Delhi Riots: Court Acquits Three Men For Lack Of Proof, Says Possibility Can’t Become Evidence
A Delhi Court has acquitted three men in a case concerning the 2020 North-East Delhi riots for lack of proof, while observing that possibility cannot become evidence.Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts acquitted Dinesh Yadav alias Michael, Sandeep alias Mogli and Tinku of the charges of rioting and being members of a riotous mob which vandalized two properties...
A Delhi Court has acquitted three men in a case concerning the 2020 North-East Delhi riots for lack of proof, while observing that possibility cannot become evidence.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts acquitted Dinesh Yadav alias Michael, Sandeep alias Mogli and Tinku of the charges of rioting and being members of a riotous mob which vandalized two properties and looted certain articles.
The three men were chargesheeted in FIR 124 of 2020 which was registered at Gokalpuri police station on the basis of two complaints made by Aakil Saifi and Irfan in respect of vandalism in their properties.
Charges were framed against the three individuals for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 380, 188, 427 and 436 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Passing the acquittal order, the court said that the witnesses, who were the victims, were not present at the concerned places at the time of incident and hence, their statement that the incident was caused by a mob of rioters was based on hearsay only.
“These witnesses stated that they had been informed by some persons about vandalism and arson at their respective places. They did not disclose particulars of those informers nor IO found out their particulars. The evidence of these victims cannot be the basis to say that these incidents were caused by a mob,” the court said.
The judge also noted that identification of the accused persons by one of the prosecution witnesses was based on “leading him to do so” during his cross-examination conducted by the special public prosecutor.
“However, the relevant facts in respect of which this witness was cross-examined by ld. Special PP, were not asked from this witness during his examination-in-chief at all. Without seeking any answer from this witness on those facts, he was straightaway given suggestions by ld. Special PP, which was a wrong practice. Such kind of evidence cannot be relied upon by the court even otherwise,” the judge added.
It was also observed that while there may be a strong possibility that the incidents at the two properties in question were caused by a mob.
The court added that a possibility cannot become evidence and had remained a matter of presumption of the prosecution, based on hearsay evidence or on the basis of possibility only, that there was a mob behind the incidents.
“Therefore, for want of any evidence on the record, I am unable to say that there was a mob behind both the incidents probed in this case,” the court said.