Delhi anti-Hindu Riots: Court acquits 4 Hindus in murder of Jakir and Hussain

Representational image

A Delhi court acquitted four individuals accused of allegedly murdering two people during the 2020 Delhi anti-Hindu riots noting that there was no evidence on the record to substantiate their presence among the rioters.

In a February 16 judgment, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala stated that “there is no evidence to even establish any of the accused being part of rioters at the given place and time. Therefore, all the accused persons are acquitted of all the charges alleged against them in this case.”

The court was considering two complaints filed against Ashok, Ajay, Subham, and Jitender Kumar for allegedly murdering Ashfaq Hussain and Jakir in Delhi’s Brijpuri area on 25th February, 2020, during the riots.

The men were charged with murder, rioting, and other offenses at the Dayalpur police station. In two separate orders, the court stated that the prosecution was unable to prove that any of the accused were engaged in the murders of Jakir and Hussein.

The accused persons, as per the court document obtained by OpIndia, pleaded innocence and affirmed that they were falsely implicated in the given case by the Investigating Officer who allegedly failed to conduct fair investigation.

A few pieces of circumstantial evidence were presented to the court, including call data records (CDRs), the discovery of swords and scissors, and clothing worn by some of the accused, according to disclosure statements. The court took note of the witness in the instances becoming hostile and not supporting the prosecution’s story.

However, the court stated that it could not draw a solid judgment about the presence of a specific individual at a specific location based simply on the CDR. “CDR in itself is a very weak kind of evidence because it does not confirm the presence of a particular person at a particular place. It only shows the presence and use of a particular mobile number at a particular place. The user of that mobile phone can be anyone. Therefore, one cannot reach a concrete conclusion about the presence of a particular person at a particular place, solely based on the CDR of a mobile phone,” the Court stated.

“As far as swords and scissors recovered and relied upon by the prosecution is concerned, it is not that these weapons were found with remnants of the blood of the deceased, to show that they were the weapons through which deceased were killed,” it added.

The court also stated that the prosecution did not perform a forensic analysis to prove that the deceased’s bloodstains were present on the garments. The CCTV footage showing the accused’s attendance as part of the unlawful assembly that murdered the two victims was not presented in court.

“The CCTV footage as relied upon by the prosecution was never played to show the appearance of the accused therein and to show if such a video was connected with the incident in question in any manner. Therefore, even in the form of circumstantial evidence, there is nothing on the record to establish the presence of accused persons among the rioters, who killed Jakir,” the Court noted.

The Dayalpur police station had registered FIRs against the accused u/s 144, 147, 148, 149, 188, 302, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Source: OpIndia

Notice : The source URLs cited in the news/article might be only valid on the date the news/article was published. Most of them may become invalid from a day to a few months later. When a URL fails to work, you may go to the top level of the sources website and search for the news/article.

Disclaimer : The news/article published are collected from various sources and responsibility of news/article lies solely on the source itself. Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) or its website is not in anyway connected nor it is responsible for the news/article content presented here. ​Opinions expressed in this article are the authors personal opinions. Information, facts or opinions shared by the Author do not reflect the views of HJS and HJS is not responsible or liable for the same. The Author is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article. ​