Delhi Riots: Court Acquits Man Of Murder Charge

The prosecution alleged the half-charred body of one Dilbar Negi was found in a warehouse in Chaman Park in northeast Delhi on February 26, 2020.

New Delhi:A Delhi court has acquitted a man in a murder case related to the February 2020 riots. Additional sessions judge Pulastya Pramachala heard the case against Mohammad Shahnawaz alias Shanu, booked by Gokalpuri police station. The prosecution alleged the half-charred body of one Dilbar Negi was found in a warehouse in Chaman Park in northeast Delhi on February 26, 2020.

Shahnawaz, it alleged, had an active role in the riots as he set the warehouse on fire by hurling petrol bombs, inflicting injuries due to which Negi succumbed. In its order on February 24, the court said one of the key prosecution eyewitnesses denied having seen the incident whereas another key witness' deposition was "shaky" and uncertain about Shahnawaz's identity.

"Another cited eyewitness even denied the suggestion of having seen the accused entering the godown at around 9 pm or having seen the rioters setting it on fire at that time. He also belied the stand of the prosecution that he had tried to stop the rioters, but the rioters did not listen to him," it said.

The accused's name, the court said, was not mentioned by the warehouse owner and his family members to the police immediately after the victim's body was recovered.

"The FIR was registered on February 28, 2020, and if the accused's name was already within the knowledge of prosecution witness 9 (warehouse owner) since February 24, 2020 (the day of the incident), then he would have mentioned his name before police before the registration of FIR," the court added.

Shanawaz's identification by the witnesses as part of a riotous mob did not inspire confidence, the verdict pointed out. "I find that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact, that accused Shahnawaz had entered this warehouse along with other rioters at about 9 pm and thereafter, it was set on fire by those rioters," the court held.

Observing the charges against the accused were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the court allowed him the benefit of the doubt and acquitted him.