Delhi Sessions Court Acquits Six Riots Accused Over Fabricated Police Evidence

Introduction

In a scathing indictment of police investigative practices, the Additional Sessions Court in Karkardooma, Delhi, has acquitted six individuals accused in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots, citing brazen fabrication of evidence by law enforcement officials. The ruling, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Sh. Parveen Singh on January 31, 2026, in Sessions Case No. 221/2022 (FIR No. 89/2020, PS New Usmanpur), highlights severe lapses including the manipulation of witness statements and improper handling of electronic evidence. The accused—Prem Prakash @ Kake, Ishu Gupta, Rajkumar @ Siwainya, Amit @ Annu, Rahul @ Golu, and Hariom Sharma—faced charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to rioting, arson, and obstruction of public servants. The court not only ordered their acquittal but also directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to initiate action against the errant officers involved. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding fair trials amid communal violence prosecutions, echoing broader concerns raised in media reports about evidence integrity in the Delhi riots cases.

The judgment arrives nearly six years after the February 2020 riots that engulfed northeast Delhi, resulting in widespread destruction and loss of life. It serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between maintaining public order and upholding procedural justice, particularly when investigations involve sensitive communal tensions. For legal professionals, this ruling reinforces the stringent requirements for proving electronic records under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the consequences of tampering with core investigative documents.

Case Background

The case stems from the violent clashes during the Delhi riots on February 25, 2020, in the Sudamapuri and Gamri areas near Aziziya Masjid, under the jurisdiction of New Usmanpur Police Station. The riots, triggered by protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, saw mobs engaging in arson, looting, and vandalism, damaging shops, homes, motorcycles, and religious sites. A police distress call (DD No. 126-A) at around 1:12 PM reported sounds of breaking, fires, and sloganeering, prompting the initial response by Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Sita Ram and Constable Inder. No complainant was found at the scene, but scattered bricks, stones, burnt foam, ash, and four motorcycles (plus one Vikky two-wheeler) were seized.

The FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 436, 120B, 34, 188, 186, 353, 333, 380, and 454 IPC, alleging rioting, arson, criminal conspiracy, and assaults on public servants. Investigations revealed complaints from victims like Asif Ali (whose Bismillah Hotel was looted and burnt), Shoaib (meat shop owner), Mehboob Ali (home vandalized with bikes burnt), and others including Md. Raies, Khalid, Sameena Khatoon, and Salman, reporting losses from looting and fires. Eye-witness accounts from police personnel, including Head Constable (HC) Kishan Lal (injured during the incident) and ASI Vikas, formed the basis for identifying the accused.

Accusations centered on the six men as part of a mob of 20-50 persons armed with sticks and petrol bottles, who targeted Muslim-owned properties while raising slogans. Hariom Sharma was specifically alleged to have led the mob, based on Sameena Khatoon's complaint filed 16 days later. Arrests began on March 7, 2020, following purported identifications from CCTV footage and secret informers. Charges were framed on January 24, 2024, under additional sections like 427 and 435 IPC r/w 149. The prosecution examined 27 witnesses, including complainants, police officers, medical experts, and Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) personnel. Defense evidence was led only by Hariom Sharma, who claimed injury during the riots and counter-accusations against Khatoon's family in another FIR (No. 136/2020).

The legal questions at the heart of the trial included: (1) Whether the prosecution could reliably prove the accused's involvement through eye-witness testimonies and electronic evidence; (2) The admissibility of video footage under Section 65B of the Evidence Act; and (3) The integrity of police-recorded statements under Section 161 CrPC. The case timeline spanned from the February 2020 incident to acquittal in January 2026, reflecting delays common in riot-related prosecutions pending since the communal unrest.

Arguments Presented

The prosecution, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Sh. Saleem Ahmed, relied heavily on three key eye-witnesses: PW-21 (HC Kishan Lal), PW-22 (Sameena Khatoon), and PW-24 (ASI Vikas). They argued that HC Kishan Lal, deployed for riot control and injured by a stone to his hand (MLC Ex.PW12/A confirming a fracture), identified Prem Prakash and Amit initially, later adding others. ASI Vikas, arriving as reinforcement, corroborated seeing the mob vandalize shops and named Ishu Gupta and Rahul @ Golu, with further identifications during arrests. Sameena Khatoon testified to Hariom Sharma leading the mob that looted and burnt her nephew's shop and the mosque, supported by a complaint (Ex.A-31) and video footage seized from her (DVD Ex.PW20/Article-1).

