"Identification Of Accused Persons Not Established At All, No Material": Court Acquits Two In Delhi Riots Case

A Delhi Court has recently acquitted two men namely Suraj and Yogender Singh in a case concerning the North East Delhi riots of 2020 , observing that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the case against accused persons and that their identification was not established at all. (FIR 95/2020 PS Jyoti Nagar)

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat acquitted the duo of the offences of rioting with deadly weapons (sec. 147 and 148 IPC), mischief of causing fire and destruction of shop of complainant (sec. 427 and 436 IPC), disobedience to the Prohibitory Order under sec. 144 Cr.P.C (sec. 188 IPC) and Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence commit­ted in prosecution of common object (sec. 149 IPC).

The Court was of the view that through the testimonies, the prosecution was not able to bring home the concept of common intention of the rioters involving the alleged accused persons for the purpose of sec. 149 IPC.

The case of the prosecution was that a written complaint of one Md. Salim was filed alleging that his shop was burnt during the riots by the rioters. Upon the endorsement on the complaint, the FIR was registered.

It was the case of the prosecution that among the rioters were accused Suraj and Yogender Singh who had burnt the shop of the complainant. The prosecution had relied upon the statement of alleged eye­ witnesses namely HC Ravinder and public witness Rakesh.

On the strength of the statements of the said witnesses, both Suraj and Yogender Singh, who were already in custody in another FIR, were arrested. They both gave disclosure statement admitting culpability in the offences. On completion of investigation, charge­sheet was filed in the Court.

Perusing the testimony of the complainant, the Court observed that he was not an eye­ witness to the offence of rioting, unlawful assembly or for the identification of accused persons Suraj and Yogender Singh.

Regarding the public witness, who as per the prosecution, had identified both the accused persons, the Court opined that he was not produced by the prosecution as he remained untraceable.

"Added to the whole material and crucial omission in the testimony of witnesses particularly PW2/HC Ravinder is the fact that the public independent eye­witness Rajeev, (as per PW2) or Rakesh (as per PW5) were never produced by the prosecution," the Court said.

While noting that the prosecution had been able to prove that incident of rioting and burning of shop was proved, however, the Court was of the view that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against accused persons.

"The critical public independent eye­witness Rakesh has not been produced by the prosecution and even otherwise the identity and existence of Rakesh in view of the testimony of PW2/HC Ravinder is in grave doubt. The testimony of PW2/HC Ravinder, in the light of aforesaid discussion, does not pass muster for believing him to prove the presence and involvement of accused persons in the present incident of riots," it said.

The Judge concluded "As can be made out on the cumulative reading of the entire testimonies of all the witnesses, the identification of accused persons is not established at all."

The accused persons were accordingly acquitted.

Click Here To Read Order