The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by the Delhi Police against a trial court order rejecting its application seeking the recall of a prosecution witness in the trial pertaining to an arson case connected to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. One of the accused in this case is former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Tahir Hussain.
After hearing the matter, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dictated the order: "Submissions heard, record perused. Dismissed. No merit." A detailed copy of the order is awaited.
The counsel for the police argued that on February 7, 2023, charges were framed against the six accused persons, and the matter was listed for prosecution evidence. On January 28, 2025, the prosecution examined PW-23 (Sub-Inspector), who stated that on February 24, 2020, at around 11:30 PM to midnight, he had gone regarding a call made by the accused and found that the shop in question was in a burnt condition, and the shutter was also broken. It was alleged that a shop located in Karawal Nagar, Chand Bagh, was looted, vandalized, and set ablaze by alleged rioters.
The counsel further stated that on February 4, 2025, the prosecution examined PW-26 (Head Constable), who deposed that on February 24, 2020, at 11:30 PM to midnight, he had accompanied the SI (PW-23) and found the shop in normal condition. In light of this discrepancy, the prosecution moved a plea to recall PW-23, but the same was rejected on February 7, 2025.
The accused's counsel argued that the trial court's order was reasoned and did not require interference. He pointed out that the statement of witness PW-23 was already available with the prosecution, and if they found any discrepancy regarding the date on which the shop was seen burnt, there was nothing preventing the prosecutor from confronting the witness on the same date. He also noted that the petitioner had stated that there are as many as 10 witnesses who have given the date of the incident as February 25, 2020.
The state's counsel contended that the trial court had erred in rejecting the application to recall PW-23, as the testimony of PW-26 had introduced a discrepancy regarding the date of the incident. However, the High Court found no merit in the police's plea and upheld the trial court's decision.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.