3 years after Delhi violence, verdicts in less than a tenth of riot, arson cases

Riot victims at Shiv Vihar in New Delhi on Saturday. (Delhi riots 2020) Express Photo by Amit Mehra. 07.03.2020.

All these 695 cases were filed under Sections 147 (punishment for rioting; two-year prison term); 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon; three-year prison term); 149 (unlawful assembly); and 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc; life term), among others.

Records of these cases analysed by The Indian Express reveal that most of the acquittals were because of the inability of the prosecution to identify the accused. The key findings:

• In 15 acquittals, courts noted that the police identified the accused after  considerable delay. Their testimonies became doubtful in the absence of police station records like daily diary (DD) entry, absence of signatures on arrest memos, and no written reports to superior officers informing them about the involvement of the accused.
• In 10 acquittals, police witnesses identified the accused saying they knew them before the riots broke out as they were the beat officers of the area. However, their testimonies did not stand the test of trial. This is illustrated in a case of riots which broke out in Gokulpuri, wherein the court quizzed two police witnesses over the number of beat areas in Bhagirathi Vihar. One police witness deposed there were eight patrolling areas, while the other witness stated there was only one. The court  said that “such contradictory statements raise questions over their claims” and added that “it is not improbable that these two witnesses were used by the prosecution merely with the objective to show that this case was solved”.
• In three acquittals, the court noted that police witnesses, during cross-examination, stated that they were “suffering from memory loss” and “were also taking medicine for the same”.
• In the remaining eight acquittals, police made arrests on the basis of information provided by secret informers in four cases; in three orders, the court noted that the police had made contradictory statements; and in one, police witnesses had deposed in a general way, the court noted.

Explaining this, a senior official in the prosecution department attributed this to witnesses turning hostile and the challenge of identifying accused in trying circumstances.

Riot victims at Shiv Vihar in New Delhi on Saturday. (Delhi riots 2020) Express Photo by Amit Mehra. 07.03.2020.

Said a senior official: “Witnesses identify the rioters and then they all turn hostile the minute they are asked to testify…The challenges we face mostly is that the accused were wearing helmets, masks and it was a tough time for the investigators to ascertain their identity during the riots since they were also involved in maintaining law and order. So some inconsistencies in their deposition end up in acquittals. We try our level best to correct defects in the investigations by filing supplementary chargesheets later.”

The officer’s point is corroborated by the fact that in 33 acquittals, independent witnesses turned hostile and in three acquittals, the eyewitnesses could not be traced by the police.

Riot victims at Shiv Vihar in New Delhi on Saturday. (Delhi riots 2020) Express Photo by Amit Mehra. 07.03.2020.

Of the 36 acquittals, 20 are Hindu while 16 are Muslim. The 11 who have been convicted are all Hindu. In the case of 10 convicts, the courts took a lenient view considering that they pleaded guilty, and sentenced them to a period already undergone in custody.

In five cases, the convicts had spent over two years in jail, while in the rest, they had spent 76 days in jail.

The 11th convict, Dinesh Yadav, was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment for being part of an unlawful assembly which allegedly trespassed into a woman’s home in Bhagirathi Vihar and set it on fire.

Temporary settlement for the riot victims by Waqf Board in the Eid Gah in Mustafabad after Delhi Riots in the North East Delhi, on Monday, March 03, 2020. Express photo by Abhinav Saha

Apart from these 695 cases, 63 cases are being tackled by the Crime Branch and Special Cell, which pertain to sections of murder and UAPA. “Of these, there are over 30 cases in which charges have been framed and 29 cases are at the stage of prosecution evidence,” an official said.