New Delhi: A local court has now framed attempt to murder charge against Shahrukh Pathan, who was infamously seen in viral videos pointing a gun at a Delhi Police Head Constable during the north-east Delhi riots last year, rejecting that argument that he was just trying to intimidate the police and had no intent
to kill.
A photograph of Pathan pointing a gun at Delhi Police Head Constable Deepak Dahiya had surfaced on social media during the communal riots last year. He was arrested on March 3, 2020, and is currently lodged in Tihar Jail.
While framing the charges, additional sessions judge Amitabh Rawat said it was quite apparent that Pathan led a group of rioters, attempted on Dahiya's life, obstructed and used criminal force on a public servant on February 24,
2020.
The judge charged Pathan under sections 147 (punishment for rioting), 148 (rioting armed with a deadly weapon), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of duty), and 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the IPC.
Charges were also framed under sections 353 (assault), 307 (attempt to murder) read with section 149 (member of unlawful assembly guilty of a common offence) of the IPC and various sections of the Arms Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
ASJ Rawat noted that the intention to kill the cop was clearly made out from the statement given by Dahiya that Pathan aimed at his head and fired but he managed to escape. He corroborated this with the video material available on record, which showed him pointing the gun at the cop's head and
firing.
Secondly, even as per the video footage, the accused raised his pistol (not sideways but straight) aiming at the victim who is taller in height than him, but the direction of the pistol is certainly aimed at the head of Head Constable Deepak Dahiya, and even the point at which the trigger is pulled, the aim is straight towards Head Constable Deepak Dahiya, the judge noted in an order dated December 7.
The judge also took exception to the argument by the counsel of the accused that after the first firing, Pathan had a second opportunity to kill Dahiya but did not as there was no intention.
Judge Rawat said that the incident occurred in a flash of seconds, and to diminish the valour of a brave policeman by arguing it as an act of magnanimity of the accused in not killing the policeman is neither palatable nor legally
sound.
Denying discharge in section 188 of the IPC, the judge said it was not an ordinary case of groups committing an unlawful act, but riots of such a nature as has not been witnessed since the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 and hence, knowledge of section 144 of the CrPC can be presumed.
Judge Rawat further said that discrepancies in the statement of Dahiya in the charge sheet and certain interviews will be looked into at the stage of the trial. Besides Pathan, the judge also framed charges against four more accused, Kaleem Ahmad, Ishtiyak Malik, Shamim, and Abdul Shehzad, in the case.