On the 27th of October, the court acquitted a Hindu man of all charges in a 2020 Delhi anti-Hindu riots case. The charges against Sandeep Kumar included those of arson, vandalism and loot. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Court said that the prosecution had failed to prove its case and the testimony of the witnesses by the prosecution was unreliable.
While discharging Sandeep Kumar, the court said that the prosecution had proved that the complainants house was vandalised and burnt down, however, they failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the work of a mob and that Sandeep Kumar was a part of the mob which allegedly carried out the arson and loot.
The prosecution had alleged that the house of one Rashid was burnt down by a Hindu mob, of which, Sandeep Kumar was a part. It was alleged that Kumar was a part of an unlawful assembly responsible for the looting of a residence and the ignition of household items and a two-wheeler in the Shiv Vihar locality within Karwal Nagar on February 25, 2020.
In the judgment dated October 27, ASJ Pramachala remarked, “The prosecution, although it successfully presented evidence of vandalism, looting, and the destruction of household items and a motorcycle, could not conclusively demonstrate the mob’s responsibility for these actions or the defendant’s unequivocal involvement in said mob.”
Delivering its verdict, the court said that the testimony of the complainant, Rashid, was not helpful since he was not present when his house was vandalised and burnt down. The court said, “He came back to his house after 3-4 days from 25-02-2020 and at that time he found his motor-cycle in completely burnt condition. He also found his articles on the first floor of the house in vandalized and burnt condition. He also alleged that jewelries of his wife were missing. So, even if it is accepted that his house was vandalized and jewelries were looted, still it is not established from the evidence of PW3 that a mob was behind this incident. In the complaint of PW3, it is mentioned that a mob did this, but apparently such plea was not based on personal knowledge of PW3”.
The court further said the two policemen, who had claimed that they were present at the very spot and witnessed not just the mob but also Sandeep Kumar as a part of the mob, were not reliable in their testimony.
One of the policemen, PW5, did not make any mention of the specific incident of vandalism but had only made a general statement that he had witnessed a mob at Gali No. 11. “He made a general statement that he saw a mob of 30- 40 persons in gali no. 11 at about 7 PM, while indulging in vandalism and arson. He projected himself to be a chance witness, stating that he was going to police station when he saw this mob. On the other hand, PW6 deposed that he reached gali 11 on receiving information from public about assembly of a mob in this gali. According to PW6, this information was received by him at Shiv Vihar Tiraha and at that time no other police official was present there. He stated that he reached gali 11 in about 3 minutes and it was around 7 PM when he was in this gali and when he saw a mob of around 30-40 persons”, the court said.
The court then noted the discrepancies in the statements of the two police officers.
- According to PW5, he met PW6 on nala road at about 6-6.30 PM. While PW6 deposed that PW5 met him in gali no. 11, after PW6 reached there.
- PW5 deposed that he met PW6 before leaving for police station. That means that PW5 did not meet PW6 in gali no. 11 during ongoing riot in this gali, if any.
- It is unlikely that two police officers from the same police station would be present at the site of mob violence but have any confusion about the events that were taking place in that area.
- It does not make sense that if both these police officials were there in gali no. 11, when riot was ongoing, then they would take different position there, especially when both of them were working together in same police station.
On the basis of the discrepancies, the court raised doubt that both the police officers were even present at Gali No 11, as they stated.
Additionally, the court noted that while one of the police officials had recorded his statement identifying Kumar on February 29, the other officer claimed to have seen the accused only on August 1, 2020. This inconsistency further undermined the reliability of their testimonies.
Based on this lack of evidence, Sandeep Kumar, who was charged under sections 147/148/427/436/ 380/506/454 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and pled not guilty to all charges, was acquitted.
Delhi anti-Hindu riots 2020
On the 24th and 25th of February 2020, India’s national capital Delhi saw large-scale anti-Hindu riots which marked the culmination of the hostility, hatred, and anger spread by the anti-CAA protests by the Islamists in Shaheen Bagh and other areas. Shahdara, Maujpur, Bhajanpura, Brahmapuri, and other parts of northeast Delhi witnessed violence perpetrated by the Islamists. 53 people died in these riots while more than 200 people were left injured.
While many people wish to look at the Delhi Riots 2020 in isolation, the sequence of events starting right from the 1st of December 2019 proves otherwise. It proves that the violence was a concerted effort to push India toward anarchy. It proves that the Delhi Riots was no anti-Muslim pogrom, it was indeed, a well-oiled plan against Hindus.
OpIndia had extensively covered the anti-Hindu riots, which were falsely presented by the mainstream media as an anti-Muslim pogrom, and established facts documenting tragic cries of Hindus which would otherwise have gone unheard.
The damage to the property in these riots had been enormous. An Intelligence Bureau Constable was murdered in the riots along with a Head Constable of the Delhi Police. Amidst all of this, one gun-wielding man was spotted brandishing his gun at the Police and firing shots. The rioter was identified as Shahrukh. A Hindu man Dilbar Negi was burnt to death after his hands and legs were chopped off by Jihadis. Delhi was in the grip of communal violence ever since the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act. What Delhi saw in these anti-Hindu riots was only the crescendo of a fire that was lit by radicals months ago.
