The Additional Sessions Judge at the Karkardooma Court in Delhi has acquitted seven men of murder charges related to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots while convicting them for violating a prohibitory order under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The ruling provides significant clarification on the evidentiary standards required for high-stakes capital offenses, as the court held that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had participated in the fatal assault on an auto driver, Babbu, who succumbed to his injuries on February 27, 2020.

The case originated from the violent communal disturbances at Khajuri Chowk on February 25, 2020, where the victim sustained severe injuries. While the Delhi Police had framed charges against numerous individuals under multiple sections of the IPC, including murder, conspiracy, and promoting enmity between groups, the court found the evidence provided to support these grave allegations insufficient. The seven men convicted under the lesser charge of disobeying a prohibitory order—Kuldeep Singh, Harjeet Singh alias Happy, Rahul alias Ajay, Sachin Rastogi, Bharat Bhushan alias Lucky, Sandeep alias Sanjeev, and Dharmender alias Dham—were found to have been present at the scene in direct violation of the Section 144 order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on February 24, 2020.

The court’s scrutiny of the prosecution's case primarily centered on the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and digital evidence. A critical aspect of the defense's argument, which found favor with the judge, was the inconsistency regarding the timing of the incident and the sequence of events. The court noted that while several police officers were posted at Khajuri Chowk on the day of the incident, their narratives regarding the specific assault on the deceased were largely unsupported by corroborating evidence.

A central witness, ASI Anil Kumar, claimed to have witnessed the assault upon his return to Khajuri Chowk from a hospital visit where he had escorted an injured colleague. However, the judge found significant gaps in this testimony, particularly given that the witness had failed to report the alleged involvement of specific individuals, such as Sachin Gupta alias Mopi—who was later acquitted —despite having prior knowledge of his identity and place of business. The court stated, "On the issue of the deadly assault on the deceased, it shall be unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW15 to arrive at a conclusion of the guilt against the accused and it needs corroboration."

The prosecution also relied heavily on a video recording obtained from social media to place the accused at the scene of the murder. However, the court’s practical assessment of this evidence proved fatal to the state's murder case. During the proceedings, the judge observed the video and concluded that its quality was essentially unusable for reliable identification. The judge remarked during the cross-examination of a witness that "the video was of a very poor quality and from that video, no faces could be made out." Because the footage yielded only silhouettes, the court held that identifying any individual as a participant in the specific act of beating the deceased was impossible, and subsequently rendered the identification evidence untrustworthy.

Regarding the charges under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC—which pertain to rioting while armed with deadly weapons and the principle of vicarious liability for members of an unlawful assembly—the court found no evidence to suggest that any of the accused were carrying weapons. Consequently, the court held that criminal liability for murder could not be fastened upon the group through the mere act of membership in an assembly, especially when the prosecution could not demonstrate that the mob acted with the common intention of committing a capital offense. Similarly, the charges under Section 153A, relating to promoting enmity, were dismissed as the evidence failed to link the accused to specific acts targeting a particular community.

The court also addressed the situation of Sachin Gupta alias Mopi, who was a co-accused in the trial. Following the overall analysis of the testimonies, the judge determined that the prosecution’s case against him suffered from the same procedural and evidentiary deficiencies as the rest of the group. Consequently, he was granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted of all charges. The judge noted that the failure of witnesses to disclose his involvement during their initial statements to the police, despite their long-standing acquaintance with him, raised significant doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's narrative concerning his participation.

While the court maintained its strict stance on the failure of evidence regarding the murder, the conviction for violating the Section 144 order serves as a reminder of the strict liability attached to public safety directives issued by the police. The court confirmed the public announcement of the prohibitory order through evidence provided by HC Devender, who testified to utilizing a loud hailer to broadcast the order across multiple areas in Khajuri Khas, including the site of the incident. This established that the accused, being present in the area, were in violation of a valid legal order, regardless of their participation in the alleged violence.

The judgment concludes a protracted legal process that began in 2021 after the filing of charge sheets and several supplementary reports. With the acquittal of the seven accused on the most serious charges, the legal battle over the death of Babbu reaches a definitive point, highlighting the court’s insistence on high evidentiary thresholds before imposing life-altering sentences for capital offenses in the context of mass riots. The accused are now expected to be released from custody following the formal processing of their acquittal, while the conviction under the minor offense of Section 188 remains the only sustainable outcome from the trial.