Getty ImagesFive years after the deadly religious riots swallowed Delhi, India’s capital, the people involved could not see the law closed.
The BBC’s Hindi analysis found that more than 80% of cases related to violence in court decisions resulted in acquittal or release.
More than 50 people, Mainly Muslimskilled in February 2020 after a conflict broke out between Hindus and Muslims over a controversial citizenship law. Violence – Violence – The deadliest city has seen Over the decades – stretching for days, hundreds of houses and shops were caught by violent mobs.
The BBC reported earlier Incidents of cruelty and accomplice of police officers during the riot. Police denied any misconduct and claimed in the investigation that violence was “pre-planned” as part of a larger plot by people protesting the law to “threaten the unity of India”.
They registered 758 cases related to the investigation and arrested more than 2,000 people. These included 18 arrested student leaders and activists, and these cases were called “main conspiracy cases.” They were charged under a severe counter-terrorism law, which almost left bail. Only six years later released five years, some like activists Umar Khalid Still in prison, waiting for the trial to begin.
BBC Hindi checks status of all 758 cases related to the riot And analysed 126 cases in which the Kakal Dama Court in Delhi made a decision.
More than 80% of these 126 cases resulted in acquittal or discharge because witnesses became hostile or did not support the prosecution. Only 20 of these cases were convicted.
Under Indian law, the defendant was fired when the court closed the case. The acquittal was that the court found the defendant innocent after a full trial.
Of the 62 out of 758 cases related to murder, only one conviction and four acquitted, the BBC accessed the data through India’s Information Act.
Getty ImagesA detailed analysis of the 126 orders also shows that the court has dropped significantly in the Delhi police investigation in dozens of cases. In some cases, it criticized the police for making “pre-determined charges” that “erroneously implicated” the defendants.
In most cases, the police were witnesses to the incident. But for various reasons, the court did not find their testimony credible.
The judge pointed out the contradictions in the police statements, delaying the police’s defendants, and in some cases, have questions about whether When the violence broke out, the police were even present.
The judge said in two orders that he could not “restrict” himself saying that when the historical review of the riots, “the failure of the investigative body to conduct proper investigations” would “torture the democratic sentinel.” The court was a trial case against three men on charges of arson and robbery – but concluded they were arrested without any “actual or effective investigation.”
Delhi police did not respond to a request for comment from the BBC. In a report filed last April, police told the court that all investigations were conducted in a “reliable, impartial and impartial” manner.
Getty ImagesHowever, some defendants and even the testimony of their own observations raised questions about the investigation.
Shadab Alam, who spent 80 days in prison, said he would never forget the horror of the riots.
He took refuge on the rooftop terrace of a drugstore, where he worked with a few others.
Police arrived at the shop just hours ago and asked them to close due to the ongoing arson.
“Suddenly, they [the police] Come again and bring some of us into their van. ” he told the BBC.
He said when he asked why the police were taken away, they accused him of participating in the riot.
“They asked us by name and beat us. Almost all of us were arrested as Muslims,” Alam said, adding that he filed a medical report to the court, confirming three injuries.
In its official report, police accused Mr. Alam and 10 other Muslims of burning a store. But even before the trial begins, the court revoked everyone even before the trial.
The court criticized the police investigation in its observations that the witness’s statement could have been “man-made” and that the store was burned “in all probability” by “a group of people in the Hindu community.”
It said that despite being present at the time of the incident, police did not file a lawsuit in that direction.
Mr. Alam had to wait four years before the case was formally closed.
“All this happened during the Covid-19-19 pandemic. There was a lockdown. We were in a state of fanaticism,” said Alam’s father Dilshad Ali.
“In the end, nothing is proven. But we have to spend a lot of time and money to prove our innocence.”
He said the family wanted to compensate for monetary compensation. He added: “If the police file a false case against my son, then action should be taken against them.”
In another case, the court acquitted Sandip Bhati, who was accused of dragging and assaulting a Muslim man during the riot.
Police submitted two videos to show that Mr. Barty was the culprit. But in court, his lawyer said the police filed an incomplete clip to frame his client.
In the full BBC verified video, Mr. Bhati rescued a Muslim man instead of beating him.
The court ruled in a January order that police “manipulate” the video to “frame” Mr. Barty instead of tracking down the “actual culprit”.
It also asked the Commissioner of the Delhi Police Department to take appropriate action against the investigative officers in the case. Police did not answer the BBC Hindi question about whether it had been done.
Mr. Barty, who was sentenced to four months in prison, declined to comment, saying he did not want to discuss his “suffering.”
Former Supreme Court Justice Madan Lokur said there were so many acquittals that prosecutors and police “should sit down and put what they achieved in five years”.
He also said, “If the arrest is illegal or unnecessary, the liability for prosecution needs to be fixed.”
He added: “If the prosecutor puts someone in jail because they have the right to do it, or because they want to do so, they should not be allowed to get rid of it if it is found to be illegal or unnecessary.”
Even if some cases collapsed in court, many arrested people are still waiting for trial in prison.
Gulfisha Fatima, 33, is one of 12 activists still in prison, accused of being a “conspirator.”
Her family said three other police cases were brought against her and she was released on bail among all. However, under the Illegal Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), she continues to face imprisonment in the fourth case – a strict counter-terrorism law that provides extremely challenging conditions for bail.
“Since she was in jail, we hope she finally came out,” her father, Syed Tasneef Hussain, told the BBC.
In Ms. Fatima’s case, after months of bail requests, the judge of the Delhi High Court was transferred in 2023 and now the entire case is being tried again.
“Sometimes I wonder if I can see her or die before that,” Hussein said.
Follow BBC News India Instagram,,,,, Youtube, twitter and Facebook.
