A Delhi court acquitted a man in a rioting case in connection with the Delhi Riots of February 2020 after expressing its reservations regarding the statement of a policeman, who was a key witness [State v. Noor Mohammed]..Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat acquitted Noor Mohammed of rioting and unlawful assembly charges, besides other offences under the Indian Penal Code. The order stated,“The manner in which PW3 (beat officer) is stated to have identified Noor Mohammad @ Noora as a rioter on 02.04.2020 in the police station when he was being interrogated by the IO, appears to be absolutely doubtful and devoid of trustworthiness.”.The case concerned alleged vandalising and robbing of a bakery in the riot-hit areas of North East Delhi on February 25, 2020..The Court examined the depositions of two other police officers who were witnesses - one probing another case involving the same undertrial and the other being the investigating officer (IO) in the present case.It was found that the undertrial had not been arrested in the present case on the basis of the statement of the beat officer, but rather on his purported disclosure statement recorded by the IO of the other case..The Court said that the disclosure statement had not been proved during the trial in the present case.“This is indicative of the fact that till 31.03.2020 PW3 had not apprised any of his senior officers or fellow police officers about the fact that he had identified one of the rioters as Noor Mohammad @ Noora. PW3 has deposed in his cross examination that he had told to the SHO as well as to the IO about four or five days after the riotous incident in question that he can identify some of the rioters. Had it been so, the IO would not have waited till 31.03.2020 for identification of accused Noor Mohammad @ Noora as an assailant in this case and to arrest him," the order stated..The acquittal order referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Masalti & Ors. v. State of UP in which it was clarified that when an unlawful assembly or a large number of persons take part in arson, or in a clash between two groups, for conviction, a minimum of two prosecution witnesses have to support and identify their role and involvement..The Court said that even assuming that the beat officer informed the IO as well as the Station House Officer that he could identify some of the rioters related to the present case, it was mandatory for the IO to establish the accused’s identity as a rioter by subjecting him to a test identification parade involving the beat officer."Intriguingly that has not been done,” the Court added.The order, therefore, held,"Court does not find any cogent and reliable evidence on record to hold the accused guilty of the charges framed against him. 19. The accused is, thus, acquitted of all the charges.”.Special Public Prosecutor RCS Bhadoria represented the State. Advocate Akhtar Shamim represented the undertrial..[Read Order]
A Delhi court acquitted a man in a rioting case in connection with the Delhi Riots of February 2020 after expressing its reservations regarding the statement of a policeman, who was a key witness [State v. Noor Mohammed]..Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat acquitted Noor Mohammed of rioting and unlawful assembly charges, besides other offences under the Indian Penal Code. The order stated,“The manner in which PW3 (beat officer) is stated to have identified Noor Mohammad @ Noora as a rioter on 02.04.2020 in the police station when he was being interrogated by the IO, appears to be absolutely doubtful and devoid of trustworthiness.”.The case concerned alleged vandalising and robbing of a bakery in the riot-hit areas of North East Delhi on February 25, 2020..The Court examined the depositions of two other police officers who were witnesses - one probing another case involving the same undertrial and the other being the investigating officer (IO) in the present case.It was found that the undertrial had not been arrested in the present case on the basis of the statement of the beat officer, but rather on his purported disclosure statement recorded by the IO of the other case..The Court said that the disclosure statement had not been proved during the trial in the present case.“This is indicative of the fact that till 31.03.2020 PW3 had not apprised any of his senior officers or fellow police officers about the fact that he had identified one of the rioters as Noor Mohammad @ Noora. PW3 has deposed in his cross examination that he had told to the SHO as well as to the IO about four or five days after the riotous incident in question that he can identify some of the rioters. Had it been so, the IO would not have waited till 31.03.2020 for identification of accused Noor Mohammad @ Noora as an assailant in this case and to arrest him," the order stated..The acquittal order referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Masalti & Ors. v. State of UP in which it was clarified that when an unlawful assembly or a large number of persons take part in arson, or in a clash between two groups, for conviction, a minimum of two prosecution witnesses have to support and identify their role and involvement..The Court said that even assuming that the beat officer informed the IO as well as the Station House Officer that he could identify some of the rioters related to the present case, it was mandatory for the IO to establish the accused’s identity as a rioter by subjecting him to a test identification parade involving the beat officer."Intriguingly that has not been done,” the Court added.The order, therefore, held,"Court does not find any cogent and reliable evidence on record to hold the accused guilty of the charges framed against him. 19. The accused is, thus, acquitted of all the charges.”.Special Public Prosecutor RCS Bhadoria represented the State. Advocate Akhtar Shamim represented the undertrial..[Read Order]