North-East Delhi violence: Court acquits accused, terms testimony of head constable false

New Delhi [India], June 10 : Delhi's Karkardooma Court recently acquitted a man accused of rioting and vandalism, giving him the benefit of doubt. While acquitting the accused, the court raised serious questions about the trustworthiness of the witnesses.

The court even termed the testimony of the complainant contradictory and that of the eyewitness head constable "apparently false".

This case pertains to an FIR registered at Khajuri Khas police station on a complaint by Mohd. Rashid, whose shop was allegedly vandalised by the mob on February 24, 2020, during the North-East Delhi riots.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Shirish Agarwal acquitted Noor Mohammad alias Noora in a case of rioting and vandalism, giving him the benefit of doubt.

The court said, "The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading convincing evidence to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused persons cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions."

"Suspicion, howsoever grave may be, cannot take the place of proof. Every benefit of the doubt goes in favour of accused persons," said the CMM Agarwal in a judgement passed on May 30.

The court observed further, "After careful perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that the identification of the accused as the offender by the prosecution witnesses is not believable for various reasons.

The judge said since the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused, Noor Mohammad alias Noora, stands acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 188, 323, 394 and 427 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

The judge noted that as per the chargesheet, the complainant and the beat officer concerned, HC Sangram Singh, had identified the accused Noor Mohd as the offender.

However, when evidence was recorded, the complainant, Rashid, who was examined by the prosecutor as a witness, failed to identify the accused as the offender, the court added.

In fact, the complainant stated that he never informed the police that he can identify the offenders. He also denied identifying the accused as the offender in the police station, the judge pointed out.

The complainant turned hostile during the cross-examination by the special public prosecutor (SPP).

The court said during cross-examination, the witness denied having stated to the police that he can identify the persons who were present during the riots.

He denied that the accused was arrested in his presence or that he identified him at the police station on April 2, 2020. He also denied that he fell for an inducement by the accused, the court said.

The chief metropolitan magistrate said, "It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant Mohd Rashid himself identified the accused as the offender. However, this has been denied by the complainant."

"No explanation has been given by the State as to why the complainant would deny identifying the accused," he added.

The court noted further that HC Sangram Singh, who was the beat officer at the place where the office of the complainant is situated, deposed that he was present at the spot of offence and identified some persons in the mob. He claimed further that he had tried to stop the mob but couldn't.

"During cross-examination, he testified that he was at a distance of 40-50 meters from the place of offence. It is doubtful if HC Sangram Singh could have clearly seen and identified one of the several rioters from such a long distance. Also, it is hard to understand how from such a long distance, he tried to stop the mob as he claims to have done," the judge noted.

The judge added, "HC Sangram Singh, who did not even bother to report the

matter immediately to his superiors and make a video of the offence, claimed to have tried to stop the mob."

"It is hard to believe that such a person would risk his life to stall the attempts of a mob of rioters. As such, it appears that the testimony of HC Sangram Singh is false," the judge said.

The court also noted that the FIR said the offence was committed at the shop of the complainant at 6 pm on February 24, 2020.

According to his testimony, he left the shop on the morning of February 24, 2020, and returned after 2-3 days.

The court observed, "Since the complainant had already left the shop, it is not clear how he learnt that his shop was vandalized and looted at 6:00 pm. Hearsay evidence is not

admissible.

The court pulled up the state, saying, "The state has not led any evidence, which establishes

that the offence had, indeed, taken place at 6 pm. Even the purported eyewitness, HC Sangram Singh, did not disclose the time of the offence."

While perusing the testimony of the complainant, it was found that the material fact was missing from it. The court termed it as contradictory.

The court said, "Even though in the complaint given to the police by Mohd Rashid, it is stated that his shop was looted, this allegation which is a material fact is missing from his testimony."

"He only deposed that his shop was vandalized. Therefore, there is a contradiction in the version of the complainant narrated by him in his complaint and as narrated by him in his testimony," the court added.

On March 2, 2020, the FIR was registered at Khajuri Khas police station on the basis of a written complaint on February 29, 2020, from Rashid.

He said in his complaint that his shop is situated near Aadarsh Lakhpat School.

He alleged that on February 24, 2020, around 6 pm, some rioters looted some articles lying in his shop and also vandalised it.

Noor Mohammad alias Noora was arrested on the basis of the disclosure statement given by him in another case.