Chanting Jai Shri Ram not evidence of violence: Delhi court acquits 2 in riot case

The court said the accused were standing with a mob and shouting slogans of Jai Shri Ram, but this can neither prove that the mob indulged in rioting

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has acquitted two men accused of vandalising multiple shops during the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, observing that a mob chanting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ slogans cannot be presumed to have taken part in violence unless there is evidence to suggest so.

The court further rejected the prosecution's claim that the witnesses had been won over by the accused persons. (Representational image)

Acquitting the two men, identified as Jony Kumar and Mithan Singh, additional sessions judge Praveen Singh of Karkardooma courts said, “…it is clear that none of the prosecution witnesses have, during their testimonies before the court, identified any of the accused being the part of a mob which was indulging in riots”.

Referring to the accused persons, the judge in his order of October 31, further remarked, “The accused were standing with a mob and shouting slogans of Jai Shri Ram. This fact can neither prove nor lead to a presumption that the same mob had indulged in rioting…”

The court observed that none of the witnesses produced by the prosecution identified either of the accused as being part of the accused mob, which destroyed the shops.

The case arose from an incident that took place on February 25, 2020, at around 11 AM, wherein a shop named Maharashtra Band was vandalised by a mob. A first information report (FIR) was lodged at Khajuri Khas police station under the offences of vandalism, rioting, and robbery against unknown persons, and the present two accused were arrested based on CCTV footage accessed by the police.

Subsequently, seven other cases of vandalism were also clubbed in the same FIR. Both Kumar and Singh were accused of being part of the offending mob.

The court further rejected the prosecution's claim that the witnesses had been won over by the accused persons. The order said that it was highly improbable that the complainants, who were the victims, would suddenly side with the perpetrators of a crime after the incident several years ago.