Delhi Court Slams Police for Fabricating Riots Case, Cites "Egregious Padding of Evidence"

New Delhi – In a scathing indictment of investigative practices, a Delhi court has acquitted six men accused in a 2020 North-East Delhi riots case, concluding that the Delhi Police "foisted a false case" upon them through "egregious padding of evidence." The judgment from Karkardooma Courts not only exonerated the accused but also directed that a copy be sent to the Commissioner of Police for "remedial action," highlighting systemic failures that trample citizen rights and erode public faith in the rule of law.

Additional Sessions Judge Praveen Singh acquitted Ishu Gupta, Prem Prakash, Raj Kumar, Manish Sharma, Rahul, and Amit of all charges, which included allegations of arson near the Azizia Masjid. The court's decision was rooted in a meticulous deconstruction of the prosecution's case, which it found to be built on a foundation of fabrications, contradictions, and a "completely unreliable" sole eyewitness.

A Case "Cooked Up" to Be Solved

The core of the judgment revolves around the court's finding that the investigation was not a pursuit of truth but a predetermined effort to "work out a case." Judge Singh was unequivocal in his criticism of the Investigating Officer (IO), stating, “I must observe that there has been an egregious padding of evidence by the IO and this has resulted in serious trampling of the rights of the accused, who have been probably charge sheeted only in order to show that this case is worked out.”

This conclusion was supported by several critical flaws identified in the investigation:

The Unreliable Eyewitness: The prosecution's entire case against the six accused hinged on the testimony of a single eyewitness, PW10 HC Vikas. The court found his testimony to be "completely unreliable qua these accused persons," effectively dismantling the primary pillar of the prosecution's narrative.

Contradictory Arrest Timelines: The judgment highlighted a glaring and logically impossible discrepancy in the arrest records. The court noted it "failed to understand how was it possible that the persons, who were initially arrested in another FIR at 8.00 p.m and 9.00 p.m, could have been arrested in the case in hand around 10-11 hours prior to the said arrest." This temporal contradiction, the court found, pointed directly to a fabricated timeline.

Revealing Case Diary: A perusal of the case diary, a crucial document for understanding the progression of an investigation, further solidified the court's suspicions. Judge Singh concluded that the diary "established the fact that the IO had 'cooked up' a case to somehow work it out and foisted it upon the accused persons."

Procedural Lapses: The court also cast serious doubt on the investigation's integrity due to the "sudden appearance" of a prosecution witness and the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP). These omissions, the court stated, created "serious doubts about the manner in which the investigation was conducted."

In his final assessment, Judge Singh declared, “In view of my aforesaid discussions, it is apparent that merely in order to work out a case, a false case has been foisted upon the accused... All the accused are entitled to be acquitted of all the charges.”

Scrutiny on Supervisory Roles and Systemic Failures

The judgment's critique extended beyond the individual IO, implicating the entire chain of command. Judge Singh expressed his dismay that these "glaring defects" were overlooked by supervising officers, who forwarded the charge sheet in a "mechanical manner."

"The situation was more saddening," the judge observed, "because despite the glaring defects, the supervising officers being the SHO and ACP, had forwarded the charge sheet in a mechanical manner."

This observation speaks to a broader issue of accountability within law enforcement, where procedural checks and balances appear to have failed. The court directly linked such lapses to a decline in public trust. "Such instances lead to serious erosion of the faith of the people in the investigating process and the rule of law," the judgment reads.

Taking the extraordinary step of formalizing this concern, Judge Singh ordered a copy of his judgment to be sent directly to the "worthy Commissioner of Police for his perusal, with a request to take remedial action." This directive moves the issue from a case-specific acquittal to a call for systemic reform within the Delhi Police, placing the responsibility for addressing these deep-rooted problems squarely on its leadership.

Legal Implications and the Road Ahead

This judgment is one of several recent orders from Delhi's district judiciary that have critically examined the quality and fairness of the police investigations into the 2020 riots. For legal practitioners, it provides a powerful precedent for challenging cases built on weak or contradictory evidence, particularly those relying on a single police witness.

The court's emphasis on scrutinizing the case diary, arrest memos, and the rationale behind procedural choices like conducting a TIP offers a clear roadmap for defence counsels in similar matters. The finding of "mechanical" charge sheet approval by senior officers could also open new avenues for questioning the application of mind at the supervisory level during the pre-trial stage.

Ultimately, this judgment is more than just an acquittal. It is a judicial alarm bell, signaling a deep-seated problem of investigative malpractice that threatens the foundational principles of criminal justice. The response of the Delhi Police leadership to the court's call for "remedial action" will be closely watched by the legal community and the public, as it will determine whether this scathing critique leads to meaningful change or remains merely a footnote in the annals of the Delhi riots litigation.