By Muslim Mirror Desk

A Delhi court on Tuesday framed charges against Shahrukh Pathan, the man who was captured while firing gunshots in front of a policeman during Delhi’s anti-Muslim pogrom. The court observed that it was not an ordinary case of individuals or groups committing an unlawful act.

Advocate Khalid Akhtar, who is associated with Pathan’s case, raised his concerns against the court order. He said the charge-sheet was filed with a set target, wherein the complainant was tutored to “aggravate” the charges against Pathan.

“The complainant, Deepak Dahiya, had stated in several of his interviews that “Shahrukh had not shot at him and that he had only fired in the air”. These interviews were disregarded only because these interviews were not made a part of the chargeseheet,” Mr Akhtar stated in a virtual conversation with Muslim Mirror.

He believes that Pathan should have been relieved of the ‘attempt to murder’ charge (307).

According to him, the charge-sheet was filed with a set target wherein the complainant was tutored to aggravate the charges and that is precisely why the investigating officers did not incorporate the interviews, which negates the offence of attempted murder.

Mr Akhtar said he is considering challenging the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat

Mr Rawat has framed charges against Pathan and three others namely Shamim, Abdul Shehzad and Ishtiyaq Malik under sec. 147, 148, 186, 188, 353/l, 307 IPC read with sec. 149 of the IPC. Pathan has additionally been charged under sec. 25 & 27 Arms Act. Another accused namely Kaleem Ahmed was charged under sec. 216 IPC.

“From the statement of HC Deepak Dahiya, it is quite apparent that accused Shahrukh Pathan led a group of rioters who formed an unlawful assembly at 66 Foota Road on 24.02.2020 at about 2.00 PM and fully armed with deadly weapons, committed rioting, attempt on the life of HC Deepak Dahiya, obstructed a public servant in discharge of his public functions and assaulted or used criminal force on a public servant to deter the public servant from discharge of his duty,” the court said.

The court added that the statement of Mr Dahiya and the additional electronic footage is enough for framing charges against Pathan.