Different yardsticks for Hindus and Muslims: How acquittal of Noor Mohammad and conviction of Dinesh in Delhi Riots raise questions

A Delhi Court on Wednesday acquitted one Noor Mohammad alias Noora of all charges in relation to the Delhi anti-Hindu riots of February 2020 stating that there was no cogent and reliable evidence on record to hold him guilty. An FIR (129/2020) in this regard was registered at the Khajuri Khas Police Station. 

Delhi Police had booked Noor Mohammad under various sections related to rioting, unlawful assembly, arson and vandalism in Bunny Bakery Shop at Chand Bagh Pulia on February 25, 2020. The court observed that when there is an unlawful assembly or a large gathering of people takes place and take part in arson or clashes take place between two groups, in order to convict the accused, at least two prosecution witnesses have to support and identify the role and involvement of the person concerned.

While acquitting Noor Mohammad, the court said:

“When a criminal Court has to deal with the evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, the normal test is that the conviction should be sustained only if it is supported by two or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident in question. When an unlawful assembly or a large number of persons take part in arson or in a clash between two groups, in order to convict a person, at least two prosecution witnesses have to support and identify the role and involvement of the persons concerned.”

Therefore, it appears that the following points were kept in mind by the Court:

1. There was no clear evidence of Noor Mohammad’s involvement in the arson and vandalism of Bunny Bakery Shop at Chand Bagh Pulia on 25th February 2020
2. In such a case, to convict an accused, the court needs 2 prosecution witnesses that have cogent and consistent statements identifying the accused identifying his role and involvement in the incident.
3. The accused was arrested based on his own disclosure statement.
4. The proprietor of the vandalized/burnt shop of M/s Bunny Bakers had nowhere stated in his entire deposition that he had gone to the Police Station on April 2, 2020, and had identified Noor there when he was being interrogated by the IO.
5. The police beat constable identified Noor Mohammad as a rioter on April 2, 2020, during the interrogation in the police station. The constable’s identification, the court said, appears to be absolutely doubtful and devoid of trustworthiness.
6. From the deposition of the investigating officer (IO) and a sub-inspector, ‘it was evident’ that the accused was not arrested on the identificatory statement of the constable.
7. The court further stated that the IO in his deposition said that the complainant Gyanendra Kumar also identified Noor Mohammad as one of the rioters on April 2, 2020, in the police station. However, the same has not been affirmed by the complainant himself. 
8. The beat officer had not apprised his senior officers or his colleagues that he has identified one of the rioters Noor Mohammad and to arrest him. And that he waited for March 31, 2020, to identify and arrest the accused.

From available reports, it seems the crux of the acquittal of accused Noor Mohammad is based on the 8 aforementioned points, as detailed by the sessions court.

However, when one does an analysis of one of the previous judgements in the Delhi Riots case, which convicted Hindu accused Dinesh Yadav and sent him to prison for 5 years, there are several questions raised about the consistency of the judgements and whether there is an element of partiality as far as judgement regarding Hindu and Muslim accused are concerned.

In January, the ongoing Delhi anti-Hindu riots saw their first conviction. A Hindu man, Dinesh Yadav, was convicted of burning the house of a Muslim woman, Majori, and sentenced to 5 years in prison.

The case in which Dinesh Yadav was convicted pertains to a case of alleged violence on the 25th of February 2020 where a mob of Hindus had allegedly barged into the house of an old Muslim woman called Manori, stole and vandalised the house. According to the prosecutors, the woman had jumped to the adjacent building to save her life, along with a child, and was rescued by the police who had then escorted her to her relative’s house. An FIR in the case was registered on 3rd March 2020 and witnesses were examined.

