<p>New Delhi: A Delhi court has acquitted 16 accused persons of various charges, including rioting, arson and unlawful assembly in a 2012 case, outlining "serious doubts" in the prosecution’s story.</p>.<p>Additional sessions judge Virender Kumar Kharta was hearing a matter in which the men were accused of unlawful assembly, pelting stones, rioting and arson, torching a police station and committing theft in the Urdu Bazar area near Jama Majid on the intervening night of 21-22 July, 2012.</p>.<p>On September 24, the court said none of the several prosecution witnesses identified any accused persons, nor did they explain their individual roles, raising “serious doubts” on the prosecution's story.</p>.<p>It said the investigating officer (IO) failed to collect CCTV footage of the spot or the area from where the riotous mob would have passed.</p>.<p>“As per the prosecution's story, the alleged incident continued for a long time, and several station house officers (SHOs) and other senior police officials also reached the spot, but none of the police officials videographed the incident with their mobile phones through which the faces of the accused persons could have been matched or identified, thus raising serious doubts on the prosecution story,” the court said.</p>.Delhi riots case: Supreme Court defers bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others to September 22.<p>It said no incriminating material was seized from the accused persons, nor could the incident of theft from a car be attributed to them.</p>.<p>“Non-identification of accused people through judicial test identification parade (TIP) has weakened the case of the prosecution,” the court said, adding that there were no independent witnesses to prove the allegations.</p>.<p>Regarding the testimonies of police witnesses, the court said there were “inconsistencies and contradictions” in the testimonies of the complainant and others, which were not corroborated by any material evidence.</p>.<p>“The things appear not to have happened in the manner these have been projected,” the court said.</p>.<p>It said the testimonies of police witnesses were not of a sterling quality to secure conviction.</p>.<p>“It is an established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt,” it added. </p>
<p>New Delhi: A Delhi court has acquitted 16 accused persons of various charges, including rioting, arson and unlawful assembly in a 2012 case, outlining "serious doubts" in the prosecution’s story.</p>.<p>Additional sessions judge Virender Kumar Kharta was hearing a matter in which the men were accused of unlawful assembly, pelting stones, rioting and arson, torching a police station and committing theft in the Urdu Bazar area near Jama Majid on the intervening night of 21-22 July, 2012.</p>.<p>On September 24, the court said none of the several prosecution witnesses identified any accused persons, nor did they explain their individual roles, raising “serious doubts” on the prosecution's story.</p>.<p>It said the investigating officer (IO) failed to collect CCTV footage of the spot or the area from where the riotous mob would have passed.</p>.<p>“As per the prosecution's story, the alleged incident continued for a long time, and several station house officers (SHOs) and other senior police officials also reached the spot, but none of the police officials videographed the incident with their mobile phones through which the faces of the accused persons could have been matched or identified, thus raising serious doubts on the prosecution story,” the court said.</p>.Delhi riots case: Supreme Court defers bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others to September 22.<p>It said no incriminating material was seized from the accused persons, nor could the incident of theft from a car be attributed to them.</p>.<p>“Non-identification of accused people through judicial test identification parade (TIP) has weakened the case of the prosecution,” the court said, adding that there were no independent witnesses to prove the allegations.</p>.<p>Regarding the testimonies of police witnesses, the court said there were “inconsistencies and contradictions” in the testimonies of the complainant and others, which were not corroborated by any material evidence.</p>.<p>“The things appear not to have happened in the manner these have been projected,” the court said.</p>.<p>It said the testimonies of police witnesses were not of a sterling quality to secure conviction.</p>.<p>“It is an established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt,” it added. </p>