A Delhi court has acquitted 10 men in connection with the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, citing shortcomings in the evidence presented by the police.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of the Karkardooma Courts has acquitted Mohd. Shahnawaz, Mohd. Shoaib, Shahrukh, Rashid, Azad, Ashraf Ali, Parvez, Mohd. Faizal, Rashid, and Mohd. Tahir in the case.

Charges were framed against the 10 men on December 7, 2021, for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 436, 454, 392, 452, 427, 506, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The complaint was filed by Narender Kumar, who alleged that during the riots, the accused entered his house, looted various items, and set his furniture on fire. He also claimed that they damaged the shop located in the building.

In acquitting the accused, the court observed that the prosecution witnesses, including a head constable and three ASIs, presented conflicting accounts of the incident. The court noted that these discrepancies undermined the credibility of the alleged eyewitnesses.

The judge also observed that another police officer claimed to have been on duty with two other officers, despite being assigned to a different location.

The court stated, “Thus, there is another gap in the prosecution’s evidence, which presents a contradictory picture. This gap adversely affects the credibility of the claims made by the aforementioned three eyewitnesses.”

The judge further highlighted an “element of artificiality” in the claim of the third investigating officer in the case, who was also a prosecution witness.

“All these scenarios go on to cast doubt over the manner, in which PW17 claimed to examine aforesaid police eye-witnesses, who were otherwise posted in the same police station since the beginning of the investigation,” the court said.

It added: “I can understand that due to ongoing other problems in the form of managing after effect of riots and Covid-19, there could have been delay in going ahead with the investigation. However, the artificiality of claim, is different thing which creates doubt regarding genuineness of the claim made by IO and aforesaid police eye-witnesses.”

The judge concluded that the top three prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, did not support the prosecution's case regarding the identification of the accused persons.

“Thus, the overall effect remains that I find it unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW6, PW9 and PW13, to believe that all the accused persons were part of the mob, which had attacked upon the property of PW1,” it said.