The case itself had several inconsistencies. For example, while it is said that Manori jumped at her neighbour’s house when the vandalisation happened, it was later revealed that Manori and her family were not even present in the house when the violence broke out. In fact, in their own testimony, Manori said that she and her children had left the house hours before the violence had erupted. To add insult to injury, during the trial, Manori and her sons had turned hostile. While earlier they had claimed that they were present in the house when the violence broke out, they changed their statements and said they had left hours ago.

Regardless of this glaring inconsistency, Dinesh Yadav was convicted. In fact, this was not the only inconsistency. As explained in a previous analysis of the judgement in the case, the court document presented the following points:

1. Manori, the old woman whose house was vandalised, was not present in the house when the vandalised took place. She said she had left the house at around 4 PM on the 25th and the vandalisation, according to the police personnel (who were also witnesses in the case), began at about 11 PM. 
2. Manori, her family members Ashiq and Asif could not identify any of the rioters, leave alone Dinesh Yadav, since they were not present when the vandalisation took place. In fact, these witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution where during cross-questioning, they said that they had never told the police that they were in the house when the vandalisation took place. Essentially, it would appear that the police were under the impression that they were present in the house when the vandalisation took place. The family itself had alluded to it several times, even in an Indian Express interview after the verdict was out. 
3. The police personnel, Vipin and Sanoj, named Dinesh because they saw him in the vicinity of the mob. They have admitted that Dinesh was in no way involved in the violence. They said they him with a wooden danda, however, no such danda was recovered from Dinesh. In fact, there was no incriminating material found on his person. 
4. The court in its wisdom said that even though there is no evidence to suggest that Dinesh was involved in the violence, he was a part of the mob and therefore, assumed his intention to further the common goal of the illegal mob – vandalise and commit violence against Muslims. 
5. The court predicated this conclusion on two factors – a) Section 149 applies, which basically says that even if a person is not committing violence but is a part of an illegal assembly creating violence and if he has the intention to further the same illegal goal of the illegal crowd, he should be held liable, b) the mob was Hindu and since he was Hindu too, it can be assumed that he wanted to further the same cause as that of the rest of the mob. 
6. One has to keep in mind that other than this assumption, based on the fact that he is a Hindu, there is no evidence on record to suggest that he was not a bystander and wanted to further the cause of the illegal mob, yet, the court sentenced Dinesh to 5 years in prison. 

The full article analysing the Dinesh Yadav judgement and the miscarriage of justice can be read here.

In the acquittal of Noor Mohammad and the conviction of Dinesh Yadav in the Delhi riots case, the judicial system clearly does not cover itself in glory, given the glaring inconsistencies in judicial logic in the two cases.

While Noor was acquitted saying that there is no consistent testimony elucidating his involvement in the crime, Dinesh Yadav was acquitted even though the witnesses themselves said Yadav was not involved in the violence and the victims could not recognise any of the rioters given they were not even at the spot of the violence when the incident happened. There were no weapons or stolen goods recovered from Dinesh Yadav, in fact, while in Noor’s case, the court relied on Supreme Court judgement and claimed that 2 prosecutorial witnesses are required for conviction, there was not even one consistent testimony in the case of Dinesh Yadav, yet, he was convicted.

In the case of Dinesh Yadav, the judgement was clear – there was no evidence to convict him. There were no witnesses who said that Dinesh Yadav was a part of the mob indulging in vandalisation and theft. The witnesses who took the stand categorically said that they could not place Yadav doing anything illegal. The court merely convicted him because he was a Hindu in the vicinity of a mob, that comprised of Hindus.

In the case of Noor Mohammad, there was a witness who recognised him, however, the court said that it was not sufficient evidence to convict him of the crime. In fact, there was a disclosure statement from Noor as well, on the basis of which he was supposedly arrested, but the court in its wisdom said that there was insufficient to convict him in the Delhi anti-Hindu riots.

