A Delhi court recently acquitted 11 accused persons in a loot and arson case during the 2020 Delhi Riots after finding that the prosecution witnesses seem to have been artificially planted [State v. Ankit Chaudhary @ Fauji etc]. .Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of the Karkardooma Court stated in the order,“I find that charges levelled against the accused persons in this case are not proved beyond all reasonable doubts and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, all accused 1. Ankit Chaudhary @ Fauzi, 2. Sumit @ Badshah, 3. Pappu, 4. Vijay, 5. Ashish Kumar, 6. Sourabh Kaushik, 7. Bhupender, 8. Shakti Singh, 9. Sachin Kumar @ Rancho, 10. Rahul and 11. Yogesh, are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.".Two complaints were filed after loot and arson were allegedly committed by a rioting mob at a medical shop called 'Crown Medicos' and a salon named ‘Smart Looks Salon’. In the chargesheet, the accused persons were charged with the offences of rioting, being part of an unlawful assembly, theft and mischief..There were 12 prosecution witnesses, of which 1 had turned hostile and 3 were found to be unreliable. One eye witness, the owner of the vandalised shop, claimed that he had known few of the accused persons from before the incident. However, he did not name the accused during investigation, but only after the trial started. Even while recording the video of the incident, he did not name the accused persons, the Court noted.The Court poked holes in the statements of the eye witness. It found that his previous statements were inconsistent with his stand taken while identifying witnesses. Therefore, the Court discarded his testimony.It noted that the eye witness’ brother, who was present at the time of the incident, also did not identify the accused persons or state that his brother knew them..Thereafter, the testimony of two Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs) were also discredited and discarded. The ASIs had claimed to know the accused persons since before the riots. The Court noted that their statements identifying the accused persons were recorded at a much belated time, after arrest was made and investigation was completed. .The prosecution witnesses seem to be artificially planted in the case to identify the accused, the Court said.“The IO did not make any attempt to examine such officials at the earliest possible time. Showing photographs of accused to PW9, when they were already arrested in this case, appears to be unnatural action, giving impression that PW9 was artificially made an eye witness to identify the accused persons. Therefore, evidence of PW9 cannot be relied upon to assume presence of any accused in the mob of rioters. Same logic applies to discard the identification by PW10,” the Court stated. If the ASIs had actually seen and identified the accused persons among the rioters, then there was no good reason for them to keep silence for such a long period, the Court observed while proceeding to discard their testimonies..[Read order]
A Delhi court recently acquitted 11 accused persons in a loot and arson case during the 2020 Delhi Riots after finding that the prosecution witnesses seem to have been artificially planted [State v. Ankit Chaudhary @ Fauji etc]. .Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of the Karkardooma Court stated in the order,“I find that charges levelled against the accused persons in this case are not proved beyond all reasonable doubts and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, all accused 1. Ankit Chaudhary @ Fauzi, 2. Sumit @ Badshah, 3. Pappu, 4. Vijay, 5. Ashish Kumar, 6. Sourabh Kaushik, 7. Bhupender, 8. Shakti Singh, 9. Sachin Kumar @ Rancho, 10. Rahul and 11. Yogesh, are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.".Two complaints were filed after loot and arson were allegedly committed by a rioting mob at a medical shop called 'Crown Medicos' and a salon named ‘Smart Looks Salon’. In the chargesheet, the accused persons were charged with the offences of rioting, being part of an unlawful assembly, theft and mischief..There were 12 prosecution witnesses, of which 1 had turned hostile and 3 were found to be unreliable. One eye witness, the owner of the vandalised shop, claimed that he had known few of the accused persons from before the incident. However, he did not name the accused during investigation, but only after the trial started. Even while recording the video of the incident, he did not name the accused persons, the Court noted.The Court poked holes in the statements of the eye witness. It found that his previous statements were inconsistent with his stand taken while identifying witnesses. Therefore, the Court discarded his testimony.It noted that the eye witness’ brother, who was present at the time of the incident, also did not identify the accused persons or state that his brother knew them..Thereafter, the testimony of two Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs) were also discredited and discarded. The ASIs had claimed to know the accused persons since before the riots. The Court noted that their statements identifying the accused persons were recorded at a much belated time, after arrest was made and investigation was completed. .The prosecution witnesses seem to be artificially planted in the case to identify the accused, the Court said.“The IO did not make any attempt to examine such officials at the earliest possible time. Showing photographs of accused to PW9, when they were already arrested in this case, appears to be unnatural action, giving impression that PW9 was artificially made an eye witness to identify the accused persons. Therefore, evidence of PW9 cannot be relied upon to assume presence of any accused in the mob of rioters. Same logic applies to discard the identification by PW10,” the Court stated. If the ASIs had actually seen and identified the accused persons among the rioters, then there was no good reason for them to keep silence for such a long period, the Court observed while proceeding to discard their testimonies..[Read order]
