Shahrukh Pathan calls for release for pointing gun at policeman

Shahrukh Pathan, the man who pointed a gun at a policeman during the riots in northeast Delhi, demanded to be removed from his post saying his intention was simply to frighten and not to kill.

The accused on Thursday requested the release of a Delhi court in the FIR over an incident in which Pathan was caught pointing a gun at a policeman, whose footage had gone viral on social media and the internet .

“Whatever my preparation, it may be my preparation to scare. But it is not the preparation to kill”, Senior lawyer Menaka Guruswamy appearing for Shahrukh Pathan said Additional sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat who heard the arguments on the prosecution.

Pathan was booked in FIR 51/2020 registered at Jafrabad Police Station. These are charges under sections 147 (riots), 148 (riots, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (illegal assembly), 153A (fostering enmity between different groups for religious reasons, etc. ), 186 (obstructing an official in the exercise of public functions), 188 (Disobeying an order legally promulgated by an official) 307 (Attempted murder), 353 (Aggression or use of criminal force to deter an official from fulfill its functions), 505 (Statements of public mischief), 120B (Criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intent) of the IPC as well as Article 27 (Punishment for use of weapons, etc.) of the Weapons Act.

Guruswamy argued that under Article 307 (attempted murder) of the ICC, the threshold for “intention to kill ” must be linked to the intent to murder under section 300.

“One is the intention and two do this act. We will show that there was no preparation. We will demonstrate that there was no intention,“she argued.

Guruswamy then sought to show Pathan’s conduct by showing the 26-second video in court, recorded by Hindu journalist Saurabh Trivedi during the incident.

“As shocking as it may be for the citizens of Delhi, including me, but at no time did Mr. Pathan shoot Mr. Dahiya. I shoot in the air. I shoot from a distance,” he said. -he adds. submitted Guruswamy to argue that Pathan did not intend to kill the officer.

Further, she argued that after Dahiya made his main statement in the FIR, he also made five subsequent additional statements adding various details, thus improving the same.

“… now I’m not part of the crowd but I’m leading the crowd.” It’s not an ordinary crowd, it’s the anti-CAA crowd. be part of a crowd to become the same person leading the crowd. Nine months after the incident, he says not only that I shoot, but that I am also part of the throwing crowd. He also declares that there is another person. parade, just like that, this magic works “, she added.

“I wonder, we have mechanisms in place that prevent exactly that. We have TIP for that reason so that you don’t magically introduce yet another person. My problem is not to excuse the conduct. C ‘is about the kind of legal process. That’s what this kind of case is a test of. Who are we? Don’t we tip? The tough cases of our time are never a test for the accused. This is the test of the justice system, the bar and the city we live in. “

She argued that although the main complainant made five additional statements, he also presented two new defendants as a person who did not perform any test ID parade or MLC regarding the injury suffered by the complainant. She also added that there was no indication of a full investigation.

Guruswamy went on to detail the various timestamps in the video to claim that the Article 307 CPI threshold was not met in the case against Shahrukh Pathan.

“Mr. Dahiya is in front of him. The accused is pointing to the right and he is looking to the right. This in itself is a disturbing scene. No officer should face it but here we are on the verge of indictment. accused looks to the right, pointing the pistol to the right. We will now take it from here to where you hear the shot. The hand is raised, the pistol remains in his hands. Mr. Dahiya bends down. He thinks that the accused is shooting at him. But he is mistaken in saying that he is shooting at him. In fact, the accused is shooting in the air. It is shooting in the air. air. It’s not shooting the complainant. He hears a gunshot, he sees someone running, it’s going very fast. Actually, the gun is not pointed at him,“she argued.

To show Pathan’s subsequent conduct after firing the first shot, Guruswamy argued that Pathan had a retention with the Complainant, witnessed in the 15th second of the video, where it was also seen that the residue was on the right side of the plaintiff showing that Pathan was shooting to his right without intending to injure or kill him.

“Neither bullet was actually aimed at Mr. Dahiya. The first shot is in the air. The second is on the right. The residue shows it,” he added. she continued.

“They are having a conversation. Mr. Dahiya says he tells him to maintain law and order. If I wanted to hurt or kill, I had ample opportunity. I do not in any way justify all of this. But I’m talking about the section 307 threshold. Short haul. I am close. If I had intended to shoot him, I would have. Fortunately, this is not my intention. The accused also began to retreat. Even now, there is a possibility that I will hurt myself. I do not do it. I turn around and walk away. Or run away, as the case may be. My hand is on his shoulder. I looked to my right and pull to the right. The residue follows the barrel of the gun, “ she added.

However, at this point the Court noted:

“When he moved his hand was down. Then it was up when he was shooting. The intention should be seen and not the shot. It’s actually at the beginning that will show the intention and not when it’s done. L The intention has to be seen when it begins and not when it ends.

Guruswamy also argued that Shahrukh Pathan’s intention was best to scare the policeman and in such a situation the prosecution should have raised a lesser charge, namely Article 336 of the IPC which provides the offense relating to acts endangering the life or personal safety of others.

“If I intended to kill him, wouldn’t I fire the second shot at him?” You will see that he does everything very quickly. He shoots in the air. Why doesn’t he let go first? do it because he does not intend to hit Mr. Dahiya. If I intended to shoot someone and I had three bullets. Wouldn’t I have touched it? Would I have told him to fall back? Words were exchanged. Watch body language. I have my hand on his shoulder. Was this someone I intended to kill? I had ample opportunity in those 26 seconds that I showed you to kill Mr. Dahiya, or at least injure him. I try to scare him. As reprehensible as it is for a citizen to frighten a police officer, it is not article 307 ”, she added.

Guruswamy also relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case titled Bhim Singh vs.State (1992) SCC OnLine Del 320 where it was observed “The question that arises is that, when the accused cannot be prima facie linked to the crime according to the documents and material available on the record, then why should the accused be forced to undergo the sham of a crime? criminal trial for several years. Failure to interfere with this Court at this stage would have grave and grave consequences leading to manifest injustice. The accused will face the criminal prosecution of a futile trial over several years for prima facie not having committed any offense. “

Concluding his arguments, Guruswamy submitted:

“I want to end with this. I will say that what happened is extremely painful. These are difficult cases from a difficult time in the city. But our rule of law must be impartial. The state has not been able to discharge the charge under Section 307. This is what is in front of your lords. There is no direct movement even though you believe preparations have been made. Because I am pulling towards the front. right. My subsequent actions show that I said “piche hato.” This is a preparation for scaring and certainly not murder. “

The case will now be heard on November 25.

Case title: Etat v. Shahrukh Pathan

Previous Bombay HC authorizes DHFL plea to remove its name from CBI investigation
Next Why term insurance should be at the top of the financial task list