2020 Delhi Riots: Court Acquits 3 in Jannati Masjid Attack

Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh of the Karkardooma Courts acquitted Deepak, Prince and Shiv, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused had been booked under Sections 147, 148, 149, 380, 427, 436 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 50 of 2020 registered at Gokalpuri police station.

According to the prosecution, a mob armed with sticks and inflammable material vandalised and set fire to Jannati Masjid, looted cash and other articles, and damaged nearby properties during the communal violence that erupted in February 2020. The arrests, however, were primarily based on compact discs allegedly containing video footage of the incident, said to have been supplied by a “secret informer.”

The Court found serious flaws in this approach. It noted that the prosecution failed to legally prove the electronic recordings in accordance with law, rendering them inadmissible. “The accused were arrested on the basis of an inadmissible evidence, which was also the basis on which they were charge-sheeted,” the judge observed, adding that from the date of arrest until the filing of the first charge sheet, there was no concrete material linking the accused to the crime.

The ASJ said he was “pained” by the manner in which the investigation was conducted, particularly the belated examination of eyewitnesses. The Court pointed out that two so-called “chance witnesses” were examined nearly one and a half years after the incident, in September 2021. Their credibility was further undermined by inconsistencies in the investigation records.

“As discussed above, it is possible that they were never examined because the place of examination as stated by the Investigating Officer in his case diary did not exist on the day they were examined,” the Court noted, casting serious doubt on the prosecution’s version.

Emphasising the importance of safeguarding personal liberty, the Court remarked that arrests and prosecutions cannot be sustained on weak or legally impermissible evidence. “I have made these observations with the hope that the investigating agency takes note of the manner in which this matter has been investigated and initiates corrective measures to ensure that in future, personal liberties of citizens are not undermined unless there is evidence enough to implicate them in a crime,” the Court said.

In view of these deficiencies, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all three men of the charges.