E-Paper
1993 riots: UP farmer arrested after 30 years acquitted for want of evidence
A 46-year-old farmer from Uttar Pradesh was acquitted by a Mumbai court on charges of involvement in 1993 communal riots due to lack of evidence.
Mumbai: The sessions court recently acquitted a 46-year-old farmer from Uttar Pradesh – who was arrested in March this year for his alleged involvement in January 1993 communal riots in the city – and said that there were no independent witnesses to his purported involvement in the riots.
The farmer has been identified as Shivpujan Rajbhar.
According to the case registered with the Wadala Police Station, on January 12, 1993, a mob of 300 to 400 people gathered at Dinbandhu Nagar in Wadala East and pelted stones, soda water bottles and fireballs at each other.
“A patrolling police team found the mob very aggressive and resorted to lathi-charge to disperse the crowd, but it aggravated the situation because of which they fired in the air,” the complaint further added. “In the firing, one person sustained bullet injuries and died during the treatment.”
The police at that time had rounded up 15 people, including Rajbhar, and all of them were released on bail after a few days of imprisonment. Rajbhar, however, did not attend the trial and was eventually arrested on March 28, 2023, based on the photograph attached to the arrest memorandum prepared in 1993.
The prosecution examined three police officers who were part of the patrolling team and tried to control the mob. The officers accepted that there was no other independent evidence to suggest Rajbhar’s involvement in the riots. Besides, 10 accused in the case were already acquitted in July 2003 for want of identity.
“There is no independent witness to identify the accused. True, that the incident is in 1993 and after such a long delay, the witnesses cannot be found to identify the accused. It is also true that the mob consisted of 300 to 400 people and it is difficult to ascertain who actively participated in vandalizing the property. No specific act is attributed to the accused,” the court said while acquitting him last week.
“Even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that Rajbhar was present at the spot, it may be possible that he may be an innocent bystander. There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused participated in the unlawful assembly,” the court added.