Prosecution contended that DD entries (Ex.A-32, A-33) placed these officers at the scene, and their statements under Section 161 CrPC (dated February 25-26, 2020) detailed recognitions of 4-5 persons by name or face. FSL reports (Ex.PW20/A, B) confirmed no tampering in videos where Hariom was identified (via PW-23 HC Mukesh and PW-27 SI Amit Kumar). Complainants' testimonies proved property damage, linking it to the accused's mob actions. For Hariom, his own admission of being at the scene (to fetch milk despite knowing of riots) contradicted his injury claim in FIR 136/2020. Overall, they urged conviction, emphasizing the witnesses' credibility as "stamped" (injured officer) and local knowledge.

Defense counsels countered that the case was built on fabricated evidence, urging acquittal due to investigative mala fides. They highlighted contradictions in PW-21's testimony: his initial Section 161 statement named Prem Prakash and Amit, but in court (after five years), he only recalled Hariom (misnaming him Om Prakash) and forgot others, admitting suggestions inconsistently. No names were mentioned in his original complaint (Ex.PW21/A, dated February 26, 2020, but received January 1, 2022). PW-24's claim of witnessing seizures (Ex.PW16/A) contradicted the IO's tehri (report) stating no eye-witnesses were found, and his statement omitted this presence.

On electronic evidence, defense argued the DVD (secondary evidence from WhatsApp videos copied by PW-25 Salman Khan) lacked a Section 65B certificate from the maker or copier, rendering it inadmissible per Supreme Court precedents. No original source was traced by IO SI Amit Kumar. For Hariom, defense pointed to motive: his FIR 136/2020 accused Khatoon's sons of injuring him, filed before her March 16, 2020, complaint—suggesting retaliation. PW-22's delayed filing and year confusion (2019 vs. 2020) undermined her. They denied suborning witnesses, asserting identifications were tutored post-arrest. Broader lapses included unproved CCTV DVR (seized March 7, 2020, but FSL found no useful evidence) and withheld original statements.

Legal Analysis

The court's reasoning dissected the prosecution's case, focusing on evidentiary infirmities that eroded its foundation. Central to the analysis was the inadmissibility of electronic records, invoking Supreme Court precedents like Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020 SCC OnLine SC 571). In Anvar P.V. , the Court mandated Section 65B(4) certification as a condition precedent for secondary electronic evidence, distinguishing originals (primary) from copies (requiring the "drill" of Section 65B). Arjun Panditrao clarified that oral evidence cannot substitute the certificate, overruling relaxations in Shafhi Mohammad (2018), and emphasized that networks or devices must be proved by owners if originals are produced—impossible here for WhatsApp-sourced videos.

The DVD (Ex.PW20/Article-1), containing 12 files and 51 snapshots from FSL (no tampering found), was secondary without certification from Sameena Khatoon (source) or Salman Khan (copier). FSL's report proved integrity but not origin, failing Anvar 's requirements. Testimonies identifying accused (e.g., PW-27 pointing to a distant red-shirted figure as Hariom based solely on Khatoon's word) were thus disregarded, as unproved videos cannot support recognition.

Oral testimonies faced scrutiny for inconsistencies. PW-21 (HC Kishan) and PW-24 (ASI Vikas), despite local knowledge (visiting Hariom's home monthly), omitted naming him in initial Section 161 statements (February 25-26, 2020), odd for a "leading" figure. PW-21 shifted names over time, admitting suggestions erratically. A pivotal revelation came from court-ordered case diary review ( Khatri v. State of Bihar , AIR 1981 SC 1068; Mukund Lal v. UOI , AIR 1989 SC 144, empowering scrutiny for justice).

