Flagging “artificiality” in the investigating officer’s submissions and contradictions in witness statements, a Delhi court acquitted 10 men accused of arson and rioting with a deadly weapon during the 2020 Delhi riots, according to a report by the Indian Express.

Mohammad Shahanwaz, Mohammad Shoaib, Shahrukh, Rashid, Azad, Ashraf Ali, Parvaiz, Mohammad Faisal, Rashid, and Mohammad Tahir were acquitted by the court on Wednesday.

The riots, which occurred between February 23 and February 26, 2020, in northeast Delhi, followed protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). A violent backlash against Muslim demonstrators led to the deaths of 53 people and hundreds of injuries, with at least 38 of those killed being Muslim.

A witness, who ran a shop in the area, told the court that his shop was not burnt after the riots, contradicting claims by a head constable and an assistant sub-inspector (ASI) who alleged that the shop had been set on fire.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts noted this contradiction, and said, “Both of them claimed that the shop was also burnt by the rioters. This contradictory stand taken by these two alleged eyewitnesses creates a dent in their credibility.”

The judge also pointed out that the two complainants did not support the prosecution’s case regarding the identification of the accused as part of the mob involved in the vandalism. “I find it unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW6, PW9 and PW13 (all of whom were police witnesses) to believe that all the accused persons were part of the mob which had attacked upon the property,” the judge said while acquitting the accused.

Further doubts were raised regarding the duty roster of the officers. According to the police records, PW6 and PW13 (a constable and an ASI) were on duty in Chaman Park, while PW9 (a head constable) was assigned to Johripur. However, the head constable testified that he was on duty alongside the constable and ASI. “This gap goes on to adversely affect the credibility of claims made by all aforesaid three eye-witnesses,” the court remarked.

The third investigating officer (IO) in the case claimed to have knowledge of the officers’ duties (PW6, PW9, and PW13). The court questioned how this was possible, as the duty roster was not in the file when the IO received it on April 7, 2020. “Thus, there appears to be an element of artificiality in such a claim,” the judge said, criticising the IO.

The case arose from a complaint filed by Narender Kumar on March 1, 2020, at the Gokalpuri police station. Kumar alleged that his shop in Shiv Vihar Tiraha was vandalised by a mob. He further claimed that 50-60 rioters entered his home, looted 15 tolas of gold, half a kilo of silver, and Rs 2 lakh, and set his furniture on fire. Out of 17 witnesses examined, 12 were police officers.