In a significant ruling that could set a legal precedent for numerous cases stemming from the 2020 Northeast Delhi violence, a city court has acquitted three men, emphasizing that merely shouting religious slogans like 'Jai Shri Ram' does not automatically prove an individual was part of a riotous mob.
Court's Landmark Observation on Religious Chants
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala, while hearing a case related to the 2020 communal violence, made a crucial distinction between religious expression and criminal intent. The judge noted that the utterance of 'Jai Shri Ram' cannot be singularly construed as evidence of participation in rioting activities.
'Mere raising of such religious slogans would not establish the charge of being a member of an unlawful assembly,' the court observed, delivering a verdict that underscores the importance of concrete evidence over assumptions based on religious expressions.
The Case That Sparked the Ruling
The court was hearing a case involving three individuals—Karim, Irshad, and Islam—who were accused of being part of a riotous mob in Northeast Delhi's Dayalpur area during the February 2020 violence that claimed 53 lives and left hundreds injured.
The prosecution had relied heavily on witness accounts claiming the accused were part of a mob shouting religious slogans. However, the court found significant inconsistencies in the evidence presented.
Key Evidentiary Gaps Noted by Court
- Witnesses failed to provide specific details about the accused's actions beyond slogan-shouting
- No evidence established the accused were part of an unlawful assembly with common object
- Inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the timing and location of incidents
- Lack of proof connecting religious chanting to specific violent acts
Broader Implications for Delhi Riots Cases
This ruling could have far-reaching consequences for the numerous cases still pending from the 2020 Delhi riots. Legal experts suggest it establishes an important precedent that religious expressions alone cannot be grounds for criminal conviction without additional evidence of unlawful activities.
The judgment reinforces the principle that in criminal jurisprudence, mere association or expression must be distinguished from active participation in criminal acts.
The court's decision highlights the judiciary's role in maintaining evidentiary standards even in emotionally charged cases, ensuring that convictions are based on concrete proof rather than assumptions or religious profiling.
