A Delhi courtroom, listening to North East Delhi riots circumstances, on Monday acquitted a person accused of vandalism and burning retailers throughout riots in Bhajan Pura space in February 2020.
The courtroom termed the assertion of the attention witness and complainant Rahis Ahmad “not reliable” who recognized him as a member of the riotous mob.
The courtroom mentioned that the Prosecution has not been capable of show expenses in opposition to the accused past an affordable doubt.
While acquitting accused Gurjent Singh, the Special Judge noticed, “I find that charges levelled against the accused in this case are not proved beyond reasonable doubts.”
Hence, the accused is acquitted of all the fees on this case,” the court said.
An FIR was lodged at Bhajanpura on the complaints from four shop owners, Shahid, Firoz Ahmad, Manjeet Singh and Rashid Ahmad.
The allegations in this case were that a mob had vandalised and burnt shops in Bhajanpura area on February 24, 2020.
The accused was identified by one of the complainants, Rahis Ahmad. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and charged with the offence of rioting and other.
The court said that the accused was not named by the complainant Rahis Ahmad as one of the rioters in his complaint on March 4, 2020. He also did not make any call to the police on the day of the incident naming the accused as one of the rioters.
The court noted that Rahis Ahmad testified that he knew the accused well as he was the son of his landlord.
In these circumstances, his natural reaction would have been to mention the accused’s name in the first instance itself, the court said.
“All of a sudden when the Investigating Officer (IO) visited the showroom of Rahis Ahmad on March 8, 2020, he identified to the accused, when the accused was allegedly passing in entrance of his showroom,” the court said.
“Silence on a part of the prosecution witness concerning the title of the accused, as much as March 8, 2020, does seem irregular,” the court added.
The court noted that an eye witness in another case also testified that he also knows the accused but despite having seen the mob from his terrace, he did not identify the accused as part of the mob.
The court also took note of the statement of Rahis Ahmad that he received a video of the incident, in which the accused was not visible.
“Therefore, the query arises if the accused participated in vandalism, then how might he be not seen within the video,” the court said.
The court added, “The solely logical reply to this query seems to be that the accused was not there on this mob and within the incidents and due to this fact he didn’t determine in any video .”
“In view of the above-mentioned evaluation, I discover that testimony of the prosecution witness will not be dependable in any respect to ascertain the presence of accused within the mob,” the judge said.
The judge also said that the testimony of the IO appeared “flimsy in respect of identification of the accused and his arrest.”
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV employees and is revealed from a syndicated feed.)