Pointing out various lapses in police investigation, a Delhi court acquitted two men accused of setting a shop on fire during the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
Acquitting Prashant Malhotra and Gaurav, who had been charged with rioting, arson and unlawful assembly, Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh of Karkardooma Court observed that attempts were made by the police to “fill up lacunae” in the investigation.
Referring to the testimony of a police witness, the judge said in the December 24 order, “This part of his testimony, which had come after three years of his initial testimony before the court, creates doubt if this opportunity was used by the prosecution to fill up lacuna in the original testimony.”
The case was registered on a complaint filed by Ganesh, who had alleged that his shop in Khajuri Khas had been burnt by a mob on February 24, 2020.
Why the case fell apart
ASJ Singh said that while the incident of arson took place, the prosecution failed to establish the identity of those who indulged in the act.
The Investigating Officer (IO) of the case relied on an alleged video of the incident, which he had shown to public persons and police witnesses to identify the rioters. A total of 24 witnesses were also examined by the police.
Since the complainant was not the eyewitness, the court said the entire case rests on the testimony of two police witnesses — Head Constable Rahul and ASI Jamshed Ali — who claimed to be present at the spot.
Story continues below this ad
“… in the initial testimony given before the court, PW11 HC Rahul had only spoken about a mob… indulging in arson and vandalism and, thereafter, on the point of identification, he stated that he had identified the accused in the video which pertained to rioting at Bhajanpura graveyard… he nowhere spoke about the accused being involved in vandalism or arson at the shop of complainant Ganesh,” said ASJ Singh.
“When he (HC Rahul) was recalled for his examination… apart from identifying the accused in the video, he went on to state that he had also physically seen the accused rioting and ransacking the shops,” the Judge added.
This testimony which came three years later created a doubt that the prosecution was attempting to “fill up the lacuna in original testimony”, the Judge said.
ASI Ali claimed he was accompanied by HC Rahul to the spot of the incident.
Story continues below this ad
“… Neither does he record the statement of PW11 about what he had seen or whether PW11 had seen any of the rioters and could have identified them or not, nor does he bother to mention in his case diary that he himself had seen the incident and could identify some of the rioters. This creates additional doubt about the presence of ASI Jamshed Ali…,” said ASJ Singh.
The court also relied on the duty roster of Khajuri Khas police station on February 24, 2020. The last page of this roster had a column titled “law and order arrangement” which had names of ASI Ali and HC Rahul written under a protest at Sriram Colony.
“Therefore, it is evident that on 24.02.2020 neither HC Rahul nor ASI Jamshed Ali had been assigned the duty to man their beat… That being the case, it is quite improbable that either ASI Jamshed Ali or HC Rahul were present near the place of incident at the time of incident and that they could have seen the incident from the place of their assigned duty i.e. Sriram Colony,” the Judge noted.
Of the 700 FIRs lodged by the district police six years ago, close to 120 have been decided till date. Of these, close to 85% have ended in acquittals. In 20% of the acquittals, courts have pulled up the police for “fabricated evidence”.
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
