Court relies on the testimony of key witness to convict four and acquit two

While the trial court found prosecution witness Pradeep Verma to be credible despite his being cited as a witness in nine other riot-related FIRs, it relied on his testimony to convict four accused, including Tahir Hussain, but declined to rely on the same to convict two others who were acquitted.

Verma, who ran a parking lot at Khajuri Khas, claimed to have witnessed the rioting in the area on February 25, 2020, when IB staffer Ankit Sharma was killed. The defence argued that Verma was running an illegal parking lot and was therefore under police pressure to depose falsely. Verma denied the allegation.

Also, while Verma initially denied seeing Hussain in the mob, he later said that around 3 pm, he felt Hussain was near Chand Bagh Pulia, though he did not actually see him among the mob.

The credibility of his deposition had divided the accused.

While Hussain argued that Verma was the only prosecution witness “who could have witnessed the incident” and relied on him as a “truthful and natural witness”, the other accused contended that his testimony could not be relied upon.

The judge also noted, “I find it interesting to note that as per one set of accused, (Verma) is one of the most natural witness who could have clearly seen this incident, whereas to some other accused, he not only is a chance and partisan, but he could not have been in a position to see anything…”

The court, however, rejected that Verma could not be termed either a “chance” or a “partisan” witness. It observed that although he had been cited as a prosecution witness in several riot-related cases, there was no material to show that he had been a witness in any criminal case before the 2020 riots.

Convicted: Tahir Hussain

The court examined seven prosecution eyewitnesses to establish Hussain’s involvement – two being police eyewitnesses, who were deemed to be not credible by the court, and the remaining being public witnesses, one of which was Verma.

Story continues below this ad

The court recorded that Verma had “turned hostile” and not supported the prosecution’s case that Hussain was part of the unlawful assembly or instigating the mob. Ultimately, it relied on Verma’s testimony, along with that of others to hold that the prosecution’s case against Hussain has been successfully proved for charges of rioting and murder, while acquitting him for the charges of instigation, abetment, exhorting the mob and criminal conspiracy.

Convicted: Nazim and Kasim

In their case, the court had to solely rely on Verma’s testimony after it found another witness to be unreliable. Nazim and Kasim – apprehended from Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh nearly five days after the incident – was identified by Verma, who said that they were part of the mob, with Nazim carrying a knife in his hand on February 25.

Also, the court relied on Verma’s identification of Nazim and Kasim as members of the mob, despite his having mistakenly identified another accused, Hassan, as Nazim.

But this inconsistency was neither dealt with by the prosecution or the defence. This led the court to conclude, “Merely because a confusion appeared and it was allowed to remain by the defence as well as the prosecution, the original identification of accused Nazim by this witness cannot be wished away.” It convicted both for rioting and murder.

Story continues below this ad

Convicted: Javed

Again, the court noted that the only witness to establish the accused as a member of the mob was Verma.

Javed had questioned Verma’s credibility because he had earlier identified him in another riot case (FIR 98/2020) lodged at Khajuri Khas police station, in which he was later discharged.

The court, however, reasoned that the discharge order reveals that “there is not a single sentence written about the credibility of this witness”, and rather the discharge had followed owing to Verma being the sole witness in the case…” when the requirement as per judicial precedents is “two or more witnesses”.

The court held Javed to be guilty of rioting and murder.

Story continues below this ad

Acquitted: Firoz

The court declined to rely solely on Verma’s testimony against Firoz.

Firoz had contended that “due to personal reasons”, Verma had falsely implicated him. Initially, Verma had denied knowing Firoz personally. But Firoz had pointed out that during Verma’s testimony in another riot case (FIR 98/2020), Verma had deposed that he had known Firoz “for about 10-12 years…”.

The court concluded that Verma’s testimony against Firoz in this case “creates a serious doubt” and that he “may have deposed against him due to ulterior motives”. It held that it will be unsafe to convict Firoz solely on the basis of Verma’s testimony, without corroborative evidence.

The court acquitted Firoz of all charges.

Acquitted: Muntazim alias Musa

The prosecution solely relied on Verma’s testimony to prove its case against Muntazim. He was identified by Verma more than two years after the incident, in November 2022. Owing to the delay, the court held that the accused’s arrest did not inspire confidence and acquitted him of all charges.