The Delhi High Court in the case observed and has acquitted three men in a case concerning the 2020 North-East Delhi riots for lack of proof, wherein the court in the case observed and stated that the possibility cannot become evidence.
The bench headed by Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts in the case observed and has acquitted Dinesh Yadav alias Michael, Sandeep alias Mogli and Tinku of the charges of rioting and who being the member of a riotous mob which vandalized two properties and also looted the certain articles.
In the present case, the court charge sheeted the three men in FIR 124 of 2020 which was being registered at Gokalpuri police station on the basis of two complaints made by one Aakil Saifi and Irfan with regards of vandalism in their properties.
Therefore, the charges are being framed against the three individuals for the offences under section 147, section 148, section 149, section 380, section 188, section 427 and section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The court in its order stated that the witnesses, who being the victim were not present at the concerned places at the time of incident and hence, the statements made by them that the incident which was being caused by a mob of rioters was only based on hearsay.
Further, the court in the case observed that these witness stated that they have been informed by some persons about vandalism and arson at their respective places. Thus, they did not even disclose particulars of those informers nor IO found out their particulars and the evidences of these victims cannot be on the basis to say that the said incidents were caused by mob.
It has also been noted by the judge in the case that the dentification of the accused persons by one of the prosecution witnesses was being based on ‘leading him to do so’ thus, during the cross-examination of him conducted by the special public prosecutor.
Adding to it, the judge stated that the relevant facts in respect of which this witness was cross-examined by ld. Special PP, were not being asked from this witness during his examination-in-chief at all. Therefore, the court without seeking any answer from the said witness on those facts, straightaway he was given the suggestions by ld. Special PP, which being a wrong practise. Thus, such kind of evidence cannot be relied upon by the said court even otherwise.
The court in the case also observed that while there may be any strong possibility that the said incidents at the two properties in question which is being caused by a mob.
Adding to it, the court stated that there being a possibility cannot become evidence and had remained a matter of presumption of the prosecution which is based on hearsay evidence or on the basis of possibility only, that there being a mob behind the said incidents.
Further, the court stated that this court is unable to say that there was a mob behind both the incidents probed in this case.