Court Acquits 10 Men In Delhi Riots Case, Flags Gap In Delhi Police's Evidence
A Delhi Court has acquitted 10 men in a case related to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots while flagging gaps in the evidence put forth by the Delhi Police.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts acquitted Mohd. Shahnawaz, Mohd. Shoaib, Shahrukh, Rashid, Azad, Ashraf Ali, Parvez, Mohd. Faizal, Rashid and Mohd. Tahir.
Charges were framed against the 10 men on December 07, 2021, for the offences punishable under 147, 148, 436, 454, 392, 452, 427, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The complaint was filed by one Narender Kumar alleging that during the riots, the accused entered his house, looted various articles and set on fire furniture. It was also alleged that they damaged the shop present in the building.
While acquitting the accused, the court noted that the prosecution witnesses, a head constable ASI, 3 gave a different picture of the incident. This contradictory stand taken by these two alleged eyewitnesses creates a dent in their credibility, the court said.
The judge also noted that another police officer claimed that he was on duty with two other officers even though he was assigned duty in a different place.
“Thus, there is another gap in the evidence of prosecution, to give a contradictory picture. This gap goes on to adversely affect the credibility of claim made by all aforesaid three eye-witnesses,” the court said.
The judge further flagged an “element of artificiality” in the claim of the third IO in the case, who was also the prosecution witness.
“All these scenarios go on to cast doubt over the manner, in which PW17 claimed to examine aforesaid police eye-witnesses, who were otherwise posted in the same police station since the beginning of the investigation,” the court said.
It added: “I can understand that due to ongoing other problems in the form of managing after effect of riots and Covid-19, there could have been delay in going ahead with the investigation. However, the artificiality of claim, is different thing which creates doubt regarding genuineness of the claim made by IO and aforesaid police eye-witnesses.”
The judge concluded that the top three prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, did not support the case of prosecution on the aspect of identification of accused persons.
“Thus, the overall effect remains that I find it unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW6, PW9 and PW13, to believe that all the accused persons were part of the mob, which had attacked upon the property of PW1,” it said.