‘Unreliable, vague witness testimonies’: Court acquits 9 accused in 2020 riots case

New Delhi: A Delhi court has acquitted nine men accused in a case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case due to vague, contradictory and unreliable witness testimonies.Additional sessions judge Parveen Singh underscored the weakness of the prosecution’s case, observing it rested entirely on three key witnesses whose statements did not inspire confidence.“Testimonies are general in nature, lack specificity, especially in view of the fact that these witnesses have deposed falsely with regard to the place of incident,” the court noted while acquitting Shah Alam, Rashid Saifi, Mohammad Shadab, Habib, Irfan, Suhail, Salim alias Ashu, Irshad and Azhar alias Sonu.The case pertains to alleged rioting and arson in Chand Bagh area, including the vandalisation of a car and injuries to its occupants, the burning of a bike belonging to retired SI Mumtaz Ali, looting of carts, theft of an e-rickshaw belonging to Mohd Ishraq and arson of a motor shop owned by Salim Ahmed.An inconsistency flagged by the court related to the date of the incidents. While the investigating officer recorded it as Feb 24, 2020, material on record indicated they took place on Feb 25.

Referring to Ahmed’s deposition, the court noted that he stated he remained at the premises until 7pm Feb 24 and no damage occurred. His shop was intact till Feb 25 noon, clearly indicating no arson took place on Feb 24.The court acknowledged Ahmed’s efforts in pointing out the error to police, including lodging a complaint at the DCP’s office regarding the incorrect date recorded in his statement. However, his concerns were brushed aside and “the police official told him riots took place on both dates, so it did not matter,” the court noted.Rejecting doubts over Ahmed’s credibility, the judge said, “He is the person who suffered a loss, whose property was burnt down in riots. He could not have had any reasons to deliberately change the date on which this incident happened.”The court said this discrepancy went to the root of the prosecution’s case, as the key witnesses could neither have witnessed the incident on Feb 24 nor seen the accused participating in the alleged acts. It found inconsistencies regarding the timing and location of other incidents, including an alleged attack on a news channel vehicle. “It will be unsafe to rely upon the testimonies of these witnesses,” it said.