Delhi Riots: After Acquittal In Two FIRs, Court Convicts Accused Men On Basis Of Evidence Of Cop Who Earlier Cited Memory Loss

Months after acquitting various accused persons in two cases of 2020 North-East Delhi riots for lack of evidence as a head constable failed to identify them citing memory loss, a Delhi Court has convicted the accused in another case after the cop gave a detailed description regarding them being members of a mob.On Monday, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala convicted nine men namely Mohd. Shahnawaz, Mohd. Shoaib, Shahrukh, Rashid, Azad, Ashraf Ali, Parvez, Md. Faisal and Rashid alias Monu of rioting and being part of unlawful assembly in FIR 53/2020 (P.S. Gokalpuri).The accused have been convicted for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 380, 427, 436, 149 and 188 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. While three of them were in jail, six others were out on bail. The court has directed all of them to be taken into judicial custody and the matter has now been fixed for arguments on sentence on March 29.The same court acquitted all nine accused in FIR 40/2020 (P.S. Gokalpuri) on February 23. In FIR 83/2020 (P.S. Gokalpuri), the court had acquitted four of them on November 18 last year. Both the FIRs were registered for offences similar to FIR 53/2020.In all three cases, the prosecution presented two policemen, Head Constable Hari Babu and Constable Vipin Kumar as primary witnesses for identification of the accused.The FIRs were registered based on the complaints moved by three private individuals alleging that members of a mob, of which the accused were alleged to be a part, committed vandalism in their shops and house on February 24 and 25 2020. In both the FIRs resulting in acquittal, the Head Constable Hari Babu failed to identify the accused persons before court taking the plea of lapse of time and memory loss. The court then acquitted all of them observing that the sole testimony of constable cannot be sufficient to assume their presence in the mob.The prosecution evidence in all the three cases took almost a year to conclude. In FIR 83/2020, it started on October 07, 2021 and concluded on October 18, 2022.In FIR 40/2020, the prosecution evidence commenced on December 16, 2021, and concluded on January 07. In FIR 53/ 2020, the process began on April 02 last year and concluded only on January 17.Earlier CasesDuring the examination in FIR 83/2020, the head constable stated that on February 25, 2020, he along with the constable and other police staff, were on patrolling duty in Chaman Park area when he saw a mob at 2 PM on Shiv Vihar road. He identified only accused Shahnawaz before the court and deposed that he was taking medicine for memory loss. As he did not identify all the accused, judge Pramachala observed that identification of one of the accused by him is not safe to be relied upon. In FIR 40/2020, Babu deposed that on the day in question, he saw a mob of 500 to 600 persons committing vandalism and arson in the shops on main Brijpuri Road at around 1-2 PM. Although he took name of three accused namely Shahnawaz, Parvej and Azad, he was not consistent as per the prosecution’s case on the point of identification of all the accused persons. Since Babu failed to identify anyone before the court taking plea of long lapse of time and the constable wrongly identifying the accused persons, the court said that the testimonies did not help the prosecution in establishing the identity of accused persons as member of the mob.Latest CaseHowever, in FIR 53/2020, Babu gave a detailed description of the incidents that occurred on February 24, 2020, and deposed that he saw a mob which started assembling at Shiv Vihar road after 12 PM. He said that the mob was raising slogans against Hindu community and also set houses and shops on fire. He also deposed that on the intervening night of 24/25 February, 2020, between 12 AM to 01 AM, he saw that a mob broke open the gate of the house of the complainant in that case. He later identified accused Shahnawaz, Azad, Parvez Faisal and Rashid and also identified faces of other members of the mob, including accused Shahrukh and Mohd. Rashid. He then identified Shahnawaz, Rashid, Azad, Faisal and Parvez before the court and also pointed out to Rashid, Shoiab and Shahrukh without taking their names.The counsel appearing for the accused persons questioned the testimony of the head constable based on his stand taken in other two cases by arguing that he was tutored. However, the prosecution contended that even though the cop stated that his memory was not in fit condition in the past, he took medicine for five months and was fit thereafter. It was also submitted that ideally the head constable should not have been examined at that time because of his poor medical condition.On court’s query, Babu explained that at the time of his examination in FIR 40/2020, his memory was not in a fit condition and that he was taking "medicine for mind".After Babu was directed to produce relevant medical document before the court, the defence took the plea that the documents did not show...

Delhi Riots: After Acquittal In Two FIRs, Court Convicts Accused Men On Basis Of Evidence Of Cop Who Earlier Cited Memory Loss

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags