New Delhi: On September 27, a Delhi court acquitted a man, after he spent three years in jail over accusations of rioting, arson, and unlawful assembly during the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. Interestingly, the court observed that the sole witness in this case might have been “tutored” to identify the accused by using a photograph.According to the Indian Express, the accused, Praveen Giri, was arrested based on CCTV footage from a camera situated within 50 metres of the scene of the crime.In this case, two complainants, Afsar and Mohd. Ashfaq, alleged that their properties were vandalised, robbed, and set on fire by a mob.This is one of the many cases in which the delivery of justice has not only been delayed, but appears to have been rusty when it comes to how the Delhi Police, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, has conducted its investigations into the matter.At least 758 FIRs have been filed under the Indian Penal Code, in connection with the 2020 February riots that killed 53 people and injured over 700.The North-East Delhi riots lasted around four days from February 23 to 27, 2020.It’s interesting to note how the courts, in several cases, while acquitting accused persons, have rapped the Delhi Police over ‘fabrication of evidence’, ‘shoddy probe’ and ‘a lack of logic’.The way the police have conducted the investigation into some cases is bizarre, as per the court’s analysis of the probe. Additionally, in many cases, the victims, who were later acquitted of all charges, were kept behind bars – some for several months, some for over a year.Also read: Delhi Riots Death Toll at 53, Here Are the Names of the VictimsThe Wire has collated a list of court orders where the judges rapped the Delhi Police for ‘biased’, ‘improper’ investigation into the Delhi riots. These cases show the police have not only wasted the court’s time, but are an example of how ‘narratives’ were allegedly used as ‘evidence’ in many cases.October 2020: Court said silence of witnesses for two weeks ‘cast doubt’ on their credibilityWhile granting bail to an accused, Irshad Ahmed, in the riots case, a Delhi court said that the silence of the witnesses about the incident for two weeks casts “serious doubt” on their credibility.The witnesses in this case were two police constables (constable Vikrant and Pawan), who had identified the accused resorting to rioting, PTI reported. However, the court observed that the police constables did not make any complaint on the date of the incident or reported it to their seniors.“Till the recording of their statements under Section 161 of the CrPC (examination by police) by the investigating officer (IO), they remained completely silent about the incident [that took place on February 25, 2020] and blew the lids only on March 6, 2020 when their statements were recorded by the IO. It casts a serious doubt on the credibility of the witnesses,” the court is in its order.In the order dated September 8, 2020, Ahmed was not even named in the first information report (FIR), the court said, adding that there were no specific allegations against him. He was also not captured in any CCTV footage, it added.He was accused in a case where a shop was vandalised and looted by a mob on February 25, 2020, in Dayalpur area of northeast Delhi.“The applicant (Ahmed) cannot be made to incarcerate in jail for infinity merely on account of the fact that other persons who were part of the riotous mob have to be identified and arrested in the matter,” the court said.January 12, 2021: ‘Doubts on credibility’ of police witnessesWhile granting bail to two persons, a Delhi court questioned the credibility of the witnesses in the case. In this case, too, the witnesses were two police constables, constable Vipin and head constable Hari Babu.The witnesses’ statements were recorded on April 7, 2020.In its order, the court said that the police relied upon a CCTV footage of February 24, 2020, but the incident took place on the next day.The court also observed that the accused persons, Shoaib and Shahrukh, were not arrested from the spot. They were arrested after 55 days, on April 15, 2020.March 16, 2021: ‘Lack of evidence’While granting bail to four accused, who were arrested in March 2020, the Delhi high court questioned the police over its ‘lack of evidence’ in the case.They were accused of rioting, burning vehicles and committing robbery at a marriage ceremony in Khajuri Khas’s Main Karawal Nagar area on February 24, the Indian Express reported.The high court observed that the men had not been named in the FIRs, and that there was no evidence like CCTV footage, video clips, or photos to connect them with the incident of rioting.Moreover, while the incident took place on February 24, the FIR was registered on February 27, and the statement of eyewitness was recorded on March 14, noted the high court.“The statement of another eyewitness, constable Sangram, was recorded on 23.04.2020 and this court fails to understand why, despite having good understanding of law and order, a police official who is witness to riots would neither call PCR nor will he make a DD entry in this regard,” the high court said.Three of the four accused – Liyakat Ali , Arshad Qayyum, Gulfam and Irshad – were arrested in March 2020. It’s not clear who was the fourth accused in this case.Also read: Delhi 2020 | the Real Conspiracy, Episode 1: What the Delhi Police Chose Not to SeeApril 14, 2021: ‘Police witness not credible’Rashid was booked and arrested on various charges in connection with the riots. In this case, too, he was not named in an FIR. And, the police had not alleged any specific role against him, the Times of India reported.Interestingly, he was arrested 55 days after the incident had happened in February 2020.He was accused in a case where a medical store was vandalised and looted on February 25, 2020.The prosecution relied on a CCTV footage to substantiate its claims. A police constable had “categorically” seen and identified Rashid when the incident was taking place in the area.