No CCTV footage does not mean incident did not happen; Court observes while denying bail to Delhi riots accused
New Delhi: Observing that absence of CCTV footage of an incident does not mean the offence did not take place or the accused was not involved in its commission, a Delhi Court on Friday denied bail to a man in connection with an incident of violence during the February riots.
The case pertains to an FIR alleging instances of a mob stone pelting and causing physical injuries to police personnel and gunshot wounds to one passerby Rohit Shukla on February 24 at Maujpur Chowk in Jafrabad.
The prosecution submitted that the present accused Salman, who was arrested on March 12 on the basis of a statement by a public witness (PW), was part of the mob indulging in rioting and firing on police officers and passersby. Meanwhile, counsel for the accused argued that there was no CCTV footage showing his client committing the alleged act.
During the investigation, the statement of one of the PWs, Tahir, claimed that he saw Salman shouting slogans like "Allah Ho Akbar" and "maro in kafiro ko" and "instigating crowd to commit violence against the Hindu community" at Maujpur Chowk on February 24
Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat in his order said that there were prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC in the whole of the north-east region from February 24 to March 24 despite which "hundreds of people gathered, formed an unlawful assembly and damaged public property while making an attempt on life". "If an unlawful assembly is committing an act, then every member of the assembly is guilty of it, if it is done in prosecution of a common object," ASJ Rawat observed.
On the contention of the accused that the "statement of Tahir is unreliable and that he, in his new statement that he has not stepped out of his home and still saw Salman", the court said that "the reading of the statement by the accused is incorrect as the witness had said that he did not go to his workplace on February 24 which does not mean that he did not step out of his home".
Noting that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the accused, the court said, "It is admitted that there is no CCTV footage of the present incident. However, simply because there is no CCTV footage does not mean that an incident never happened or that the applicant is not involved in the commission of the present offence. CCTV footage is an additional tool of evidence and not the exclusive medium to prove an offence".
