Because of serious contradictions in eyewitness accounts and lapses in proving CCTV footage, a Delhi court has acquitted five men accused of being part of a mob that vandalised and set fire to a mosque in northeast Delhi’s Karawal Nagar during the Northeast Delhi riots in 2020, holding that the prosecution failed to establish their involvement.
The judge further noted that Ahmad had also testified that he remained confined to his house for about four days after the incident. The court also found inconsistencies in the accounts of ASI Junaid and ASI Mithilesh about their movements in the area that morning. The judge observed that the two police personnel had seen rioting at several locations in the area that day, but their accounts did not consistently establish when they were at the mosque. The Special Public Prosecutor argued that the testimonies of ASI Junaid and ASI Mithilesh, along with the CCTV footage, established the accused’s presence in the rioting mob. The prosecution maintained that the witnesses had identified the men in the footage and that no material contradictions had emerged in their accounts. The defence, however, questioned the credibility of the police witnesses and pointed to inconsistencies in their versions of where they were on the day of the alleged attack. It argued that the footage did not establish the accused’s involvement in the crime and that the electronic evidence had not been proved in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act.
Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh of the Karkardooma courts, in a judgement passed on October 31, observed that the two police personnel presented as eyewitnesses gave accounts that were inconsistent with the testimony of a resident living opposite the mosque. The prosecution alleged that the five accused were part of a mob that attacked and vandalised the mosque and set it on fire on February 25. It also accused them of being members of an unlawful assembly carrying weapons and acting in violation of prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of the CrPC. During the trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses.
His account, the court said, “was difficult to reconcile with the police witnesses’ claim that the mosque was attacked again during the day on February 25”. “There are stark contradictions,” the judge said, while comparing the accounts of the police personnel with that of the resident. “ASI Mithilesh also did not give a clear account of the mosque being vandalised and set on fire in his testimony,” the court said. The court said the police witnesses could not be relied upon to establish the accused’s participation in the alleged arson and vandalism. “I find that these witnesses, in view of the aforesaid discussion, are not credible witnesses and cannot be relied upon to bring home the guilt of the accused as far as the riot, vandalism and arson at Allah Wali Masjid is concerned,” the judgment said.
The five men — Ankit, Sourabh Sharma, Rohit, Rahul Kumar and Sachin — were facing charges including rioting, being members of an unlawful assembly, damaging property and setting the mosque on fire. The judge, however, extended them the benefit of the doubt and acquitted them of all charges. Because the accompanying certificates did not meet the legal requirements, the court also ruled that the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution was inadmissible.
The case
The case arose from a complaint filed by Imran on March 1, 2020, alleging that Allah Wali Mosque in Gali No. 12 of Shahid Bhagat Singh Colony in the Karawal Nagar area, had been set on fire on February 24. The police initially registered an FIR under sections 147, 148, 149 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), relating to rioting, armed rioting, unlawful assembly and mischief by fire. A court, however, declined to take cognisance against them in December 2020. Two police personnel, who were on patrol in the area on February 25, 2020, allegedly identified the five men in the footage as members of the mob. The court, in its judgement, found that the prosecution’s account of the alleged attack on February 25 was not supported by the independent witness, Ali Ahmad, who lived opposite the mosque.
The complaint also alleged that a statue had been placed on the slab outside the mosque’s entrance and that articles kept across its four floors had been burnt. During the investigation, police arrested three other accused in connection with the case, based on disclosures allegedly made in a separate FIR related to the riots. The investigation was subsequently expanded after police obtained CCTV footage from cameras installed in the area by the Public Works Department. A resident, Ali Ahmad, was also cited as an eyewitness and was later shown the footage. The judge further stated that if the inspectors were at the school during that period, they could not simultaneously have been present near the mosque and witnessed the alleged vandalism. The court also rejected the CCTV footage as evidence.
“Ahmad testified that he had seen a mob vandalise and set fire to the mosque only once during the riots, at around 8pm to 8.15pm,” the court observed, adding that he did not remember the date, but did not support the prosecution’s claim that a second attack took place at around 11am on February 25. “Their earlier statements in another riots case suggested that they had gone to a school in Karawal Nagar after receiving a call between 10am and 11am and rescued some people,” the court observed. It noted that, “the DVDs containing copies of the footage prepared by the forensic science laboratory did not have a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act from the person who had prepared them”.