“Being a cop, what stopped him from reporting the matter to the police station then and there, or bring the same to the knowledge of senior police officers?” the court asked.This casts serious doubts on the said police witness, it said.April 2021: ‘One of the witnesses is also an eyewitness in multiple FIRs’The Delhi high court granted bail to two accused persons – Pradeep Rai and Aman Kashyap – in a riots case, questioning the credibility of the police witnesses.In this case, the high court observed that one of the witnesses was also an eyewitness in multiple FIRs registered at Dayalpur police station in connection with the February riots.Two incidents took place in Gali No. 10 as well as in Gali No. 3. Both the places are at a distance of around 500 to 700 metres. Therefore, the court asked the police to verify as to how this witness had seen the incident which took place in Gali No. 10 and Gali No. 3.The police, however, said that the distance between the two places is 350 metres.The petitioners were in judicial custody since April 02, 2020, the Hindu reported.July 20, 2021: Prosecution ‘miserably failed’ to prove its caseWhile acquitting the accused person of all charges, a Delhi court said that the prosecution “miserably failed” to prove its case.According to the police, Suresh, the accused, was present with a “huge crowd of rioters carrying iron rods and sticks,” and allegedly broke open the lock of a shop situated in Delhi’s Babarpur Road and looted it on the evening of February 25.He was arrested on April 7, 2020. After spending ten months in jail, he was granted bail on February 25, 2021.The court noted that there was no testimony that connected the accused to the offence in question. It further said that his identification was not established at all.It was a clear-cut case of acquittal, it said.September 2, 2021: ‘Callous and indolent’ probeWhile discharging three accused, including former Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain’s brother Shah Alam, a Delhi court called the probe “callous and indolent”.“I am not able to restrain myself from observing that when history will look back at the worst communal riots since partition in Delhi, it is failure of investigating agency to conduct proper investigation by using latest scientific methods will surely torment the sentinels of democracy,” Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav had said.The court observed that the delay on the part of the constable to report the incident gives an impression that he has been “planted” in the case. It added that no real or effective investigation has been carried out in the case.The court also observed that the case appeared to have been solved merely by filing the chargesheet “without any real effort being made to trace out eye witnesses, real accused persons and technical evidence” in the matter.Also read: Three Years Since the Delhi Riots, We Are Left With the Fruits of an Extraordinary SystemSeptember 3, 2021: ‘Vague evidence’ and ‘general allegations’The Delhi high court, while granting bail to five accused, in similar but separate verdicts, said that invoking murder charges on a crowd “cannot be done on the basis of vague evidence and general allegations”.Furkan, Arif, Ahmad, Suvleen and Tabassum were arrested last year in April, March, May and October, respectively, on charges of being part of a mob that attacked policemen, and injured a head constable, who later died of his wounds, the Times of India reported.They were in jail for 12 to 18 months.The high court added that there was no evidence that justified keeping these people behind bars.It also pointed out that the sole act of protesting should not be employed as a weapon to justify the incarceration of those who are exercising the right to protest and express dissent.September 21, 2022: ‘Investigating officer contradicted his own statement’Saying that the investigating officer (IO) contradicted his own statement, a Delhi court acquitted a man named Noor Mohammad in connection with a riots’ case.The court also observed that his identification was “probably the outcome of an after though development” of the probe agency, LiveLaw reported.“…I find that IO contradicted his own statement regarding getting information prior to 02.04.2020 of the relevant witness i.e. PW (constable) who could identify the culprits…This shows that identification of accused on 02.04.2020, was probably outcome of an after thought development,” the court said.In this case, the FIR was registered on February 29, 2020, where the complainant alleged that his tailoring shop was set ablaze.December 10, 2022: ‘Witnesses’ claims appear suspicious’A Delhi court acquitted two men, Mahender Kumar and Dharmender, accused in two Delhi riots’ cases, saying the witnesses’ claims appeared suspicious.The Indian Express reported the court as saying, “Interestingly, this witness identified only Mahender in court even though he took the name of Dharmender. Even if I presume that such name was taken in confusion, still the question would arise that if this witness had not seen Dharmender in that mob and if he had not identified him before the IO, then was it just coincidence only that he took the name of Dharmender?”The two men were accused of being part of a mob which robbed two shops at Dayalpur on February 24, 2020.June 9, 2023: ‘No logical ground in clubbing complaints’While acquitting three men – Akil Ahmed, Raheesh Khan and Irshad – a Delhi court rapped the police over the quality of its investigation into the 2020 riots.The police had clubbed as many as 27 complaints, the court said, highlighting several other discrepancies in the investigation into the case.Those were – serial numbers (15 was missing) and the names of complainants were mentioned twice in the same FIR.The accused persons were booked over the destruction of a shop at Delhi’s Chandu Nagar on the Karawal Nagar Road.“It is amply clear that all the additional complaints clubbed in this case were not completely investigated,” said the court, according to LiveLaw.Originally published on June 15, this article has been republished on September 28, adding another instance of delayed justice in the 2020 Delhi riots cases.
