Delhi riots case: Court discharges 3 of rioting, vandalism stating manipulation of evidence by IO

In the 2020 Delhi riots case, a court in the national capital discharged three individuals who were accused of rioting, being part of an unlawful assembly and committing vandalism during the riots.

NEW DELHI — In the 2020 Delhi riots case, a court in the national capital discharged three individuals who were accused of rioting, being part of an unlawful assembly and committing vandalism during the riots.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts, while discharging the accused namely Akil Ahmad, Rahish Khan and Irshad, expressed suspicion over the conduct of the investigating officer (IO) from the Delhi Police.

The judge stated that there were indications of the IO manipulating evidence and filing chargesheets in a pre-determined and mechanical manner.

The court said that the reported incidents were not thoroughly and properly investigated, and charge sheets seemed to have been filed with an agenda to conceal the initial lapses.

The judge then referred the matter back to the Delhi Police, urging them to re-evaluate the investigation and take appropriate legal actions.

[bsa_pro_ad_space id=1]

The case, registered as FIR 71/2020, originated from a rukka prepared by an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) on February 28, 2020.

Subsequent to the initial filing, the IO combined several complaints into the case, leading to the charge sheet against the accused on July 14, 2020.

Additional supplementary charge sheets were filed on February 15, 2022, and February 16 of the following year.

The court raised concerns about inconsistencies in the charge sheets, including the naming of individuals not mentioned in the statements.

It also questioned the timeline and continuity of events, highlighting discrepancies between different complainants' accounts and the actual observations made by ASI Surender Pal.

The court concluded that subsequent statements were seemingly manufactured to cover up inadequacies in the prosecution's case and to validate the accused's chargesheet.

It noted a lack of evidence supporting the accuracy of these subsequent statements.

Hence, the judge decided to discharge the accused persons and called for a re-evaluation of the investigation process to ensure a fair and just resolution to the case.