A Delhi court on Friday acquitted two people of all charges connected to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, saying “presumption cannot take the place of evidence”.
The court was hearing a case against accused Ranjeet Singh Rana and Ravi Singh, who were alleged of being part of a riotous mob that torched a car on February 24, 2020 and committed arson and vandalism the next day in two salons or shops in the Karawal Nagar area.
Pulastya Pramachala, an additional sessions Judge, said that “I believe that the charges levelled against the accused in this case are not beyond doubt. As a result, the accused are acquitted of all charges brought against them in this case.”
The judge stated that based on the testimony of the person driving the car, a riotous mob torched it, but the prosecution evidence fell short of providing an exact account of the facts in the two other incidents.
The judge stated, “On close examination of the evidences, I find that the prosecution could only show mob involvement in the incident of damage caused to the car of Prosecution Witness 1 (person driving the car), and it is basically on the basis of (his) unrebutted testimony that the factum of burning his car by an unlawful assembly is established.”
Furthermore, the judge stated that the prosecution failed to submit the required certificates under Section 65B of the Evidence Act for the two shops, and digitally taken photographs were not admissible as evidence in the absence of such certificates.
The judge stated, “This court had directed that such certificates be obtained from the persons involved in all riot cases and these directives were even sent to higher officers of the police. All prosecutors were also reminded of such legal requirements on numerous occasions, but in this case, the investigating officer (IO) took no such steps.”
“I find that the prosecution has left it to guesses and presumptions only to assume that these two incidents were the result of an unlawful assembly,” the judge added.
Concerning the identification of the accused as members of the riotous mob, the court stated that two of the complainants became hostile and denied having identified the accused.
The court stated that another eyewitness, a head constable, could not vouch for the accused persons’ involvement because he had not witnessed the incidents.
According to the report, the police official stated that he saw both of the accused present at a distance and that it was only the prosecution’s presumption that both accused were involved in the incidents.
The Court also stated, “However, Presumption cannot be used in place of evidence. Prosecution witness 1 was the best person to identify the accused persons if they were involved in the attack on his car, and when (he) did not identify the accused persons, prosecution presumptions could not be used to hold that both accused were members of that mob.”
The judge further stated, “As a result, I conclude that the prosecution failed to establish that the incidents at the salons were caused by an unlawful assembly. The prosecution also failed to establish that both accused persons were involved in any of the three incidents investigated in this case.”
