2020 Delhi riots | Auto driver acquitted

Charges against accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt, says court

September 13, 2022 12:19 am | Updated 01:51 pm IST - New Delhi:

A number of houses and shops were set afire by mobs in the Bhajanpura area of north-east Delhi on February 24, 2020.

A number of houses and shops were set afire by mobs in the Bhajanpura area of north-east Delhi on February 24, 2020. | Photo Credit: AFP

A city court on Monday acquitted an autorickshaw driver of charges of rioting and vandalism in a case related to the 2020 north-east Delhi riots.

“The charges levelled against the accused, Gurjent Singh, are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him in this case,” Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said in the order.

The court was hearing a case where a mob had vandalised and set some shops on fire at Bhajanpura area. An FIR for rioting, house trespass, mischief with intent to destroy house, had been lodged against Singh on the basis of complaints of four shop owners — Shahid, Firoz Ahmad, Manjeet Singh and Rashid Ahmad.

‘False case’

The accused denied all the allegations and said he was falsely implicated in the case by the complainants in connivance with the local police only to settle an old score.

The court said the foremost question is whether the accused was also involved in the incidents as a member of the mob. To establish the identity of the accused, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of a witness who was also a complainant, said the court.

“According to the witness, he saw accused in that mob which set ablaze his showroom. He went on to say that accused did so because in the past there had been a litigation between him and the father of the accused and that civil suit was decreed in favour of the witness. Subsequently, in his cross examination by the defence, the complainant modified his stand to say that his brother had filed the civil suit against Basant Singh, the father of accused and erstwhile owner of the property. This is an undisputed fact as even the accused relied upon it to cast a motive for the witness to falsely implicate him in this case,” the court said.

The complainant had not mentioned the accused name earlier to the police, said the court. The judge also said that the testimony of the IO appeared “flimsy” in respect of identification of the accused and his arrest.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.