New Delhi: A Delhi court flagged discrepancies between police records and witness testimonies and acquitted two accused in a Northeast Delhi riots case. It observed that the presence of two police officials at the scene was doubtful as their movements did not align with their daily diary entries, which showed that they left the police station separately for different duties.Judge Parveen Kumar noted gaps in the prosecution’s version and said it would be “highly unsafe to rely on the testimonies of witnesses”. He granted the benefit of doubt to Prem Prakash and Manish of New Usmanpur.The FIR, registered on March 1, 2020, stemmed from a complaint by Mohd Athar who alleged that multiple shops were vandalised on Feb 25, 2020. CCTV footage and witness accounts identified the duo as part of a mob that allegedly looted and vandalised about 8-10 shops in Usmanpur, including the complainant’s shop. The defence challenged the evidence.The defence counsel argued that the accused were falsely implicated. It pointed out that the case rested on two police witnesses whose own daily diary entries suggested they could not have been at the spot. It said that constable Vikas left for Brahampuri that day. The defence stressed there was “no explanation how and when” the two police officials met at the site.The court found merit in these submissions. It questioned why “no additional force was sent”, despite claims that a mob of 30-40 rioters was at the spot. The judge also observed that constable Vikas, despite his assertions, “wasn’t visible in any of the video footage… shown to him during the trial… between 9:30 am to 4:30 pm”.Further, the court emphasised the lack of clarity on how the two constables came together during the incident, and at what time. This assumed significance as records showed they were not assigned joint duty; rather, constable Vikas “was specifically assigned to Shiv Mandir, Brahampuri” that day.The judge also compared Vikas’s testimony in another riots case from New Usmanpur, disposed of by the same court in Jan, noting his claim that he took an injured constable to hospital and returned to Azizia Masjid around 4-5 pm. The court said if he was present there at that time, “he could not have been” at Mansingh Road too. The court said this raised a doubt over the prosecution’s case.
