1st Delhi riots trial ends in acquittal, court slams probe

New Delhi: A Delhi court on Tuesday pronounced its judgement in the first trial related to the north-east Delhi riots last February, acquitting an accused of charges of rioting, vandalism and arson, ruling that the Delhi Police "has miserably failed to prove its case".

In the 21-page judgement, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat stated that it was a "clear-cut case of acquittal" as all the witnesses in the case gave contradictory testimonies, eye-witnesses denied identifying the accused, and the police failed to follow procedure while collecting evidence.

After perusal of the testimonies of all the witnesses, the court ruled that the identification of accused Suresh alias Bhatura was not established at all. "The investigation carried out is way short of the desired one," the order read.

As per the FIR in the case, one Asif filed a complaint on February 28 last year alleging that on February 25 at around 4 PM, a mob of 15 to 20 rioters, wielding rods and sticks, approached his LED TV shop at Main Babarpur Road. Following this, he closed the shop and fled the spot. The rioters subsequently broke open the locks and shutters of his shop and looted all the articles inside. Asif was the tenant of one Bhagat Singh who owned the shop.

According to the prosecution, Singh had informed a beat cop, who had then visited the shop immediately, identifying Suresh, an alleged Bad Character of the area.

Thereafter Suresh, represented by Advocate Rajeev Pratap Singh, was arrested in the matter on March 7 based on secret information. A chargesheet was filed, charges were framed against Suresh, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution presented seven witnesses — three civilians and four cops — who testified against the accused. The court, after going through each PW, noted that all their statements seem to be at variance with each other. It also noted that the supposed eye-witness, Asif, was not even an eye-witness to the incident and that the prosecution's "star-witness", Singh had squarely denied identifying Suresh on multiple occasions, including in court during trial.

Even HC Sunil, who was among the PWs, also gave an "untenable" deposition, the court said, as he had stated that he identified the accused on February 25 itself at the time of rioting. ASJ Rawat stated that if he had identified him at the time of rioting itself, "then why did he not record any entry to the said fact on the said date or even till the FIR was filed on February 28". HC Sunil also never gave anything in writing to the concerned police station that he had identified the accused, the court said, adding that there was no video footage of the incident.

Moreover, the court pointed out that the Delhi Police has no written record of receiving the "secret information" that led to Suresh's arrest.

"There is no testimony worth its salt which connects the accused to the present offence in question," the order said while referring to the "glaring inconsistencies" in the witness statements.

In addition, the court ruled that the Delhi Police had, on many occasions, completely given up on evidence collection procedures.