2020 Delhi Riots: Court Acquits A Man Of Arson, Loot, Vandalism Charges

A Delhi court has acquitted a man accused in a 2020 Delhi riots case of all charges, including arson, vandalism and loot, saying that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a riotous mob was responsible for the incident and that the accused was its part.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala heard a case against Sandeep Kumar, who was accused of being a part of an unlawful assembly that looted a house and set ablaze household items and a 2-wheeler in the Shiv Vihar locality in Karwal Nagar here on February 25, 2020.

ASJ Pramachala stated in a judgment dated October 27, “The prosecution though established the incident of vandalism, loot and setting ablaze of some household articles and a motorcycle, but it failed to prove a mob being responsible for the same and the presence of accused in such a mob, beyond reasonable doubts.”

The court stated while the complainant had not witnessed the incident, there was a “discrepancy” in the testimonies of 2 police eyewitnesses and so it was doubtful to believe that they were present in the lane to witness the rioting incident.

Therefore, court stated that the formation of an unlawful assembly in the lane and the mob being responsible for the incident wasn’t proved beyond doubt.

Regarding the identification of Kumar as part of the riotous mob, the court said that when the presence of the police officials was doubtful, then there couldn’t be any question of relying upon their identification of the accused.

The court added, while one of the police officials recorded his statement identifying Kumar on February 29, the other confirmed having seen the accused only on August 1, 2020.

ASJ Pramachala stated that both police personnel were from the same police station and wondered how in the “natural course of action” the duo didn’t share the information among themselves about having identified the same one person in the mob.

Citing this additional reason, he declared that their testimonies weren’t “reliable.”