A Delhi court has condemned a man to five years in jail in contact with the North East Delhi riots that rocked the national capital last year. This incident was first reported at Gokulpuri Police Station (141/2020).
Dinesh Yadav, the first person to be convicted in the Delhi riots case was found guilty for being the most active member of the mob of rioters who ransacked the house of Manori, the plaintiff in the case and also set fire to it.
He was convicted under sections 143, 147, 148, 457, 392, 436 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. A detailed order, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Virendra Bhat, is awaited.
Firstly a written complaint was lodged by the complainant Manori in which he stated that on February 25 last year at around 11.30 a riotous mob of about 150-200 people entered her house and ransacked her house as well as set fire to her house, in which Dinesh Yadav was playing an active role.
Dinesh Yadav was identified from a supplementary statement was given by the complainant. His identification was done by two witnesses Aashiq and the complainant’s nephew Arif.
Further to identify him, police witnesses including a constable and head constable also gave their statements, who were posted as beat officers in the area at the relevant time.
Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav framed the charges against Dinesh Yadav under the order dated August 3, 2021. The judge expected that there was sufficient evidence against him to frame charges under the relevant sections.
The Court had said in the sentencing order –
“The fact that the accused also belongs to the Hindu community and was present in the mob armed with a wooden pole which mob resorted to violence against the Muslims, implies 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 merely an observer,”
Based on all these facts, the court also observed that there was nothing on the document to indicate that Dinesh had recused himself from the unlawful assembly and that he did not share the common objective of the meeting.
The Judge said that –
“According to the facts, it does not appear that he was present at the scene of the incident just because he is a citizen of the same area, as argued by his attorney. The circumstances under which the partners of the Muslim community were specified and beaten up, Their vehicles were attacked and their houses were ransacked, looted and unlawful assembly by rioters involving other community members, i.e. assaulting Muslims and causing injury to their properties and the fact that the accused had seen rioters armed with wooden sticks, any doubt is adequate to reveal that they also shared the common objective of the Assembly and were conscious that such incidents would be followed by the members of the Assembly,”