'Photos Not Admissible': Court Acquits Man of Rioting, Robbery in Delhi Riots

The court said that the accused's identity as a member of the mob was not proven “beyond all reasonable doubts.”

The prosecution said that the idea of Delhi riots conspiracy was to “overawe government and bring it to its knees."

(Photo: PTI

A court here on Wednesday acquitted a man accused of various offences, including rioting, robbery, and criminal intimidation, in a case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, saying his identity as a member of the riotous mob has not been established “beyond all reasonable doubts.”

The court passed the order while hearing a case related to a rioting incident in Bhagirathi Vihar in northeast Delhi on 25 February 2020, where a mob had set ablaze a house after committing a robbery.

“In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I find that the charges levelled against the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence accused Dinesh Yadav is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him in the case,” Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said.

The court noted that according to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, there was no doubt that an unlawful assembly had gathered with the common object of riot, arson, and looting and that the unlawful assembly caused a “rampage” and “havoc.”

Further, the prosecution witnesses showed how the unlawful assembly had trespassed on the said property, looted some articles, and set on fire the ground floor, the court said.

It said the photographs submitted by the prosecution, however, were inadmissible as evidence as those were not supported with the requisite certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.

What Else Did the Court Say?

The court further said that the foremost question, however, was whether the accused was also involved in the aforesaid incident, as a member of the abovementioned unlawful assembly.

The complainant and his family members did not support the prosecution's case that they had seen the rioters or identified the accused and the concluding part of the complaint made a prayer to take legal action against unknown rioters, the court said.

“This situation makes it probable that these witnesses would not have seen the rioters and the accused,” the court said.

Further, the court noted that the prosecution had “heavily relied” upon evidence of two police officials --beat constables -- who said that they had seen and identified the accused.

But, in their cross-examination, both police officials came up with different factual answers, the court said, adding, that while one deposed that there were eight beat areas in Bhagirathi Vihar, the other said that there was only one beat in that area.

“Such contradictory statement raises question over their claim if they actually used to have an idea of that area,” the court said.

Also, the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer (IO) did not show the location of both police officials, the court said.

'Witnesses Said That Had Seen the Incident, but Did Not Explain Their Location'

“These witnesses claimed to have seen this incident, but they also did not explain their own actual location at that time. The prosecution, thus, remained oblivious of its duty to prove the allegations beyond doubts,” the court said.

The court said it was probable that both witnesses “were used by the prosecution merely with the objective to show that this case was solved.” “In these circumstances, I do not find it safe to raise the presumption of guilt merely on the basis of ocular evidence of PW 9 and PW 11 (the two police officials). Hence, it is concluded that the identity of the accused as a member of the riotous mob has not been established beyond all reasonable doubts,” the judge said.

Noting that the prosecution witnesses, including the two persons who called the PCR and the complainant, did not support the charge of criminal intimidation, the court said that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused.

Gokalpuri police station had registered an FIR against the accused based on the statement of the complainant.