New Delhi, May 11 A court here has acquitted three men for lack of proof in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots case, and observed that possibility cannot become evidence.
Dinesh Yadav alias Michael, Sandeep alias Mogli and Tinku were the three men who were chargesheeted in the First Information Report (FIR)124 of 2020, registered at Gokalpuri police station.
The FIR was based on two complaints by Irfan and Aakil Saifi in respect of vandalism in their respective premises situated in Bhagirathi Vihar
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts passing the acquittal order saying that the witnesses, who were the victims, were not present at the scene of the occurrence and that their claim that a mob of rioters was responsible for the incident was only based on hearsay.
He said: "These witnesses stated that they had been informed by some persons about vandalism and arson at their respective places. They did not disclose particulars of those informers nor IO found out their particulars. The evidence of these victims cannot be the basis to say that these incidents were caused by a mob."
The judge also noted that one of the prosecution witnesses' identification of the defendants was based on "leading him to do so" during the special public prosecutor's cross-examination of the witness.
"However, the relevant facts in respect of which this witness was cross-examined by ld. Special PP, were not asked from this witness during his examination-in-chief at all. Without seeking any answer from this witness on those facts, he was straightaway given suggestions by ld. Special PP, which was a wrong practice. Such kind of evidence cannot be relied upon by the court even otherwise," the court said.
Additionally, it was observed that there's a good chance a mob was to blame for the incidents at the two properties in issue. The court stated that a possibility cannot become evidence and that the prosecution's conclusion that a mob was responsible for the episodes was based solely on hearsay evidence or on the basis of possibility only, that there was a mob behind the incidents.
The judge said: "It is well settled legal proposition that presumption/strong suspicion cannot be a substitute of evidence. Therefore, for want of any evidence on the record, I am unable to say that there was a mob behind both the incidents probed in this case."
"It is case of the prosecution that accused persons were member of the
mob, which vandalised both properties. However, prosecution even could not prove that there was a mob behind these incidents. In that situation, the inevitable conclusion is that there is no evidence on the record to show involvement of the accused persons in the incidents," the court added.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor