New Delhi: A court here has acquitted 11 persons accused of being involved in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, saying they were entitled to the “benefit of doubt” as charges against them were not proved “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala was hearing a case against 11 men who were accused of being part of an unlawful assembly during the riots that committed arson and theft at a property in Ganga Vihar on February 24, 2020.
“I find that charges levelled against the accused persons in this case are not proved beyond all reasonable doubts and they are entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, accused persons are acquitted of the charges levelled against them,” the judge said in a verdict on Wednesday.
The Gokalpuri Police Station had registered a case against Ankit Chaudhary alias Fauzi, Sumit alias Badshah, Pappu, Vijay, Ashish Kumar, Sourabh Kaushik, Bhupender, Shakti Singh, Sachin Kumar alias Rancho, Rahul and Yogesh.
The court said only two police witnesses — assistant sub-inspectors Jahangir and Mahesh — had identified the accused, while three other witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case. It said Jahangir’s testimony did not appear “very convincing” as despite
having identified the accused persons as part of the riotous mob, he was silent and took no action for 10 months.
The court noted the police officer’s testimony, saying he knew the addresses of the accused persons and was
aware that the Delhi Police was trying to nab those involved
in the riots.
“This situation is very unnatural and improbable. It rather shows that probably he was fed the name and identity of the accused persons as culprits in this case... Therefore, his testimony cannot be relied upon in respect of identifying the accused persons,” the court said.
It also found inconsistencies in the statement of Mahesh, who testified that he had informed the investigating officer (IO) about the identities of some accused 10 days after the incident, but the IO did not record his statement. “It is worth mentioning here that such a claim does not find any support from the testimony of IO. Rather I find this to be a totally improbable scenario that an IO while looking for culprits of the incident would ignore such important information being given and would opt not to record his statement,” the court said.
It noted that initially there was no evidence with the IO and he filed the earliest chargesheet (which was later followed by two supplementary chargesheets), merely based on the disclosure statements of the 11 accused.