A Delhi Court has acquitted three men – Dinesh Yadav, Sandeep Singh and Tinku Kumar – in a case concerning Delhi Riots 2020 for lack of evidence. The court observed that “possibility cannot become evidence in itself” and stated that it had remained a matter of presumption of prosecution, based on hearsay evidence or on the basis of possibility only.
The three men were accused of committing offences punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the basis of two complaints made by Aakil Saifi and Irfan, regarding vandalism and looting of certain articles from their respective premises. The three men were charged u/s 147, 148, 149, 188, 380, 427 and 436 of the IPC in FIR 124 of 2020.
The court held that while the prosecution has argued that the three men were part of a mob, there is no evidence on record to indicate that they were involved in the incidents. The court said, “It is case of the prosecution that accused persons were member of the mob, which vandalized both properties. However, prosecution even could not prove that there was a mob behind these incidents. In that situation, the inevitable conclusion is that there is no evidence on the record to show involvement of the accused persons in the incidents at E-167 and A-168, Bhagirathi Vihar.”
The court concluded, “In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I find that charges levelled against the accused persons in this case are not proved at all. Hence, accused Dinesh Yadav @ Michael, Sandeep @ Mogli and Tinku, are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them in this case.”
The court perused the testimonies of the witnesses and observed that the witnesses were not present at the place at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the court observed that the witnesses were informed about the incident by other persons, particulars of whom were not disclosed. Therefore, the court held that the witnesses’ statements are mere hearsay.
The court said, “However, these witnesses were not present at these places at the time of incident. Hence, their statement that such incident was caused by a mob of rioters, is based on hearsay only. These witnesses stated that they had been informed by some persons about vandalism and arson at their respective places. They did not disclose particulars of those informers nor IO found out their particulars. The evidence of these victims cannot be the basis to say that these incidents were caused by a mob.”
Furthermore, the court observed that the identification of the accused was based on leading the witness during the cross-examination conducted by the Special Public Prosecutor. The court said, “Without seeking any answer from this witness on those facts, he was straightaway given suggestions by ld. Special PP, which was a wrong practice. Such kind of evidence cannot be relied upon by the court even otherwise.”