A Delhi court dealing with the riots in northeast Delhi on Monday acquitted a man accused of vandalism and setting fire to shops during riots in the Bhajan Pura area in February 2020.
The court called the statement of eyewitness and complainant Rahis Ahmad “unreliable”, identifying him as a member of the riotous mob.
The court states that the Public Prosecution Service has not been able to prove the accusations against the suspect beyond reasonable doubt.
While acquitting accused Gurjent Singh, the special judge noted, “I find that the charges against the accused in this case have not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Therefore, the suspect in this case is acquitted of all charges,” the court said.
An FIR was filed with Bhajanpura on the complaints of four shop owners, Shahid, Firoz Ahmad, Manjeet Singh and Rashid Ahmad.
The allegations in this case were that a mob had vandalized and set fire to shops in the Bhajanpura area on February 24, 2020.
The suspect was identified by one of the complainants, Rahis Ahmad. After that, the suspect was arrested and charged with the crime of rioting and other.
The court said that the accused was not named by complainant Rahis Ahmad as one of the rioters in his complaint dated March 4, 2020. Nor did he make any calls to the police on the day of the incident, naming the suspect as one of them. 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 response would have been to initially name the suspect himself, the court said.
“When the investigating officer (IO) visited Rahis Ahmad’s showroom on March 8, 2020, he suddenly pointed out the suspect when the suspect was about to pass in front of his showroom,” the court said.
“The silence of part of the prosecution’s witness regarding the name of the suspect, until March 8, 2020, seems abnormal,” the court added.
The court noted that an eyewitness in another case also testified that he also knows the suspect, but despite seeing the crowd from his patio, he did not identify the suspect as part of the crowd.
The court also took note of Rahis Ahmad’s statement that he received a video of the incident, in which the suspect was not visible.
“Therefore, the question arises if the suspect has participated in vandalism, how can he not be visible in the video,” the court said.
The court added: “The only logical answer to this question seems to be that the accused was not present at this crowd and at the incidents and therefore did not appear in any video.”
“Given the above analysis, I find that the testimony of the prosecution’s witness is not at all reliable to establish the presence of the accused in the crowd,” the judge said.
The judge also said the IO’s testimony “appeared thin regarding the identification of the suspect and his arrest”.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by DailyExpertNews staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.)