Delhi riots: Police ‘fabricated evidence’ against accused, say courts

An Indian Express investigation shows courts pointing out serious discrepancies in prosecution cases against the 2020 Delhi riots accused. The IE team studied 93 orders out of 97 acquittals and found 17 cases in which courts have specifically red-flagged fabrication of evidence against the accused.

In at least 12 cases, prosecution witnesses produced by the police were found to be “artificial” and their depositions suspect. Eyewitnesses who claimed to have known and identified the accused failed to convince the courts that they actually knew the accused and could identify them. Some of them failed to answer basic questions about the accused. In some cases, no test identification parade (TIP) was held to enable witnesses to pick out the accused from among several suspects.

In at least two cases, witnesses testified in court that their statements against the accused were not their own but were dictated or supplemented by the police. In several other cases, courts concluded that the investigation was driven by the urgency to close the case rather than ensure justice. In one case, the judge also pointed to the “manipulation” of case records.

Notably, on 2 September, Delhi High Court dismissed the bail pleas of nine activists and community leaders accused in the riots case — Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi, Athar Khan, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shadab Ahmed — who have been imprisoned for nearly five years under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The unprofessional conduct, serious lapses and misconduct by the police raise grave questions about discipline, training, supervision and accountability.

The integrity of the trials, too, have come into question. The violence, which erupted amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), left at least 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.

Judges noted a pattern of “fabricated” testimonies, “artificial” claims, and cases “foisted” upon individuals without credible proof. Among the most troubling findings were complaints and witness statements allegedly dictated by police officers, testimonies retrofitted with additional details, and false assertions by constables claiming to have seen accused persons at crime scenes. Courts also drew attention to the failure to conduct TIPs, suggesting officers were already aware the charges were actually false.

Judicial orders described the manipulation of case records as deliberate “padding of evidence” designed to prop up weak charges. These practices were uncovered across several police stations in northeast Delhi, including Dayalpur, Khajuri Khas, Golakpuri, Jyoti Nagar, Bhajanpura, Jafrabad, and New Usmanpur.

In a recent order, additional sessions judge Parveen Singh condemned what he called “egregious padding of evidence” by investigating officers, warning that such misconduct violated the rights of the accused and undermined public trust in the justice system. The judge said these actions not only weakened prosecutions but also corroded the rule of law.

The observations by judges in the trial courts strengthen calls for urgent police reforms and accountability for false prosecution. Unless the police are made to pay for fabricating cases and evidence and manipulating witness statements, the public’s faith in both law enforcement and judicial institutions risks further erosion. Producing professional witnesses after tutoring them is an old, colonial practice which has become endemic, it would appear.