Delhi: Court acquitted Tahir Hussain in a 2015 case, saying – there is no evidence against him

A Delhi court has acquitted Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councilor Tahir Hussain in a 2015 case. In this case, he was accused of causing damage to public property by placing a board on a pillar to wish Happy New Year.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Arun Kumar Garg, in the judgment on April 13, said that the prosecution did not have the meager evidence to prove that Hussain had put up the board or hoarding or that any other side had done the work on his behalf. was accomplished. According to the Bar and Bench report, a case was registered against Hussain under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act (DPDP).

In fact, a head constable of Karawal Nagar police station saw a flex hanging from an electric pole with photographs of Hussain and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The judge, in his order, said that the prosecution had failed to prove how they framed the guilt against the accused.

The judge said in the order, “Indeed, the investigating officer failed to explain in the charge sheet why he nominated the accused for erecting the board as the officer neither took the statements of the local residents of the area where the police had put up the board.” The board was found installed and neither did he record the statement of the printer (who prepared the board).

Let us inform that Hussain has been in jail since February 2020 after being named in the riots in Northeast Delhi in 2020. His alleged role in these communal riots is under various independent investigations.

The latest order of the court said that none of the witnesses were examined by the prosecution in their evidence as to whether the accused had put up that board on the pillar or not. The judge said that during cross-examination some witnesses told the court that they had questioned others about the people who put up the hoardings.

However, he also said that after further questioning, the said witnesses failed to provide details of other people whom he claimed to have got information about the people who put up the hoardings. “In the absence of any evidence that the said board was put up by him or at his instance,” the order said. Therefore, the question of convicting the accused under Section 3 of the DPDP Act does not arise.