Form of words:
New Delhi: In six of the seven cases related to the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi that have gone to trial so far, physical witnesses have failed to identify the attackers in court who were allegedly part of the mob that had gone to trial during the communal frenzy. His property was damaged.
These six cases are part of riots registered at local police stations like Dayalpur, Karawal Nagar and Gokalpuri in the northeast district, in which 53 people were killed and hundreds were injured.
The trial of these seven cases began in a special court last month, more than a year and a half after the riots. This court has so far received about 150 cases for hearing; They were committed to it after the police filed the charge sheet.
All these FIRs are under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including sections related to rioting, theft, fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, mischief and disobedience to cause damage exceeding Rs 50 and There are related sections. An order promulgated by a government official. The jail term for all these offenses ranges between two and 10 years.
A total of 750 cases were registered after the riots. Of these, charge sheets have been filed against about 400. While a large number remained with the police, those who were charged with murder were transferred to the crime branch. Later, one of the cases assigned to the Crime Branch, which involved a larger conspiracy theory, was handed over to the Special Special Cell of the Delhi Police for a thorough investigation.
So far, charges have been framed in about 57 cases, while nine have been sent back to magistrates after the conclusion that the offenses committed by the evidence produced by the police did not make the cases triable by the sessions court. . This means that they were not of a heinous nature.
Read also: Both Hindu and Muslim accused in Delhi riots case, court ordered two separate trials
what the witnesses have said
Prosecution evidence has ended in only one of the seven cases before the special court that ThePrint has considered. The evidence recorded so far appears to be weak.
In six of these cases, the complainants/witnesses have stated that there was no immediate response from the police when the helpline number 100 was called.
Statements seen by ThePrint show that some witnesses were not present at the site when their belongings such as motorcycles or scooters and property including shops were vandalized. Most had fled the area either to be with relatives or to visit the places where the police had left them. Those who witnessed the damage have categorically denied seeing the accused burning or destroying their belongings.
While two FIRs pertain to charges against a person named Dinesh, one pertains to charges against Shakeel and others.
There is only one case out of seven in which the complainant has given a positive statement against an accused named Praveen Giri. The same man is an accused in three more FIRs, but he is yet to be identified as the attacker.
FIR 64/2020 and 141/2020 in Gokalpuri
FIR 64/2020 and 141/2020 Gokalpuri names Dinesh as accused. In 64/2020 he is accused of vandalizing the complainant’s house, burning his bike and stealing goods from his house.
The complainant and his family members have stated on oath that they did not see any rioters causing damage to the property, as they were not present at the time of the incident.
So far, statements of 10 witnesses including three police officers have been recorded in this case.
Of the three police officers, the beat constable of the area identified Dinesh on the ground. The constable told the court that there were only four to five rioters who were masked, and Dinesh was one of them. The police officer also saw these people entering the complainant’s house and setting it on fire.
However, in response to a question, the constable admitted that he had not made any call to the local police station about the incident, and also admitted that he had not informed the investigating officer of the case about the identity of the accused.
According to the statement of another police officer, Dinesh was arrested in this case on the basis of disclosure statement recorded in another case, FIR No. 78/2020.
Similarly in FIR 141/2020, the complainant and his family members denied seeing Dinesh committing arson. On showing his own statements which were earlier recorded before the police, he denied the material.
Nevertheless, the complainant stated that it was wrong to say, as the defense did, that he had not seen the incident or the person who ransacked his house. Two police officers who were witnesses in the FIR told the court that they did not see the accused vandalizing the complainant’s house. 13 witnesses recorded their statements in this case.
Fir 131/2020 in Dayalpur
In the FIR 131/2020 registered in Dayalpur, the police have included incidents of burning of two shops including a pastry shop and an autorickshaw.
The three witnesses who have testified so far are the owners of three properties damaged during the riots. However, none of them identified the accused in the court. The three witnesses said that they were not present at the spot at the respective time. That’s why he said, he does not know whether the accused present in the court were the real criminals or not.
The owners of both the shops said that they downed the shutters due to the tense atmosphere. One of them said that he got information about the burning of his shop four days after the incident.
FIR 108/2020, 90/2020 and 96/2020 in Karawal Nagar
In these three FIRs, the police have made Praveen Giri an accused. While nine witnesses have so far recorded their statements in 108/2020, six in 90/2020 and eight in 96/2020.
None of the nine witnesses in FIR 108/2020 identified Giri in court. Those whose property was damaged claimed that they were not present at the site at the time of the incident.
An eyewitness, who admitted to seeing the crowd in the stampede, told the bench that Giri was not part of the mob. He categorically stated that Giri was not the person he had seen on the spot and identified him as the attacker at the police station a few days later.
In FIR 90/2020 also, the witnesses claimed that they did not see their belongings and property getting damaged, and came to know about it through someone else.
Similarly, in FIR 96/2020, while the witnesses have given a detailed account of the sequence of events leading to the riots, no one has confirmed Giri’s involvement.
In all the three FIRs, only the police officials have confirmed the contents of the complaints.
FIR 120/2020 in Karawal Nagar – Only one where accused has been identified
In this case, the complainant also gave a detailed description of accused Praveen Giri. In his statement before the court, the complainant said that the rioters were playing Vaccination and chanting “Jai Shri Ram”.
The complainant had identified Giri in the police station and when asked to confirm the identity in the court, he did so on seeing Giri. However, the complainant’s wife and another witness could not identify him.
The three witnesses who have testified so far in this case are police officers of Karawal Nagar.
(Edited by Shreyas Sharma)
subscribe our channel youtube And Wire
Why is the news media in crisis and how can you fix it?
India needs free, unbiased, non-hyphenated and questionable journalism even more as it is facing many crises.
But the news media itself is in trouble. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism are shrinking, yielding to raw prime-time spectacle.
ThePrint has the best young journalists, columnists and editors to work for it. Smart and thinking people like you will have to pay a price to maintain this quality of journalism. Whether you live in India or abroad, you can Here.