2020 Delhi riots: Court says unsafe to rely on tainted witness testimony

A court here has acquitted 13 accused in a 2020 northeast Delhi riots case, saying the testimony of the key prosecution witness was under a “shadow of doubt”. Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh said the CCTV footage relied upon for identification was too poor to establish the identity of the accused persons.

“Considering the fact that this witness had suddenly become an eyewitness and in view of the above discussion that the testimony of PW8 as an eyewitness is under a shadow of doubt, it will be unsafe to rely upon the testimony of PW8 (prosecution witness 8),” the court said in its recent order.

The case pertained to an incident on February 25, 2020, in the New Usmanpur police station area, where Raman Chauhan was allegedly attacked during the communal violence. Chauhan told the court that he could not identify any of the rioters who had attacked him.

An FIR was registered at New Usmanpur police station against 13 accused identified as Mohammad Anas, Mobin, Mohd. Javed Khan alias Shanu, Faisal, Shahjad Khan alias Montu, Imran Khan, Badshah Khan, Irfan Khan, Siraj Khan, Arman alias Arbaz, Aman alias Suhail and Iqbal Khan alias Sonu.

The accused faced charges including rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy and disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant.

The court said the prosecution witness had initially stated during investigation that he had not witnessed the incident but subsequently appeared before the court as an eyewitness and identified two accused from CCTV footage.

The court held that such material improvements rendered his testimony unsafe to rely upon. It also noted that the CCTV footage was black-and-white, dark and grainy, while the FSL had been unable to give an opinion on facial identification because of poor pixel resolution.

The court also made a strong observation on the alleged criminal conspiracy, holding that the recovery of weapons by itself could not establish a conspiracy. It noted there was no evidence showing when, where or how the alleged conspiracy was entered into or who had joined it.

The court also found that the prosecution had failed to establish the mandatory procedure for proclamation proceedings against several accused charged under Section 174A of the IPC.

“In view of the above discussion, all the accused are accordingly acquitted of all the charges framed against them,” the court said.