2020 Delhi riots: Court acquits man of rioting, vandalism charges

A court here on Monday acquitted a man of the charges of rioting and vandalising two properties while hearing a case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.

Rohit was accused of being a part of the riotous mob that vandalised the properties of two complainants in Gokalpuri.

The prosecution alleged that the accused, as part of the mob, had vandalised the shop of Shakil Ahmed and the pathological laboratory and clinic of Imran Khan on February 25, 2020.

"I find that charges levelled against the accused in this case are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Rohit is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him in this case," Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said.

Also Read | Delhi HC dismisses bail plea by Umar Khalid in 2020 Delhi riots case

The court said according to the testimonies of both the complainants and on-duty police officials, head constables Jahangir and Mahesh, along with a doctor working in the clinic, a mob had indulged in vandalism and arson in the D Block area of Gokalpuri.

But, except for both the police officials and complainant Shakil Ahmed, none of these witnesses claimed to have seen the incidents, the court observed.

While there was no doubt over the fact that a riotous mob indulged in vandalizing, pelting of stones and arson on the property of Shakil Ahmed in the morning and afternoon of February 25, 2020, in the morning hours and afternoon, none of the witnesses claimed to have seen the incident themselves, the court said.

There was no evidence on the record to show that the laboratory was vandalized by a mob on the said date and the complainant deposed that he received the information about his property being vandalized from a neighbour, the court said.

But the neighbour was not named anywhere, nor was he produced before the court, it said.

"In these circumstances, I find that evidence on the record falls short of a satisfactory level, to establish that this lab was also vandalised by a mob," the judge said.

The judge further said that to establish the identity of the accused as a member of the riotous mob, the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of both police officials.

But, there was no clarity and consistency in the evidence of both, although they claimed to be present at the time of the incident, the court said.

It noted that according to the first complainant, the mob had damaged his shop, taken away various articles and pelted stones at his house, but both police officials did not mention such acts of the mob.

Instead, they deposed in a general manner about vandalism and arson in that place, the court said.

Also, the complaint of Shakil Ahmed regarding the timing of the attempt to burn his shop and regarding the saving of his property was in contradiction to the claims made by head constable Mahesh, the court noted.

While Ahmed said in his complaint that the mob threw a burning cloth in his shop, the head constable said the mob had set ablaze the building, the court noted.

It then said that one of the prosecution witnesses, Shoaib, was dropped from the case on the grounds that he was a witness in another FIR against the same accused.

But, Shoaib was the person relying upon whom, the second investigating officer in the case had arrested the accused, the court said.

"Though prosecution witness 13 (the second investigating officer) claimed that the accused had confessed his involvement in this case, he must be aware that such a disclosure statement was not admissible in evidence," the court said.

"In such circumstances, the evidence available on the record of this case cannot be treated as sufficient to establish that accused was a member of the mob which was behind the incident (at the shop of Shakil Ahmed)," it added.

The Gokalpuri police station had registered an FIR against the accused based on Ahmed's statement and during the investigation, Khan's complaint was clubbed together.

A charge sheet was subsequently filed under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including rioting, armed with a deadly weapon, disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant, punishment for voluntarily causing hurt, theft in dwelling house etc., and mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house etc.