Delhi riots case: Court slams cops for ‘callous, flawed’ probe, acquits 3 accused

The court said that the police’s case against the men was riddled with loopholes as the prosecution’s witnesses had different versions of the incident

A Delhi court has criticised the Delhi Police while acquitting three accused men in a 2020 Northeast Delhi riots case, noting that the police carried out an investigation which was “callous” and had “multiple flaws”.

Police said that the three men were involved in three instances of vandalism on February 25, 2020, when the violence was at its peak, when they purportedly vandalised two automobile showrooms and a vehicle. (AFP)

In a judgement delivered on Thursday and made public this week, additional sessions judge Praveen Singh acquitted Akil Ahmed, Rahees Khan and Irshad (one name), who were booked under penal sections of criminal conspiracy, rioting and vandalism.

Police said that the three men were involved in three instances of vandalism on February 25, 2020, when the violence was at its peak, when they purportedly vandalised two automobile showrooms and a vehicle.

The court in its 40-page judgement said that the police’s case against the men was riddled with loopholes as the prosecution’s witnesses had their own different versions of the incident which created a doubt about whether the right people had been arrested.

The court said, “In view of the serious doubts about the credibility of witnesses, probable manipulation of case diary and callous manner of investigation, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.”

During the trial, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses to prove its case.

The court first pointed out the possibility of manipulation of statement by the investigating officer (IO).

The court said that the IO’s statement was recorded on March 1, 2020, but there was no date mentioned underneath the statement, and secondly, the statement was recorded in a different book of the case diary compared to other police statements, which were recorded in another book.

The court also noted that none of the prosecution witnesses, mostly officers posted with the Dayalpur Police Station, could confirm the exact timing of the three incidents, casting further suspicion on the veracity of the arrests made. “This divergence of time again raises doubt about the presence of these witnesses and their identification of the accused persons,” the court said.

The court said that it was surprising that none of the officers of the Dayalpur Police Station tried to trace the three accused men and only made the arrest in the case in April after they had been arrested in a separate case. “…a serious doubt arises about how these accused were found and then arrested in this case,” the court noted.

The judgement also observed that the charge sheet failed to investigate one of the three incidents which was the starting point of the FIR. “The charge sheet as well as the IOs have been completely silent about this Hero Honda showroom being burnt. Why the incident, which became the starting point of this FIR wherein other incidents were clubbed later on, was not investigated, has nowhere been explained,” the court said.

More than 50 people were killed and over 700 left injured in the Northeast Delhi riots in 2020.

Over the past five years, courts have criticised the police investigation in multiple FIRs lodged pertaining to the incident, questioning the lack of enough evidence to back their cases.