The diary exposed fabrication: PW-24's original February 25 statement described him as seizure witness but non-eye-witness; a fabricated version (naming Ishu and Golu) replaced it in the charge sheet, unmentioned in diary. PW-21's original February 26 statement blamed "unknown persons," replaced by one naming Prem Prakash and Amit. The March 7, 2020, CCTV DVR (key to arrests) yielded blank videos (court-viewed pen drive showed black screens), contradicting IO's claim of informer identification—yet led to arrests. No seizure memo or FSL proof of riot footage; IO later admitted irrelevance but diary suggested charge sheet preparation by April 26, 2020.

These manipulations distinguished genuine lapses from deliberate tampering, vitiating the case under principles of fair investigation (Article 21 Constitution). PW-22's testimony, potentially motivated by cross-FIR 136/2020 (Hariom as victim), was unsafe without corroboration. The court applied a holistic test: beyond reasonable doubt unmet due to suborned witnesses and withheld originals. This ruling differentiates between riot prosecutions' societal impact and individual rights, cautioning against over-reliance on police narratives without safeguards. It aligns with precedents emphasizing untainted evidence in mob violence cases, like Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (though not directly cited, analogous in quashing compromised proceedings).

Key Observations

The judgment extracts several pivotal quotes underscoring the court's dismay at investigative misconduct:

1. "A perusal of the case diary left me dumbfounded. It revealed a brazen fabrication of evidence." (Page 39, highlighting diary discrepancies in witness statements.)

2. "The statements of witnesses have been subsequently recorded to implicate the accused, the fabricated statements have been produced before the court, the original statements were withheld from the court, and witnesses were suborned." (Page 40, detailing replacement of Section 161 CrPC records.)

3. "It is now well settled law that secondary electronic evidence can be proved only in accordance with Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Unless the requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act are met, secondary electronic evidence will not be admissible and cannot be looked into by the court." (Page 20, quoting Arjun Panditrao on video inadmissibility.)

4. "The audacity and impunity with which the record was tampered with reflects a complete breakdown of the supervisory mechanism because, the fabricated charge sheet was forwarded by the supervisory officers i.e. the then SHO and the ACP concerned." (Page 44, critiquing oversight failures.)

5. "Hence, the case of the prosecution is found to be a built up case on the basis of the witnesses who as per their initial statements had not seen any of the rioters but who as per their subsequent tampered, manipulated and fabricated statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C went on to state that they had in fact seen and recognized four persons by their names." (Page 44, summarizing the core finding leading to acquittal.)

These observations, drawn verbatim, emphasize the judgment's focus on procedural integrity and evidentiary purity.

Court's Decision

The court unequivocally acquitted all six accused of charges under Sections 148, 186, 333, 427, 435, 436, 380, 450, and 454 IPC r/w 149, holding that the prosecution failed to prove involvement beyond reasonable doubt. The final decision language states: "I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and all the accused are acquitted of all the charges framed against them." (Page 44).

Practically, this means immediate release if in custody (noted compliance with Section 481 BNSS), closure of the case, and potential compensation claims under Section 250 CrPC for malicious prosecution. Broader implications include a directive to the Commissioner of Police: "I hereby direct that the copy of this order be placed before the worthy Commissioner of Police Delhi who shall initiate necessary action against those responsible and it is expected that steps will be taken to avoid reoccurrence of such ignominy." (Page 44). This mandates departmental inquiries against IOs ASI Sita Ram and SI Amit Kumar, supervisory SHO and ACP, for tampering—potentially leading to FIRs under Sections 193, 194, 211 IPC for false evidence.

For future cases, the ruling fortifies safeguards in riot investigations: mandatory Section 65B compliance for digital evidence, preservation of original case diaries, and judicial scrutiny of statements. It may influence ongoing Delhi riots trials (over 500 cases), prompting defenses to demand diary production and video certifications. In a justice system strained by communal cases, this decision promotes accountability, deterring fabricated prosecutions that undermine public trust. Media reports, such as those noting the court's call for action against "errant police officials," amplify its call for systemic reform, ensuring investigations serve justice rather than narratives.

This acquittal, while relieving for the accused, spotlights the human cost of flawed probes—delayed justice for victims and wrongful stigma for innocents—urging reforms like independent oversight in sensitive cases.