Delhi Riots: Witnesses fail to 'inspire' court as it acquits 2 men on trial for rioting, vandalism

Two men on trial for rioting and vandalising property during the Delhi riots have been acquitted by a Special Court, which held that the prosecution hadn’t proved the case beyond reasonable doubt — the “touchstone” of criminal law [State v. Yogender Singh, Suraj]..Judge Amitabh Rawat, who pronounced the verdict on September 14, noted that the testimonies of two key witnesses in the case did not “inspire the court” to prove the case against the two men.Yogender Singh and Suraj were on trial for offences under Sections 147 (rioting), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of 50 rupees), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of IPC.“Prosecution has not been able to prove its case against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt which is the touchstone of criminal law,” the judgment highlighted..The two eye-witnesses were complainant Shamshad and Delhi police constable Pramod. According to the complainant, the large group of rioters had looted and ransacked his house on the eve of February 25, 2020, making him suffer huge losses. The police arrested the two men and alleged that they were part of the mob that had vandalised Shamshad’s property.Before analysing the evidence brought before it, the court underscored the “cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence” and underlined that a criminal case had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt against an accused for pronouncing them guilty. .But when it came to the testimony of the complainant, it was noted that he changed his stand from having recorded his statement before the police to the one during his cross-examination. “Thus, it is not as if the complainant Shamshad was not ascribed as an eyewitness to the entire incident of rioting and later on retracted the said stand,” said the court.Shamshad being the “most important” eyewitness in the case was stated to have neither attributed anything to the accused nor did he identify their presence or involvement in the present case. The police witness, on the other hand, was found to have identified the two men only on March 9, 2020, when he reportedly saw them at a police station in some other case. In his cross-examination, the witness said that he hadn’t made a note or an oral complaint of the incident of February 25, 2020. He also said he had known the accused persons from their faces before the incident, but did not know their names..The court, however, observed that his deposition of having never made a diary entry or an oral complaint about the incident, or for that matter, his assertion in the cross-examination of knowing the accused persons but not having informed anyone about it until March 3, 2020, gave rise to the “suspicion about the veracity” of the testimony. “On the cumulative reading of the entire testimonies of all the witnesses, the presence of accused persons in the unlawful assembly on the time and place of the incident and their participation in the act of rioting, mischief and burning of the house of the complainant is not established at all,” the judgment held. As a result, the two men were acquitted of the crimes..Special public prosecutor Rajeev Krishan Sharma represented the State..[Read Judgment]