2020 Delhi riots: Court pulls up probe officer for ‘manipulating’ evidence, acquits accused man

In a significant ruling, a Delhi court acquitted a man accused of rioting and arson during the 2020 North East Delhi riots, after criticizing the investigating officer (IO) for wrongly implicating the defendant based on a doctored video. The court, while passing its judgment on January 8, also instructed the Commissioner of Police to review the conduct of the IO who had arrested the accused, Sandeep Bhati, in connection with a complaint filed by Shahrukh, a man who was injured on February 24, 2020, near Shiv Vihar Tiraha while traveling home in an autorickshaw.

The prosecution had presented 21 witnesses and relied on two videos to link Bhati to the crimes. However, the court noted that Bhati appeared only briefly in a seven-second clip, and criticized the quality and authenticity of the evidence presented. “The investigating officer failed to conduct a thorough investigation and relied on a manipulated video to make the case against the accused,” stated Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala.

The judge also took issue with the manner in which the IO bundled multiple complaints together without proper investigation. “The IO combined eight separate complaints into the chargesheet, assuming the same mob was involved in all incidents without verifying key details,” the court remarked.

Furthermore, the court highlighted discrepancies in the video evidence. The video presented by the prosecution showed Bhati in a fleeting moment, not participating in the assault but instead attempting to stop others from attacking the victim. In contrast, the original video, which spanned a longer duration, provided more context, revealing Bhati’s intervention in the altercation.

According to police reports, Shahrukh was allegedly dragged out of the auto by a mob, beaten with sticks and stones, and shot, resulting in gunshot wounds to his left leg and chest. However, the court pointed out that the IO failed to properly investigate the incident, relying primarily on witness testimonies without corroborating physical evidence.

“The IO neglected his duty to conduct a proper investigation, leading to a case built more on assumptions than facts,” the court concluded. The case highlights concerns over the handling of evidence and the integrity of investigations during the aftermath of the 2020 Delhi riots.