Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Schools breeding hatred
access_time 14 Sep 2023 10:37 AM GMT
access_time 16 Aug 2023 5:46 AM GMT
May that spark not be extinguished
access_time 2 Dec 2023 8:55 AM GMT
A Constitution always in the making
access_time 27 Nov 2023 11:43 AM GMT
Debunking myth of Israel’s existence
access_time 23 Oct 2023 7:01 AM GMT
Homechevron_rightIndiachevron_rightShahrukh, Aman...

Shahrukh, Aman acquitted in Delhi riot case after court finds contradictions in statements

Shahrukh, Aman acquitted in Delhi riot case after court finds contradictions in statements

New Delhi: A Delhi court has acquitted two individuals accused of rioting and unlawful assembly during the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots after finding glaring contradictions in the statements provided by an alleged eyewitness and the investigating officer (IO) in the case.

The verdict was handed down on Monday by Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala.

The case centred around Shahrukh and Aman, who were charged in connection with the riot that erupted near Pusta Road in the Khajuri Khas Chowk area of Delhi. Complainants Rajesh Kumar and Vedant Mishra had filed reports alleging injury caused by a riotous mob.

Kumar claimed to have fallen on the road after being injured, while Mishra asserted that he lost consciousness after being pelted with stones by the mob. Charges were formally framed against Shahrukh and Aman in September 2021, both of whom maintained their innocence.

During the trial, the defence attorneys, S N Qureshi and Vipin Bansal, presented compelling arguments highlighting inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. They pointed out that Kumar had initially stated that he was struck by a stone, but an eyewitness had testified that he saw someone using a stick to beat Kumar.

They also raised concerns regarding the timing of the incidents. While one eyewitness indicated that both incidents occurred within a 15-20-minute timeframe, the IO claimed there was a one-hour gap.

The court took these contradictions into consideration, emphasizing that the accounts provided by the alleged eyewitness and the IO were diametrically opposed.

Specifically, the court noted that the sequence of events described by the two parties contradicted each other. The eyewitness asserted that Mishra was assaulted first, while the IO maintained that Kumar was the initial target of the attack.

Show Full Article
TAGS:2020 Northeast Delhi riotsCommunal Clashes
Next Story