The courts expressed concerns that Delhi Police officers might not be telling the truth or stated that their testimonies could not be trusted
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI – As the nation marks the fifth anniversary of the February 2020 anti-Muslim riots in northeast Delhi, a report has found that a whopping 80 percent of the 120 cases have resulted in acquittals and discharges.
In the report published on Monday, Uman Poddar, a journalist working with BBC Hindi, analysed 126 cases and checked the status of 758 violence-related registered FIRs.
The communal violence resulted in the death of 53 people, 40 of them Muslims, and left tens of thousands of people injured and displaced.
Delhi Police have been accused of abetting and or standing by during the large-scale violence targeting Muslim families. And even after five years of thorough investigation, they have been able to get the guilty verdict only in 20 cases. Oddly, in 12 of these cases, the accused themselves pleaded guilty.
In April 2024, the Delhi police submitted a status report in the court stating the situation of the case filed about the Delhi riots.
According to the police, 38% (289) were under investigation, 39% (296) cases were being heard in the court after the completion of the investigation and the verdict was delivered in 23% (173) of the cases.
In 758 FIRs, 62 cases were related to murder and were investigated by the Crime Branch. Only in one case, the accused was found guilty while four accused were acquitted. Besides, 39 cases are being heard in the court while 15 are under investigation.
When it comes to the acquittals, the report found that the accused were absolved of all charges in 94 cases and discharged in 16 cases (The court did not find credible evidence to begin the trial in these cases after the police investigation).
The analysis of 106 cases in which the accused were acquitted shows two major reasons.
The first was that in nearly half of the cases, i.e. 49 cases, the witnesses retracted their earlier statements. In other words, while testifying they did not support the case presented by the police.
The second reason was that in approximately 60% (66) of the cases, the witnesses were police officers themselves. For various reasons, the courts did not find their statements credible.
In some of these cases, there were contradictions in the statements given by police officers. The courts expressed concerns that they might not be telling the truth or stated that their testimonies could not be trusted.
There were also cases where the police identified the accused after a considerable delay. The court questioned their testimony, pointing out that if the police officers were regularly visiting the police station and were aware that investigations related to the riots were ongoing, then the delay in identifying the accused raised doubts.
Additionally, there were cases where, according to duty sheets, the police officers testifying were assigned to a different area, yet they were giving statements about incidents happening elsewhere. In such instances, the court did not consider their statements reliable.
There were some other reasons for the acquittal of the accused as well.
In about 15% (16) of the cases, the police relied on video evidence during their investigation. However, either these pieces of evidence were not presented in court, or they could not be verified. As a result, the court did not consider them reliable.
There were also cases where there were no witnesses or evidence. Additionally, in some cases, the accused were acquitted due to multiple reasons, such as witnesses retracting their statements, the police’s testimony being deemed unreliable, and the improper presentation of video evidence.
The analysis also revealed another significant point: in several cases, the court strongly criticised the police investigation. In more than 50 cases where the accused were either acquitted or discharged, the court raised serious questions about the police investigation and the statements of police officers.
In some rulings, the court remarked that “the chargesheet was filed without proper investigation,” that “the witnesses’ statements appear to be false,” and that “people were made accused based on preconceived notions.”
In one judgment, the judge stated, “A new statement was recorded solely to conceal the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case and to justify the chargesheet against the accused.”
There was even a case where the court found that the police had tampered with evidence. Only half of a video was presented in court to falsely implicate an innocent person.
In another verdict, while acquitting the accused the court pointed out severe flaws in the investigation. The judge remarked: “It is likely that two police officers were used as witnesses merely to create the impression that the case had been solved.”
