A Delhi court has acquitted nine men in a case linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, pointing to unreliable witness accounts and gaps in the police investigation.

Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh, in an order dated March 30, said the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against Shah Alam, Rashid Saifi, Mohammad Shadab, Habib, Irfan, Suhail, Salim alias Ashu, Irshad, and Azhar alias Sonu.

The case was registered at Dayalpur police station and related to incidents in Chand Bagh.

The allegations included vandalisation of an Innova Crysta, burning of a motorcycle, looting of street vendors’ carts, and setting fire to a shop named ‘Royal Motors’. The court, however, found that the evidence did not hold up.

“Testimonies are general in nature, lack specificity especially in view of the fact that these witnesses have deposed falsely with regard to the place of incident...I find that it will be unsafe to rely upon the testimonies of these witnesses to convict the accused,” the court said.

The court also noted a key error in the date of the incident. The investigating officer recorded it as February 24, while material on record showed the incident took place on February 25, 2020.

“The witness was so categorical and insistent about the fact that a wrong date of incident had been projected by the police, that he had approached the DCP of the area and gave a representation that IO had wrongly recorded the date of incident,” the judge said.

On the alleged attack on a news channel vehicle, the driver and passenger gave an account that did not match the police version. Their statements placed the incident at a different location from the one mentioned in the site plan.

"The testimonies of Constable Gyan Singh and Head Constable Sunil with regard to this incident are completely found to be false," the judge said.

With contradictions on basic details such as time and place, the court said the testimonies could not be relied upon for other allegations in the case.

"I find that it will be unsafe to rely upon the testimonies of these witnesses to convict the accused. I accordingly find that the accused are entitled to a benefit of doubt," the court said, ordering the discharge of their sureties and cancellation of bail bonds.