A Delhi court on Tuesday acquitted a man accused of rioting in a case related to Delhi Riots of February, 2020 [State v. Suresh @ Bhatura]..Suresh alias Bhatura was tried for charges including under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting) and 395 (dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat acquitted Suresh on the ground of contradictions in the witnesses’ testimonies."Accused is acquitted of all charges. It is a clear-cut acquittal,” said Judge Rawat.“There is no testimony worth it salt which connect the accused to the present offence in question. Though the glaring inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses have been adumbrated above…,” the court observed in its 21-page judgment.It also summarised the testimonies noting that Asif, the complainant, was not an eyewitness to the incident of rioting and other connected offences in question dated February 25, 2020Singh, it said, was the witness on whom the prosecution relied upon the most but he denied having ever identified the accused either on February 25, 2020 when the alleged incident of rioting, dacoity, mischief by the unlawful assembly took place or even on April 7, 2020, when the police officials came to him with one apprehended individual.The judgment also underscored that the it was not quantity but the quality of the testimony of the witnesses that mattered in a criminal trial.Form the record, it was noted that there was an unlawful assembly had gathered outside the shop of the complainant while ransacking and looting the shop and therefore the ingredients of the offence of unlawful assembly, rioting, dacoity and mischief by the unlawful assembly comprising more than five persons was proved.“However, the crucial question is the identification of the accused and his role in the present offence of rioting by the unlawful assembly and the dacoity and other offences enunciated above,” the court pointed out.The court found Singh’s testimony to be the “most crucial” for the case. The judgment noted that Singh during his deposition hadn’t uttered anything about Suresh’s identification on February 25, 2020.“In fact, he stated that on 07.04.2020, the investigating officer along with head constable Sunil Kumar had brought one person to his home and they told him that he was involved in the ransacking of his shop on February 25, 2020. He further deposed that he even cannot identify that person in the court as it is more than one year,” it added.Singh was observed to have “categorically stated” that he had never told the investigating officer that he could identify the person who had ransacked his shop and denied having made any such statement to the investigating officer. “In fact, he also deposed that he never identified any person as involved in ransacking of his shop… When the attention of the witness was drawn towards the accused, the witness denied the identification,” the court observed.The verdicts also underlined, “Therefore, this is indubitably clear that not only PW2 (Singh) had never identified the accused on the date of the incident on 25.02.2020 but not even on 07.04.2020 when the accused is, as per the prosecution, apprehended and brought before the said witness. Likewise, the said primary star witness has not identified the accused in the court also.”On careful scrutiny, the court also found that the testimony of PW5 (police official) and PW2 (Singh) were contradictory on “material terms of the identification of the accused” and his arrest.“In the light of the testimonies of the said witnesses of the prosecution and their careful scrutiny, it is well apparent that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case, forget about beyond reasonable doubts,” it stated.In its view, all “major” witnesses were at “variance with each other on material terms” impacting the prosecution’s version. “As can be made out on the cumulative reading of the entire testimonies of all the witnesses, the identification of accused is not established at all. The investigation carried out is way short of the desired one,” the court remarked.“Prosecution has not been able toprove its case against the accused as no material has come up against him, which is incriminating in nature. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused. In these circumstances, accused Suresh @ Bhatura is acquitted of all the offences punishable under Section 143/147/427/454 IPC read with Section 149 IPC & Section 395 IPC,” held the court. .The case was filed on the complaint of Asif, who stated that at around 4 pm on February 25, 2020, a huge crowd carrying iron rods and sticks came to his shop on Main Babarpur Road, Delhi and attacked it. The mob allegedly broke open the shutter and the lock and looted the shop. The complainant was the tenant in the shop and the owner Bhagat Singh had reportedly seen the rioters committing the offence.During investigation, Singh reiterated the allegation. He further stated that the rioters were aggressive and wanted to loot the shop because it was of a Muslim. He also claimed that he had tried to stop them. Singh identified Suresh as one of the accused on April 7, 2020.It also came on record that Singh was threatened with consequences if he intervened at the time of the incident. Singh, thereafter, is stated to have run to the beat policeman, informing him about the incident..On March 9, 2021, Suresh was charged under Sections 143, 147, 427 (mischief causing damage to amount of fifty rupees), 454 (trespassing) read with Sections 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) and 395 of IPC.The court had then found grounds to presume that the accused was a part of the unlawful assembly that had committed the offences.
