Court upholds discharge in 2020 Delhi riots case, flags probe lapses

New Delhi: Expressing “grave suspicion against the police’s story”, a Delhi court has upheld the discharge of two accused in a 2020 northeast Delhi riots case linked to Jyoti Nagar, citing serious investigation lapses and doubtful identification.The sessions court dismissed the state’s appeal against a 2022 metropolitan magistrate order that had cleared the two men of charges including rioting, unlawful assembly, arson, mischief and causing hurt.Additional sessions judge Sameer Bajpai agreed with the trial court’s findings, observing that while framing of charges requires grave suspicion against an accused, “in the present case, the suspicion or grave suspicion is in fact not on the accused but against the story of the police”.The court concurred with sharp criticism levelled earlier by the trial court, which had said the investigation created an impression of “letting away the real culprits and carrying out only a semblance of investigation by finding easy scapegoats to pacify the victims”. The discharged accused, Ajay and Gaurav, were alleged to have rioted in the Jyoti Nagar area during the Feb 2020 violence, set fire to the complainant’s vehicle and caused him injuries.Upholding these conclusions, the judge flagged the unexplained delay in registration of the FIR, which was lodged only in March, despite the incident allegedly taking place on Feb 25, 2020. The court noted that the prosecution’s explanation of a “chaotic situation due to widespread protests” was left to judicial presumption, without any concrete material placed on record.The court also agreed with doubts raised over the complainant’s injuries. It pointed to discrepancies in official records, noting that the general diary did not mention the injured person’s name, while the medico-legal certificate recorded another individual, Mohd Ishaq, instead of the complainant, Mohd Tisam. The court further noted that the complainant had absconded from the hospital and failed to submit treatment records even after notice, observing that “such injuries cannot be attributed to the alleged act of the accused persons”.The court also flagged lapses in evidence collection, observing that police made no effort to identify beat staff deployed in the area or to associate independent witnesses. No photographer or videographer was deployed despite claims of a chaotic situation. The court also criticised the “chance identification” of the accused at a police station in April, after their arrest in another case, raising serious doubts about the credibility of the investigation.