A Delhi court has acquitted 11 individuals accused in a loot and arson case related to the 2020 Delhi Riots, citing serious doubts about the credibility of prosecution witnesses.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of the Karkardooma Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

“The charges levelled against the accused persons are not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, they are entitled to the benefit of doubt,” the court said while acquitting all 11 accused: Ankit Chaudhary @ Fauzi, Sumit @ Badshah, Pappu, Vijay, Ashish Kumar, Sourabh Kaushik, Bhupender, Shakti Singh, Sachin Kumar @ Rancho, Rahul, and Yogesh.

The case stemmed from two complaints alleging rioting, theft, and arson at 'Crown Medicos' and 'Smart Looks Salon' during the communal violence in northeast Delhi. The accused were charged with rioting, being part of an unlawful assembly, theft, and mischief.

During the trial, out of 12 prosecution witnesses, one turned hostile while three were deemed unreliable. The court scrutinized the statements of a key eyewitness—the shop owner—who claimed to know some of the accused before the incident but failed to name them during the investigation, doing so only after the trial commenced. The court noted inconsistencies in his statements and ultimately discarded his testimony.

The shop owner’s brother, also present during the incident, did not corroborate the identification of the accused or claim prior familiarity, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

The testimonies of two Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs), who claimed to recognize the accused from before the riots, were also rejected. The court noted that their statements were recorded only after the arrests had been made, raising concerns about delayed and suggestive identification. It found that photographs of the accused were shown to the witnesses after the investigation, undermining the credibility of the process.

"The prosecution witnesses seem to be artificially planted in the case to identify the accused," the court remarked, concluding that the identifications lacked authenticity and reliability.

Given these deficiencies, the court ruled in favour of acquittal, finding the prosecution’s case riddled with doubts and procedural lapses.