New Delhi: From William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet to the elements of the periodic table such as sodium, neon and radium – there are many witnesses 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case ‘Secret Identity’ is given for “Security”.
According to FIR no. 59/2020, filed on 6 March 2020, The Northeast Delhi riots was a well-planned conspiracy “perpetuated by JNU student Umar Khalid and his associates”.
Chargesheets in the case, as well as court orders, rely on the statements of a number of protected witnesses, including Bond, Saturn, Smith, Echo, Sierra, Helium, Krypton, Johnny, Pluto, Sodium, Radium, Gamma, Delta, Beta, Neon. , Hotel, Romeo, Juliet and James.
ThePrint has copies of the FIR, charge sheet and court orders.
Sources in Delhi Police told ThePrint that while the names of protected witnesses are randomly selected, the security itself has been provided under security. section 44 Under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The section, which deals with provisions for providing protection to witnesses who are deemed to be in danger, says that if the court feels that the life of such witness is in danger, their identity can be kept secret. The court may keep the identity and address of a witness secret on an application made by the witness or by the Public Prosecutor. The court itself can do the same.
If the court decides to grant such protection to a witness, the court shall record its reasons in writing.
“During the course of investigation if it is found by the Investigating Officer and it is considered appropriate that a particular witness is in danger of potential danger to life, he is given a pseudonym for security. More often, sensitive matters such as the Delhi riots case In this, many witnesses were not ready to come forward and record their statements before the investigation team for fear of those accused, harming their lives and future repercussions,” said a source in the Delhi Police.
He said that in this case, many witnesses were apprehensive about coming forward and were then provided security through applications filed before the court by the Public Prosecutor.
According to sources, the naming of these preserved witnesses is random.
“There is no pattern in their naming. The addresses of these individuals are also hidden from public view. Similarly, names are hidden to protect identity, but to maintain separation and ease the process of addressing their statements, they have been given different names by the investigators,” said the source cited above.
“The only focus on naming them is to make one distinct and easy to distinguish from the other,” he said.
read also, Two ‘actions’, 106 arrests, 250 detained – How agencies set ‘stage’ to ban PFI
secret identity and address
As per Section 44, proceedings under UAPA can be conducted “in camera if the court so desires”. According to the provision, once the witness has been given such protection, the court can take various measures for his protection. These include conducting proceedings at a venue decided by the court and issuing directions to ensure that the identity and address of the witness are not disclosed. The court may also order that the name and address of such witness is not mentioned in any of its orders or judgments, or in any record of the case accessible to the public.
The court may also order that “all or none of the proceedings pending before such court shall be published”, in the public interest. Under this provision, whoever contravenes the orders of the court can be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years as well as with fine.
In addition to the provisions of section 44, section 173 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) allows a police officer to attach a note requesting the magistrate to supply certain copies of the statements of witnesses to the accused. Do not, if their disclosure is “not necessary in the interest of justice and unreasonable in the public interest.” In a normal trial, all the statements of the prosecution witnesses have to be disclosed to the accused.
However, in February this year, the Supreme Court Government Revised copies of the statements of the witnesses protected under section 44 may be given to the accused.
‘Big conspiracy during Trump’s visit’
The chargesheet in the Delhi riots case, as well as court orders, have since highly dependent On the statements of these protected witnesses. These statements mention the date when they were recorded and the provisions of the law under which they were recorded.
For example, as per one of the chargesheets, a witness identified as Beta had recorded his statement on April 3, 2020, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
BETA claimed that in February 2020, he was informed by a man identified as Amanullah that Umar Khalid had made a provocative speech in Amaravati, stating that “when US President Donald Trump will visit India , then they will do something through these protests (Anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests) which will send a message to the world that the condition of Muslims in India is very bad and the Indian government is completely anti-Muslim and appeals to the people to come out on the streets. is of.
According to the chargesheet, the statement said: “Thereafter, it seemed to me from the conversations of Amanullah and his associates that during Trump’s visit to India, these people are planning to incite a major riot through these protests. Then I felt that the intention of these people is not right and these people are planning some big conspiracy.
The statement of another protected witness, identified as Romeo, was recorded on June 25, 2020 under section 164 of CrPC, the chargesheet mentioned.
“Sharjeel Imam often used to say that in a city like Delhi where there is such a population of Muslims, we cannot do anything, no riots and no traffic jams. He said that if every Muslim comes out of their homes and joins this campaign, then we will completely bow down the government.
It added: “He said that unless there is an atmosphere of panic and violence in this country, nothing will work. We have to spread panic and violence in such a way that the government makes a separate nation for Muslims.
Several such statements have been relied upon by the courts in deciding the bail pleas of the accused in the case of conspiracy to riot.
For example, in order dismissed On Umar Khalid’s bail application in March this year, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat had taken note of the allegations leveled by the protected witnesses, and said that the statements of these witnesses “opened on the role of the accused persons and the violence, riots, finance discussion is mentioned. and weapons”.
(Edited by Polomi Banerjee)
read also, ‘Triggers’ amid CAA, Delhi riots – Delhi Police finds Jahangirpuri ‘conspiracy’ in WhatsApp chat