In the case of State Versus Suraj Singh and Another, Suraj and Yogender Singh, two accused in the North East Delhi riots case, were recently acquitted by the Sessions Court in Karkadooma, Delhi after the prosecution failed miserably to prove its case against them their identification was not established at all.
The two accused named in FIR 95/2020 in Police Station Jyoti Nagar are involved in this case. While acquitting the two accused, Justice Amitabh Rawat stated that no case was made against them based on the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses.
“The prosecution has been able to prove that the incident of rioting and burning of the shop at D540, Ashok Nagar, Delhi belonging to the complainant Md. Salim was proved by the complainant/PW1 and I.O/PW5 ASI Devender, based on their testimonies and careful scrutiny.”
“The prosecution, on the other hand, has miserably failed to prove its case against the defendants “The court took notice. The prosecution claimed that the complaint was filed by one Md. Salim stated that he used to own and operate a shop called “Aman Cab Service” in Shahdara, Delhi. He claimed that on the evening of February 24, 2020, he locked his shop and that his shop was burnt on February 25, 2020, at around 1:30 pm by rioters.
The most important witness in the case was Rakesh/Rajeev, a public witness who, according to the prosecution, identified both accused persons as participants in the riots. The prosecution, on the other hand, failed to bring him before the court. Ravinder was yet another witness called by the prosecution in this case.
He testified that “on February 25, 2020, he was the Beat Officer of Ashok Nagar and saw rioters ransacking, arsonist, and looting shops while patrolling at around 1:00 to 1:30 pm.” He attempted but failed to apprehend them. He informed the authorities of the rioters’ identities.
Later, on March 9, 2020, when he went to the police station for his regular routine, he noticed two people sitting outside the lockup who he recognised as the rioters from February 25, 2020.”
He informed ASI Devender, the officer in charge of the investigation, who then asked him to identify the suspect.
The court held that the prosecution’s case could not be established on the basis of the public witness, Rakesh/Rajeev, because the prosecution failed to produce the witness in court.
“The critical public witness Rakesh has not been produced by the prosecution, and even otherwise, Rakesh’s identity and existence in the light of PW2/HC Ravinder’s testimony is in grave doubt,” the court said.
“As can be seen from the cumulative reading of all the witnesses’ entire testimonies, the identification of accused persons is not established at all,” the judge concluded. As a result, the accused were found not guilty.
Despite the fact that the prosecution was able to prove that an incident of rioting and shop burning occurred, the Court found that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the accused.