DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

29 acquitted in 2017 Panchkula violence case

None of the witnesses identifies accused as either assailants or persons who indulged in any vandalism
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
A firefighter tries to douse a fire during violence following the Dera Sacha Sauda chief’s conviction in 2017. Tribune file
Advertisement

A local court has acquitted 29 people in a case related to riots in Panchkula in 2017, in the aftermath of the conviction of Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in a rape case.

Advertisement

More than 40 people were killed in the riots and a total of 152 cases were registered across Panchkula but there is no conviction so far.

The FIR in the present case was registered on the complaint of Assistant Commandant Seema Suraksha Bal (SSB) Santosh Pandit on August 26. As per the complaint, 40 personnel of SSB were present at HAFED Chowk, Sector 2, Panchkula, on law and order duty. While controlling the mob of followers of Ram Rahim, they were attacked, leading to injury to seven personnel of the SSB company.

Advertisement

Charges were framed against the accused in 2019 for rioting, criminal intimidation, assaulting a public servant, violation of Section 144 of CrPC, criminal conspiracy, and Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act.

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, Ajay Kumar, said “none of those witnesses identified the accused either as assailants or the persons who did any vandalism or arson on August 25, 2017.”

Advertisement

The judgment dated April 9 added, “…there is no direct evidence available, which can connect the accused persons with the alleged commission of crime.”

It added, “Though prosecution is heavily relying upon the confessional statements of accused persons suffered in the police custody, whereby they allegedly admitted their guilt but aforesaid confessional statements cannot be admitted into evidence because of bar contained under Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act.”

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts