New Delhi, March 25 A Delhi court on Wednesday upheld the discharge of two individuals in a 2020 Northeast Delhi riots case, citing several shortcomings in the investigation and observing that there is a serious suspicion "not against the accused but against the police's narrative" in the case.
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai was hearing a plea filed by the Delhi Police challenging the trial court order discharging Ajay and Gaurav Panchal in the case of vandalism and arson.
In an order, the court said, "This court completely agrees with the observations of the learned trial court that, if considered cumulatively, it is difficult to believe the prosecution's material at face value."
"The court would like to add here that the well-established principle of law is that, while considering charges against an accused, there has to be not only suspicion but a serious suspicion against him, but in this case, the suspicion or serious suspicion is actually not against the accused but against the police's narrative," the judge said.
The court noted several shortcomings in the investigation, including an unexplained delay in registering the FIR, contradictions in the complainant's statements, and inconsistencies in medical records relating to the alleged victim.
The judge pointed out that the name, parentage, and address of the injured person in the hospital record differed from the details provided in the police complaint.
"It has been observed that the police did not even take the accused into custody for a short period to recover the alleged weapons – a 'danda' (stick) and an iron rod – and immediately after their arrest, the accused were placed under judicial custody," the court said.
It also criticised the police for failing to collect crucial evidence such as CCTV footage from nearby public cameras or shops, identify independent witnesses present at the scene, or properly document the incident site.
"This court also observes that the way in which the accused were identified by the complainant makes the police's narrative doubtful. Furthermore, this kind of identification has not only been done in this case, but also in many riot cases," the judge said.
The court further expressed doubt over the identification of the accused, noting that the complainant allegedly recognised them in a police station nearly two months after the incident, despite earlier describing the attackers only in vague terms as young men aged between 20 and 25 years.
"This is also a major contradiction in the two statements of the complainant and creates doubt in the prosecution's narrative. The court observes that these kinds of contradictions only arise when manipulations are done and the case is 'cooked up'," the court said.
Observing that the shortcomings in the prosecution case, when seen cumulatively, made it difficult to rely on the material on record, the court said compelling the accused to face trial would be unfair and amount to a waste of judicial time.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the state's revision petition and upheld the order discharging the accused persons.