A special court in New Delhi has acquitted two men accused of involvement in crimes related to the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The court cited major flaws in the prosecution's case, including serious inconsistencies in evidence and significant doubts regarding the credibility of its key witness.
Court Highlights Critical Flaws in Prosecution's Case
Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh, in an order passed last week, granted the benefit of doubt to the accused, Mohammed Farooq and Mohammed Shadab. They had been charged with offences linked to arson, theft, and vandalism during the communal violence that rocked the capital in February 2020.
The judge explicitly stated that there were "serious doubts about the credibility of prosecution witness" and that it would not be prudent to rely solely on his testimony to convict the accused. This fundamental doubt formed the core of the court's decision to acquit.
Contradictions and Investigative Lapses Exposed
The court's order meticulously pointed out several critical failures in the investigation and presentation of the case:
First, the judge noted a major contradiction regarding the date of the incident. The prosecution's key witness, ASI Sunil, relied on footage dated February 24 to identify the accused. However, the prosecution's own case maintained that the alleged incident occurred on February 25. This discrepancy severely undermined the reliability of the identification.
Second, the court flagged serious contradictions between the statements of the Investigating Officer (IO) and other police witnesses. During cross-examination, a significant lapse was revealed: the IO had never actually visited the property in question, despite claiming to have done so to prepare a site plan. Judge Singh observed, "the first thing that struck me was that the IO had never visited this property and therefore his claim... comes under a doubt."
Prosecution Fails to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Cumulatively, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the fundamental standard required in criminal law. The combination of an unreliable sole witness, contradictory police statements, and investigative lapses meant the evidence presented was insufficient for a conviction.
The acquittal underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing evidence rigorously, even in highly charged cases. It reinforces the legal principle that conviction must be based on solid, credible, and consistent proof, and any significant doubt must benefit the accused.