Not the only inconsistency in Delhi Riots judgements – the court displayed double standards in giving bail to those accused in the Dilbar Negi case

On January 18th, the Delhi High Court granted bail to six persons named Mohd Tahir, Shahrukh, Mohd Faizal, Mohd Shoaib, Rashid and Parvez in the Gokulpuri murder case related to the Delhi Riots of February 2020. The bail was granted by Justice Subramonium Prasad. The six were accused of vandalism and setting Anil Sweet Corner on fire “resulting in the death of 22-year-old Dilbar Negi”.

In the case of bail granted to the accused in the Dilbar Negi case, the very tenets that were used to convict Dinesh Yadav were interpreted differently to grant bail to the Muslim accused.

The foundational element in both these cases, the bail order in the Dilbar Negi case and the conviction judgement in the Dinesh Yadav case, was the application of Section 149. This section and its interpretation were used differently in both cases, in one, to convict the Hindu boy Dinesh Yadav in the other, to give bail to the Muslim perpetrators in the Dilbar Negi murder case. 

In the case of Dinesh Yadav, where he was convicted, the court said that for Section 149, it does not need to be proved that the individual was a part of the violence at all. The mere fact that Dinesh was allegedly a part of the mob, goes to show that he showed a common goal with the illegal assembly. In fact, the court convicted Dinesh on the basis of this mere assumption. Going further, the court said that because the crowd was Hindu, and Dinesh was Hindu, it is a reasonable assumption that he was a part of the mob sharing their goal to harm Muslims. Keep in mind, that while interpreting Section 149 and throwing Dinesh in jail for 5 years, the court categorically admitted that there was absolutely no evidence to prove that Dinesh was a part of the violence that ensued and led to the house of the Muslim woman being burnt. 

In the case where Md Tahir was given bail, the court also interpreted Section 149 but in a manner diametrically opposed to the interpretation used by the court in the Dinesh Yadav case. 

In the case of giving bail to the Muslim accused in the Dilbar Negi case, the court said categorically that “…clear finding needs to be given by the Court regarding the nature of an unlawful common object. Furthermore, if any such finding is absent or if there is no overt act on behalf of the accused, the mere fact that the accused was present or armed would not be sufficient to prove common object”.

It went so far as to say that the court has to be circumspect of the personal liberty of individuals and therefore, granting bail is the norm that the court must follow. 

As evident, in the two cases, the court interpreted the provision of the law differently using one to convict a Hindu boy and using the other to grant bail to the Muslim accused. 

One has to also bear in mind that in the case of the Muslim accused, the court judgement says that there are over 70 witnesses to examine but in the case of Dinesh Yadav, where he was convicted on the basis of a flawed interpretation of the law, there were witnesses who could not identify anyone from the mob because they were not even there when the violence took place and two other police officers, who merely said they identified Dinesh standing around in the crowd and had no evidence that he participated in any violence. 

This was not an average situation where any individual who was a part of the mob was there to further the common objective of the illegal assembly. There were widespread riots in the national capital on those fateful days and incidents of violence aplenty. There were several individuals who were bystanders or stuck in the violence-affected areas. Further, there were people also moving around in groups to ensure some sort of safety for themselves. With no proof that Dinesh was a part of the violence, on the say-so of two police officers, with no evidence like weapons recovered or CCTV footage, the court incarcerated him on the basis of the fact that he was a Hindu, standing near a Hindu mob. Whereas, in the case of the Muslim convicts, they have been granted bail on the basis of a completely different interpretation of Section 149.

While it is true that at the stage of the bail hearing, there is a presumption of innocence, the glaring difference in interpretation of Section 149 and the standard of burden of evidence points towards a gross miscarriage of justice as far as Dinesh Yadav is concerned. While the miscarriage of justice already existed in the case of Dinesh Yadav when juxtaposed with the bail granted to the accused in the Negi case, the acquittal of Noor Mohammad only lends credence to the suspicion that the judicial system has been flawed in the dispensation of justice and different yardsticks are being employed as far as Muslim and Hindu accused are concerned in the Delhi anti-Hindu riots.