New Delhi, April 2 A court has acquitted nine men in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots, stating that the testimonies cannot be relied upon as they lacked specificity and were general in nature.
Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh was hearing the case against nine individuals – Shah Alam, Rashid Saifi, Mohammad Shadab, Habib, Irfan, Suhail, Salim alias Ashu, Irshad, and Azhar alias Sonu – who were arrested in a case of looting and arson linked to the northeast Delhi riots.
In an order dated March 30, the court said, "The testimonies are general in nature and lack specificity, especially considering that these witnesses have given false testimony regarding the location of the incident...I find that it would be unsafe to rely on the testimonies of these witnesses to convict the accused."
The accused were arrested in the case registered at the Dayalpur police station in connection with the vandalism of an Innova Crysta car, the burning of a motorcycle, the looting of street vendors' carts, and the arson of a shop named 'Royal Motors' during the riots that erupted in the Chand Bagh area of the national capital.
Noting contradictions in the testimonies of eyewitnesses, the court said that the investigating officer in the case recorded the wrong date of the incident as February 24, but the incident actually occurred on February 25, 2020.
"The witness was so categorical and insistent about the fact that the police had incorrectly recorded the date of the incident, that he approached the DCP of the area and submitted a representation stating that the investigating officer had wrongly recorded the date," the judge said.
Regarding an attack on a news channel vehicle (Innova Crysta), the court noted that the driver and passenger identified a location and time that completely contradicted the police's site plan and the testimonies of police witnesses.
"The testimonies of Constable Gyan Singh and Head Constable Sunil regarding this incident are completely found to be false," the judge stated, noting that the incident actually occurred at a place far from where the police claimed.
The court noted that since the primary witnesses had given false testimony regarding the timing and location of major incidents, it would be unsafe to rely on their testimonies to convict the accused for other alleged acts of rioting.
"I find that it would be unsafe to rely on the testimonies of these witnesses to convict the accused. I accordingly find that the accused are entitled to a benefit of doubt," the court said, ordering the release of their sureties and the cancellation of their bail bonds.