A Delhi court has acquitted six individuals implicated in the 2020 Delhi riots, citing significant doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s case and the testimony of police witnesses. The case, which was overseen by Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala, involved charges of arson, theft, and mischief by fire or explosives allegedly committed by the accused in Gokalpuri on February 25, 2020.
The prosecution’s argument hinged on the testimonies of two assistant sub-inspectors, Vanvir and Jahangir, who were tasked with establishing the identities of the accused. However, the court raised concerns over the delayed examination of these key witnesses, who did not testify until December 2020—several months after the incidents occurred.
“This delay in examining these two police officials, who were posted in the same police station, certainly casts doubt over the veracity of the prosecution’s case,” the judge noted. The court highlighted that no satisfactory explanation was provided by the investigating officer for the delay in recording the statements of these witnesses.
Further complicating the prosecution’s case was the method used by the police officers to identify the accused. Despite claiming to know the accused personally and having seen them in the rioting mob, the officers resorted to video evidence for identification—a move the court found unnecessary if the witnesses were already familiar with the individuals.
Additionally, the court pointed out inconsistencies in the officers’ testimonies. While one officer referred to a video that did not relate to the incidents, another could not successfully identify three of the accused in court. “I do not find it appropriate to rely upon the evidence of PW 16 and PW 18, to assume participation of accused persons in the incidents in question,” Judge Pramachala stated.
Based on these observations, the court acquitted all six accused—Arjun, Gopal, Dharamveer, Umesh, Dheeraj, and Manish—concluding that the charges against them were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This verdict brings significant attention to the issues surrounding witness credibility and procedural delays in the judicial handling of riot cases.