A Delhi court on Tuesday acquitted a man accused of rioting in a case related to Delhi Riots of February, 2020 [State v. Suresh @ Bhatura]..Suresh alias Bhatura was tried for charges including under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting) and 395 (dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat acquitted Suresh on the ground of contradictions in the witnesses’ testimonies."Accused is acquitted of all charges. It is a clear-cut acquittal,” said Judge Rawat.“There is no testimony worth it salt which connect the accused to the present offence in question. Though the glaring inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses have been adumbrated above…,” the court observed in its 21-page judgment.It also summarised the testimonies noting that Asif, the complainant, was not an eyewitness to the incident of rioting and other connected offences in question dated February 25, 2020Singh, it said, was the witness on whom the prosecution relied upon the most but he denied having ever identified the accused either on February 25, 2020 when the alleged incident of rioting, dacoity, mischief by the unlawful assembly took place or even on April 7, 2020, when the police officials came to him with one apprehended individual.The judgment also underscored that the it was not quantity but the quality of the testimony of the witnesses that mattered in a criminal trial.Form the record, it was noted that there was an unlawful assembly had gathered outside the shop of the complainant while ransacking and looting the shop and therefore the ingredients of the offence of unlawful assembly, rioting, dacoity and mischief by the unlawful assembly comprising more than five persons was proved.“However, the crucial question is the identification of the accused and his role in the present offence of rioting by the unlawful assembly and the dacoity and other offences enunciated above,” the court pointed out.The court found Singh’s testimony to be the “most crucial” for the case. The judgment noted that Singh during his deposition hadn’t uttered anything about Suresh’s identification on February 25, 2020.“In fact, he stated that on 07.04.2020, the investigating officer along with head constable Sunil Kumar had brought one person to his home and they told him that he was involved in the ransacking of his shop on February 25, 2020. He further deposed that he even cannot identify that person in the court as it is more than one year,” it added.Singh was observed to have “categorically stated” that he had never told the investigating officer that he could identify the person who had ransacked his shop and denied having made any such statement to the investigating officer. “In fact, he also deposed that he never identified any person as involved in ransacking of his shop… When the attention of the witness was drawn towards the accused, the witness denied the identification,” the court observed.The verdicts also underlined, “Therefore, this is indubitably clear that not only PW2 (Singh) had never identified the accused on the date of the incident on 25.02.2020 but not even on 07.04.2020 when the accused is, as per the prosecution, apprehended and brought before the said witness. Likewise, the said primary star witness has not identified the accused in the court also.”On careful scrutiny, the court also found that the testimony of PW5 (police official) and PW2 (Singh) were contradictory on “material terms of the identification of the accused” and his arrest.“In the light of the testimonies of the said witnesses of the prosecution and their careful scrutiny, it is well apparent that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case, forget about beyond reasonable doubts,” it stated.In its view, all “major” witnesses were at “variance with each other on material terms” impacting the prosecution’s version. “As can be made out on the cumulative reading of the entire testimonies of all the witnesses, the identification of accused is not established at all. The investigation carried out is way short of the desired one,” the court remarked.“Prosecution has not been able toprove its case against the accused as no material has come up against him, which is incriminating in nature. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused. In these circumstances, accused Suresh @ Bhatura is acquitted of all the offences punishable under Section 143/147/427/454 IPC read with Section 149 IPC & Section 395 IPC,” held the court. .The case was filed on the complaint of Asif, who stated that at around 4 pm on February 25, 2020, a huge crowd carrying iron rods and sticks came to his shop on Main Babarpur Road, Delhi and attacked it. The mob allegedly broke open the shutter and the lock and looted the shop. The complainant was the tenant in the shop and the owner Bhagat Singh had reportedly seen the rioters committing the offence.During investigation, Singh reiterated the allegation. He further stated that the rioters were aggressive and wanted to loot the shop because it was of a Muslim. He also claimed that he had tried to stop them. Singh identified Suresh as one of the accused on April 7, 2020.It also came on record that Singh was threatened with consequences if he intervened at the time of the incident. Singh, thereafter, is stated to have run to the beat policeman, informing him about the incident..On March 9, 2021, Suresh was charged under Sections 143, 147, 427 (mischief causing damage to amount of fifty rupees), 454 (trespassing) read with Sections 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) and 395 of IPC.The court had then found grounds to presume that the accused was a part of the unlawful assembly that had committed the offences.
