Delhi Riots Case: Court convicts three for stone-pelting at police, acquits three others

New Delhi: A Delhi court has convicted three men — Ikram, Sarfaraz and Mustaqueem — in a case related to the 2020 north-east Delhi riots, holding that they were part of an unlawful assembly that “continuously indulged in stone pelting upon the police force” during violence near Bhajanpura Chowk and Karawal Nagar Road on Feb 24, 2020.Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Kumar Singh rejected the defence’s claim of false implication as “bald assertions”, observing that the “extraordinary situation” prevailing during the riots explained the absence of immediate documentation regarding the apprehension of the accused. The court also relied on the medico-legal certificates of the three men, noting that these confirmed their presence in police custody on the evening of Feb 24.However, the court acquitted three other accused — Gulfam, Saddam and Firoz — citing serious inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case regarding their identification and apprehension.According to the prosecution, violence erupted near the Bhajanpura police booth and along Karawal Nagar Road when a mob allegedly began pelting stones at police personnel and set fire to shops, carts and a police booth, despite repeated announcements to disperse under Section 144 of the CrPC.Several policemen were injured in the clashes. An FIR was later registered at Khajuri Khas police station, and the accused were charged with offences including rioting, unlawful assembly and obstructing public servants in the discharge of their duties.Rejecting the defence argument that the convicted men may have been mere bystanders, the court said the plea was “a belated and unsubstantiated contention, raised only as an afterthought”. The judge emphasised that the prosecution witnesses consistently stated that the accused were part of the mob involved in stone pelting.The court placed significant reliance on eyewitness testimonies. “A holistic consideration of oral evidence reflects that all the eyewitnesses… have been consistent in stating that a protest site had been set up where protesters were agitating against CAA/NRC,” Judge Singh observed, adding that the witnesses corroborated one another on material aspects such as the presence of paramilitary personnel and the sequence of events.While acquitting Gulfam, Saddam and Firoz, the court pointed to “serious and material contradictions” in the prosecution case. In Gulfam’s case, two police witnesses gave “fundamentally inconsistent” accounts on whether he was identified through video footage before or after his arrest, while the footage itself was never produced during trial. In Saddam’s case, witnesses offered “mutually destructive versions” on who apprehended him, rendering the identification unreliable.