basis he was given the benefit of doubt.

Allegations of murder and riot were not proved

During the hearing of the case, the prosecution had charged the accused with crimes like unlawful assembly, rioting, rioting with deadly weapons, collective responsibility, murder, destruction of evidence, arson and dacoity.

The court said that it was the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the legal elements necessary for these charges. But there was not sufficient evidence on record to prove that all the accused were personally involved in the relevant incidents or had committed the offenses charged.

The court also made it clear that the mere presence of a person in a crowd cannot be the basis for framing serious criminal liability against him. There must be concrete evidence against each accused relating to his personal conduct and his role in the crime.

‘Just being part of the crowd is not enough’

In the judgment, the court made an important observation that the fact that an accused was part of a riotous mob alone is not sufficient to convict him. The prosecution was required to establish what the accused actually did and what was his personal role in the alleged crime.

The court also said that even if the presence of the accused was assumed in the crowd, it was still necessary to prove that they were in possession of deadly weapons or had played an active role in the violent activities. According to the court, there was no concrete evidence available on record to establish that the accused concerned were in possession of weapons.

For this reason, the prosecution could not adequately prove the essential elements of the sections to unlawful assembly and rioting.

Even the statements of eyewitnesses did not help.

While considering the charges of murder of Mursaline, the court also considered the statements of eyewitnesses presented by the prosecution as important. According to the court, none of the people who were said to be eyewitnesses to the murder supported the prosecution’s story.

The witnesses did not confirm that they saw the rioting mob killing Mursaleen near the Joharipur culvert between around 4 pm and 4:30 pm on 25 February 2020.

The court said that when the alleged eyewitnesses do not support the prosecution’s case, there is no sufficient basis to prove the murder charge. For this reason, even the charge of murder under section 302 of IPC could not stand in the court.

Not enough evidence even for robbery charges

Charges to robbery and murder during robbery were also filed in the case. However, the court, after reviewing the records, said that there was not enough evidence to prove these allegations.

During the hearing, the Special Public Prosecutor also admitted that the prosecution did not have sufficient evidence against the accused under sections to murder and dacoity. The court accepted the same finding on the basis of available records and gave the benefit of doubt to the accused in these cases.

Mursaleen’s body was found in the drain

According to the prosecution, on February 28, 2020, at around 10:13 am, Gokulpuri Police Station had received information that a body was lying in a drain near Joharipur Tiraha. After receiving the information, police reached the spot and the body was sent to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital.

The medico-legal case of the body was prepared in the hospital and later it was kept safe in the mortuary. Meanwhile, on March 1, 2020, Nargis had lodged a missing complaint of her husband Mursaleen at Gokulpuri police station.

About 11 days later, on March 12, 2020, Nargis identified the body recovered from the drain as that of her husband Mursaleen. Following this, the police investigation examined the connection between the murder and the riots and a case was brought forward against several accused.

Himanshu Thakur found guilty of possessing stolen property

While the court acquitted 12 accused of murder, rioting, arson, dacoity and other serious charges, Himanshu Thakur did not get complete relief. The court found him guilty of knowingly possessing stolen property under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court said that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the essential facts beyond reasonable doubt in relation to this charge. Therefore Himanshu Thakur was convicted for this crime.

Decisions are coming continuously in cases to Delhi riots.

Many cases to the February 2020 Delhi violence have reached before the courts over the years. In these cases, separate hearings have been held on charges of murder, riot, arson and other serious crimes.

This decision in the Mursaline murder case is also a part of this broader legal process. The court clarified that in a criminal case mere allegations are not enough, but the prosecution has to prove each allegation beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of credible evidence.

In this case, the court, after examining the available testimonies and documentary evidence, found that the evidence required to prove serious charges like murder, riot and dacoity was not sufficient. As a result, 12 accused were acquitted of these charges, while Himanshu Thakur was convicted of a separate offense of possessing stolen property.