Brazen fabrication of evidence: Delhi court acquits six Delhi Riots accused

A Delhi Court recently acquitted six persons booked for rioting and arson during the 2020 Delhi Riots, while making scathing remarks on the police investigation [State vs Prem Prakash and Ors]..The Court said that the case against Prem Prakash, Ishu Gupta, Rajkumar, Amit, Rahul and Hariom Sharma was based on fabricated evidence and action should be initiated against errant police officials. In a strongly worded verdict, Sessions Judge Parveen Singh of Karkardooma Court said that he was dumbfounded by several discrepancies and instances of "brazen fabrication" of prosecution evidence.“These discrepancies raised serious doubts in my mind about the sanctity of the investigation and the manner in which the investigation had proceeded and thus, I felt that it was my bounden duty to call for the case diary to verify the relevant entries of the case diary in order to arrive at a just and fair decision…A perusal of the case diary left me dumbfounded. It revealed a brazen fabrication of evidence,” the Court stated. .The Court compared the statements of witnesses recorded in the case diary and in chargesheet. It noted that police constables were falsely planted as eyewitness at a later stage to make fabricated statement. “Evidently he [police constable] was introduced as an eyewitness at a later stage and a fabricated and ante dated statement replaced his original statement,” the Court stated. .The Court stated that fabricated statements were produced before the Court to falsely implicate the accused persons. “The manipulation becomes completely evident. The statements of witnesses have been subsequently recorded to implicate the accused, the fabricated statements have been produced before the court, the original statements, were withheld from the court, and witnesses were suborned,” the Court stated. The Court also noted from the case diary that the chargesheet was prepared by one police inspector named Sita Ram but filed by another inspector named Amit Kumar, as there was no material to support the police case.“I could only guess why it could have been done and my guess is, the chargesheet which might have been prepared by ASI Sita Ram had nothing to support the case against the accused because there was no witness and no videos,” the Court stated. .This case pertained to the riots that erupted at Delhi in February 2020 in culmination to anti-CAA protests. On the day of the riots, the police received a call regarding that a mob vandalising shops, committing arson, chanting “Jai Siya Ram” slogans with lathis in hand. Formal complaints were made by persons belonging to Muslim community regarding the riots and damage suffered in their respective areas. Upon complaint, investigation was conducted and chargesheet was filed against accused persons Prem Prakash, Ishu Gupta, Rajkumar, Amit, Rahul and Hariom Sharma. Thereafter, charges were framed against them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code for offences of unlawful assembly, disobeying public servant’s order, mischief by fire, mischief causing damage to property and trespass..In its judgment, the Court observed that there were several discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It further noted that no evidence was found in the CCTV camera that allegedly contained the video footage of the riots.“The court on its own, accessed the said pen drive which was in later sealed with the court seal. When the video files in the pen drive, when played, it was only a black screen. Therefore, if that video was not of this riots and if the video files in the pen drive were blank, as seen by me, I fail to understand by what divine intervention ASI Sita Ram, IO of the case, would come to know that Prem Prakash was involved in this riot,” the Court stated..In view of the same, the Court stated that the prosecution “miserably failed” to prove its case. It also noted the “audacity and impunity” with which the police officials fabricated and manipulated the case.“Hence, the case of the prosecution is found to be a built up case on the basis of the witnesses who as per their initial statements had not seen any of the rioters but who as per their subsequent tampered, manipulated and fabricated statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C went on to state that they had in fact seen and recognized four persons by their names and who surprisingly even in those fabricated initial statements, did not name the bad character of their area, who was leading the mob,” the Court stated. It said that if their mechanism had worked out, it would have “bulldozed and pulverized” the rights of the accused and the expectation of the society“I must observe that the audacity and impunity with which the record was tampered with reflects a complete breakdown of the supervisory mechanism because, the fabricated charge sheet was forwarded by the supervisory officers i.e. the then SHO and the ACP concerned. Had that mechanism worked as it is expected to work, the rights of the accused and the expectation of the society at large that criminal cases are investigated fairly would not have been bulldozed and pulverized,” the Court stated while acquitting the six accused..The Court directed the Commissioner of Police of Delhi to initiate action against the errant officials. [Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.