Delhi riots case: Court orders police to take action over ‘tampered’ probe

A Delhi court acquitted six accused in a 2020 Northeast Delhi riots case, saying that the prosecution had “miserably failed” to prove the charges and criticised police for tampering with records and filing a “fabricated” chargesheet. Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh, who was hearing the case against Prem Prakash alias Kake, Ishu Gupta, Rajkumar alias Siwainya, Amit alias Annu, Rahul alias Golu and Hariom Sharma, accused of being part of a violent mob during the 2020 Delhi riots, ordered their acquittal.

In an order dated January 31, the court said, “I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and all the accused are acquitted of all the charges framed against them.”

All six were accused in a case related to the incidents of arson, vandalism and looting near Azizia Masjid in Sudamapuri during the Delhi riots on February 25, 2020. The accused were charged under multiple sections of the IPC, including rioting, arson, attempt to murder, theft and conspiracy. The court said the case was built on manipulated statements and unreliable testimony, and directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Delhi Police Commissioner for initiating action against those responsible. “I must observe that the audacity and impunity with which the record was tampered with reflects a complete breakdown of the supervisory mechanism because the fabricated charge sheet was forwarded by the supervisory officers,” the judge said.

The court noted that several witnesses initially said they had not seen any rioters but later claimed to have identified specific accused by name. “The case of the prosecution is found to be a built-up case on the basis of the witnesses who, according to their initial statements, had not seen any of the rioters but who, as per their subsequent tampered, manipulated and fabricated statements,” the judge said.

The court also said that the video evidence relied upon by the prosecution was not proved in accordance with the law, lacking the mandatory certification under the Evidence Act.  “Had that mechanism worked as it is expected to work, the rights of the accused and the expectation of the society at large that criminal cases are investigated fairly would not have been bulldozed and pulverised,” the court said.