New Delhi: Two people, accused in two separate cases of the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, were acquitted by a Delhi court on Friday which said charges against them were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In both cases, the duo was accused of rioting, dacoity and arson.
While one case relates to the alleged robbery and setting ablaze a salon in Sadatpur village, the other pertains to the purported robbery and arson in a shop at the main market near Dayalpur Chowk on February 24, 2020. I find that charges leveled against both the accused persons are not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Mahender and Dharmender are acquitted of all the charges leveled against them, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said.
In one of the cases, pointing out the inconsistencies in the evidence, the court said the complainant had contradicted the investigating officer's (IOs) claim of having identified both the accused. Also, despite reference being made by an on-duty constable, no video of the incident was proved on record, the court said. The court noted that prosecution witness Zakir Malik, who also identified both the accused before the court, claimed he was thrashed by them.
But, this claim appears to be an exaggerated version because had it been so, then prosecution witness 9 (Malik) must have mentioned the factum of his beating and the factum of identifying some persons from this mob by their name, the court said. It said Malik had recorded his statement before the police, without mentioning the names of the accused persons, and he also did not say anything about having witnessed the incident at the complainant's shops.
Malik made a phone call to the police several hours after the incident, without referring to the accused persons, the court said adding, it could not be assumed that he failed to mention the basic allegations because of panic. In these circumstances, I find that evidence of prosecution witness 9 is not reliable enough to presume the presence of both the accused persons in the mob, the court said.
In another case, the court said the evidence of two constables regarding the identification of both the accused was too general in nature". Cross-examination of prosecution witness 6 (Constable Sandeep) goes on to show that they probably acted on the basis of the alleged confessional statement made by the accused regarding looting the shops and setting them on fire and therefore, their identification of both accused as part of the mob involved in the incident at both the shops is not foolproof, the court said.
The complainant's son had identified only Mahender before the court, though he took the name of Dharmender, the court said. Even if I presume that such a name was taken in confusion, still the question would arise that if this witness had not seen Dharmender in that mob and if he had not identified him before the IO, then was it just coincidence only that he took the name of Dharmender? the judge said.
Thus, I find that evidence on the record is not sufficient and credible enough to establish that both accused persons were also part of the unlawful assembly, which vandalized the shops, the judge added. The Khajuri Khas police station had registered two FIRs against the two accused under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including rioting, dacoity and mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc. (PTI)
