Four years after finding themselves as accused in FIR 57/20 — Delhi riots case, eleven accused were discharged by Judge Pulastya Pramachala in Karkardooma court on Monday, 4 March. The police failed to present material sufficient enough to frame the charges, the court has observed.
Ajmat Ali, Shadab Alam, Naved, Mohd Shahid, Mohd Sakir, Nadeem, Mohd Suhail, Sultan Ahmad, Wazid, Suleman and Mohd Faheem were charged under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 436, 120-B and three sections of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
This case was related to the violence that took place in Sherpur chowk, near Chand Bagh, there were some shops, vehicles which were damaged on 23 February 2020. The FIRs were filed in Dayalpur police station but the investigation was done by the crime branch.
The Quint has also accessed a copy of the court order of 5 March.
"It was a frivolously investigated case. No photograph or video evidence which shows any of the accused persons. CDR (call data records) location is very flimsy and for my accused, it wasn't even attached."Advocate Ritesh Dhar Dubey to The Quint
Some important observations by Judge Pramachala:
There is no reference of any specific evidence to show existence of a criminal conspiracy among the accused persons...Therefore, "I do not find a case being made out for existence of a criminal conspiracy from the record."
In fact, there is no specific evidence in respect of finding culprit behind incident related to other complaints, which were clubbed for investigation in this case and which are being prosecuted in the same chargesheet.
IO did not examine the other victims, who had faced and seen the mob behind incident with them. This was a major omission on the part of IO.
Vagueness: If one carefully looks into the statement of Sachin and Deepak, it appears that the statement was made on general observation and without actually witnessing the incident at Sanjar Chicken shop.
In the police's version of the incidents, ASI Hukam Singh had reached Munga Nagar, near Chand Bagh Puliya along with force and dispersed the mob.
'Fault in the Manner of Arrest Story'
Dubey, who appeared in the court for Sultan talked about the loopholes in the police's manner of arrest.
He stated that the police's version was that there was a protest at Chand Bagh and then there was one group of Muslims protesting against CAA, NRC and the other was a different group. They fought and then the Muslims set fire to the shops and vehicles, including Chand Bagh Mazar and a shop owned by a Muslim.
Dubey stated, "The police in their investigation said in their chargesheet that secret informers informed them about the incident, the police reached and they nabbed the mob, then they called in the eye-witnesses, Deepak and Sachin Kumar to recognise the boys. However, there's a catch."
"The two eye-witnesses said that they had themselves informed the police and then the police came in and arrested the accused in front of them and they signed the arrest-nama. So, there was a clear conflict in the manner of arrest," he observed.
The violence, which lasted around four days from 23-27 February 2020 led to the deaths of 53 people (38 Muslim victims and 15 Hindus) and left hundreds injured.
Violence in northeast Delhi during the Delhi pogrom of 2020.
(Photo: PTI)
'Family Is Dependent On Them'
Sultan's father, Chaudhary Nafees Ahmed, 57, told The Quint, "Beqasur bacche jab bandh hote hain toh maa baap par bohot guzarti hain." (If your child is innocent, then then the parents go through a lot).
"If he was in the wrong or had committed a crime, we would have understood, but he is innocent," he said. The family has been living in Khajuri Khas in northeast Delhi for 30 years. Sultan was 22 years in 2020. In fact, most of the accused in this case were between 20-24 years.
"On the day of violence, he went out thinking he'll get his wife so there's no other problem in being together later but while he was on the way, the police stopped him, asked his name and picked him up," Nafees recalled.
Sultan was learning mechanical work, the same profession his father is in. However, his father doesn't work anymore and his family's expenses are dependent on the children.
He said, "We're ordinary people, just the travel to-and-fro from the courts all these years was a lot. I am also almost 58 and the house is dependent on the kids."
Sultan was released on bail three months after his arrest in 2020.
Another accused Ajmat Ali also went through a similar fate and was released on bail three months later.
Now 24, Ali told The Quint, "I work in an ice parlour in Bhajanpura and was working there on the day of violence on 24 February 2020. I also work as an electrician and check ACs, so I had gone to another house to check their AC and then come back around 3:30 PM."
"My boss told me he would drop me home, there was a foot-over bridge, he dropped me and I crossed it. Police stopped me, asked me my name and then arrested me. They did not ask anything else. They locked me up in Dayalpur thana. My old mobile phone is still with them."Ajmat Ali to The Quint
Ali has lived and worked in old Mustafabad and Bhajanpura since almost eight years.
Hailing from Bihar, he is the breadwinner of his family which includes his parents, four brothers and two sisters.
"My sister's wedding was on 19 March 2020 and I missed all of it because I was in jail then," he said.
Where Ali works is around 4-5 kms away from Sherpur Chowk where the violent incident took place.
Other Advocates include Tara Narula for Naved, Shadab and Wazid, Sowjanaya Shankaran for Nadeem and Ali, Abdul Gaffar and Badre Alam for Shahid, RH Zaidi for Suleman and Faheem.
While Narula stated that Naved and Shadab too were present at their place of work with their employer, Shankaran, counsel for Ali said that "none of the complainants identified any of the accused persons."
Further, she had argued that most of the shops were belonging to Muslim persons and accused are also belonging to Muslim community.
Gaffar and Badre Alam, appearing for Shahid argued argued that complainant Mohd Mumtaz made it clear that it was not Muslim mob at his shop. Therefore, no offence under Section 436 IPC made out against accused.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)