A court here has acquitted 13 accused in a 2020 northeast Delhi riots case, saying the testimony of the key prosecution witness was under a "shadow of doubt".
Court questions eyewitness testimony
Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh said the CCTV footage relied upon for identification was too poor to establish the identity of the accused persons.
"Considering the fact that this witness had suddenly become an eyewitness and in view of the above discussion that the testimony of (prosecution witness 8 (PW8) as an eyewitness is under a shadow of doubt, it will be unsafe to rely upon the testimony of PW8," the court said in its recent order.
The case pertained to an incident on February 25, 2020, in the New Usmanpur Police Station area, where Raman Chauhan was allegedly attacked during the communal violence. Chauhan told the court that he could not identify any of the rioters who had attacked him.
13 accused faced multiple charges
An FIR was registered at New Usmanpur Police Station against 13 accused identified as Mohammad Anas, Mobin, Mohd. Javed Khan alias Shanu, Faisal, Shahjad Khan alias Montu, Imran Khan, Badshah Khan, Irfan Khan, Siraj Khan, Arman alias Arbaz, Aman alias Suhail and Iqbal Khan alias Sonu.
The accused faced charges including rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy and disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant.
CCTV footage found inadequate
The court noted that the prosecution witness had initially told investigators that he had not witnessed the incident. He later appeared before the court as an eyewitness and identified two accused using CCTV footage.
The court held that these material improvements made his testimony unsafe to rely upon. It also observed that the CCTV footage was black-and-white, dark and grainy. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) was unable to give an opinion on facial identification because of the poor pixel resolution.
No evidence to establish conspiracy
The court also examined the prosecution's allegation of criminal conspiracy and held that recovery of weapons alone could not establish such a conspiracy.
It noted that there was no evidence showing when, where or how the alleged conspiracy had been entered into or who had joined it.
The court further found that the prosecution had failed to establish the mandatory procedure for proclamation proceedings against several accused charged under Section 174A of the IPC.
"In view of the above discussion, all the accused are accordingly acquitted of all the charges framed against them," the court said.