A Delhi court has charged former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, his brother Shah Alam, and four other men in a Northeast Delhi riots case, stating that the mob had a “clear-cut objective in mind, to kill and harm Hindus”.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala on Thursday framed charges against Tahir, Alam, Gulfam, Tanveer Malik, Nazim and Kasim under sections of attempt to murder, punishment for criminal conspiracy, and several sections related to the offence of rioting.

The FIR in this case was registered at Dayalpur police station in connection with a gunshot injury sustained by one Ajay Jha on February 25, 2020.

While framing charges, the court said that the “facts and evidence of this case show that a number of persons assembled at the house of Tahir Hussain”.

“Some of them were equipped with firing weapons. Petrol bombs were also arranged, by accumulating the required materials, in the house of Tahir Hussain. All these things were done to target Hindus. Every member of the mob assembled there, participated in achieving and encouraging others, to target Hindus. Such conducts of the members of this mob show that they were acting out of meeting of their mind and with a clear-cut objective in mind, to kill and harm Hindus,” the order reads.

The court said that the mob acted out of a criminal conspiracy and, hence, “all accused are liable to be tried for hatching criminal conspiracy to indulge into riot and kill Hindus and harm properties of Hindus”.

The accused were represented by their defence counsel – advocate Rizwan, Salim Malik and Abdul Gaffar.

They had raised the issue of a lack of test identification parade (TIP), absence of video, and non-recovery of weapons in this case.

The court said there was no need for a TIP as the witnesses had named the accused in their statements.

“Absence of video of the incident in question or absence of name of accused in the FIR or absence of recovery of actual weapon of the offence do not make the case of prosecution unbelievable. Significance of such omissions depends upon facts of each case and that too at the final stage of the case. Actual weapon used for firing in this case could not be recovered,” the court said.

The court said that this “cannot wash away the evidence of witnesses, who stated about firing of gunshots by Gulfam and Tanveer. Hence, non-recovery of actual weapon cannot be a ground to discard the case of prosecution”.

Over 60 corporates participate in mental health pledge