A Delhi court on Wednesday acquitted 10 men in a case pertaining to the 2020 North East Delhi riots, citing gaps in the police’s investigation, reported The Indian Express.

They are Mohammad Shahanwaz, Mohammad Shoaib, Shahrukh, Rashid, Azad, Ashraf Ali, Parvaiz, Mohammad Faisal, Rashid and Mohammad Tahir, according to a press release by Islamic organisation Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, which claims to have provided them with legal assistance.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of the Karkardooma Courts observed an “artificiality” in the claims of an investigating officer and contradictions in witnesses’ statements against the men.

Fifty-three persons were killed and hundreds more injured in the rioting that broke out in North East Delhi between February 23 and February 26, 2020, after protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act triggered a violent backlash against Muslim demonstrators. At least 38 of those killed were Muslim.

The men acquitted this week had been charged with arson and rioting with a deadly weapon. The case concerned allegations of vandalism and looting by a mob in Delhi’s Shiv Vihar area during the riots.

A complaint from a man named Narender Kumar on March 1, 2020, claimed that a mob of 50 to 60 people vandalised his shop, barged into his home and looted 15 tolas – 150 grams – of gold, half a kilogram of silver and Rs 2 lakh in cash. Kumar also accused the mob of arson, reported The Indian Express.

Seventeen witnesses were examined in the case, including 12 police officers.

A shopkeeper examined by the prosecution testified that his establishment had not been set on fire during the riots. This contradicted statements by a head constable and an assistant sub-inspector, who had earlier claimed that the shop was destroyed by fire.

“Both of them claimed that the shop was also burnt by the rioters,” the court said. “This contradictory stand taken by these two alleged eyewitnesses creates a dent in their credibility.”

“I find it unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW6, PW9 and PW13 [police witnesses] to believe that all the accused persons were part of the mob which had attacked upon the property,” the judge remarked.

According to a duty roster submitted by the police, PW6 [a constable] and PW13 [an assistant sub-inspector] were assigned to the Chaman Park area at the time of the alleged incident, while PW9 [a head constable] was assigned to the Johripur area.

However, the head constable had testified in court that he was present with the constable and the assistant sub-inspector at the time.

“This gap goes on to adversely affect the credibility of claims made by all aforesaid three eye-witnesses,” the court said.

The court also flagged the “artificiality” in the claims of an investigating officer who had stated that he knew about the duty allocations of the three officers [PW6, PW9 and PW13].

“If the duty roster was not placed in the file when [the investigating officer] received it on April 7, 2020, then how could he know about the duty of PW6, PW9 and PW13 on analysis of the file?” the judge asked. “There appears to be an element of artificiality in such a claim.”