Delhi Court Acquits Sixteen in 2012 Jama Masjid Rioting Case
The judge cites weak evidence, lack of identification, and contradictions in the prosecution’s narrative.
A Delhi court has acquitted 16 individuals charged in connection with the 2012 Jama Masjid rioting case, citing "serious doubts" in the prosecution’s account. The accused faced allegations of unlawful assembly, rioting, arson, stone-pelting, torching a police station, and theft in the Urdu Bazar area near Jama Masjid on the night of July 21-22, 2012. Additional Sessions: Judge Virender Kumar Kharta delivered the verdict on September 24, highlighting significant gaps in evidence that undermined the case.
The court noted that none of the prosecution’s witnesses identified any of the accused or clarified their individual roles in the alleged incidents. The absence of critical evidence, such as CCTV footage from the incident site or surrounding areas, further weakened the prosecution’s narrative. Despite the prolonged nature of the unrest and the presence of senior police officials, including station house officers, no video recordings were made to identify the perpetrators, raising questions about the investigation’s thoroughness. Additionally, no incriminating items were recovered from the accused, and allegations of theft from a car could not be substantiated.
The prosecution’s case was further compromised by the failure to conduct a judicial test identification parade (TIP) and the lack of independent witnesses to corroborate the charges. The court found inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses, including the complainant, which lacked support from material evidence. Judge Kharta emphasized that the police testimonies did not meet the standard of reliability required for conviction, stating, “The things appear not to have happened in the manner these have been projected.”
Also Read: Ex-Lodha Developers Director Rajendra Lodha Sent to Judicial Custody in ₹85 Crore Fraud
In line with established legal principles, the court ruled that when two interpretations of evidence are possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail. With the prosecution unable to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt was granted to the accused, leading to their acquittal. The ruling underscores the importance of robust evidence in securing convictions in cases of public unrest and highlights ongoing challenges in prosecuting riot-related offenses in India.
Also Read: Tata CLiQ’s 10/10 Sale Unleashes Epic Festive Discounts: Up to 85% Off Fashion & Luxury
