Police version ‘not natural’: Delhi court acquits 16 men in 13-year-old rioting case in Jama Masjid

The three star eyewitnesses in this case were Head Constable (HC) Raj Kumar, Constable Rajesh and ex-Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Taushif Khan.

In a judgment dated September 24, Additional Sessions Judge Virender Kumar Kharta of Tis Hazari Court said: “Due to inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of HC Raj Kumar, Ct. Rajesh & Retd. ASI Taushif Khan, serious doubts have been created upon the prosecution story… The versions of PW-2/complainant HC Raj Kumar, PW-3 Ct. Rajesh & PW-30 Retd. ASI Taushif Khan is not a natural one.”

“… from the testimonies of HC Raj Kumar and Ct. Rajesh, it is clear that they had maintained a safe distance from the mob and moved backward. The alleged incident took place at night time and in these circumstances, it could not have been possible to see as to who put the police booth on fire,” the judge said.

“… none of the above said prosecution witnesses have identified any of the accused persons nor have they explained the individual role of accused persons. This raises serious doubts on the prosecution story,” he added.

The judge also said that “none of the police officials videographed the incident with their mobile phones through which the faces of accused persons could have been identified”.

Police had registered an FIR against the accused persons for rioting, obstructing public servants, damaging public property, theft (of Rs 7.5 lakh), and mischief by fire. Charges had been framed in this case on February 17, 2014, and the trial went on for close to 11 years.

As per police, which examined 39 witnesses to prove its case, all eyewitnesses had supported the prosecution story and “corroborated each other’s version”.

The court, however, noted that three different timings of the incident of stone pelting by the mob had come on record. This, it said, raised “serious doubts on the prosecution story”. It also observed that nothing had been recovered from possession of any of the accused persons and that no independent eyewitnesses had been examined.