During the anti-Hindu riots of January 2020, a young man named Dilbar Negi was burnt alive by the mob near Shiv Vihar Tiraha in North-East Delhi. The mob severed his hands and feet. After five long years, the Karkardooma Court in Delhi acquitted the sole accused Mohammad Shahnawaz alias Shanu citing a lack of substantial evidence.
Acquitting the accused, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said that a mob caused vandalism, and set on fire a sweet shop, as a consequence of which the 22-year-old Dilbar Negi died after sustaining ‘burn injuries’. The court said that there is no substantive evidence showing that Shahnawaz entered the godown with the mob where Negi’s dead body was found. The Court observed that Dilbar Negi succumbed to burn injuries as if it was an accident and he wasn’t burnt to death by the Islamist mob.
In an order dated 24th February 2025, ASJ Pramachala said, “In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I find that charges levelled against accused Mohd. Shahnawaz in this case, is not proven beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu is given benefit of doubt and he is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him in this case.”
Basically, after five long years, nearly a dozen being accused and discharged, and only one person being chargesheeted, the question that who killed Dilbar Negi remains unanswered.
Dilbar Negi Murder Case
Dilbar Negi was a 22-year-old native of Uttarakhand. He came to Delhi in search of employment. It was reported earlier that on 24th February 2020, Dilbar Singh Negi was attacked by a mob of rioters during the anti-Hindu Delhi riots near Shiv Vihar Tiraha. The mob severed his hands and feet. After the riots, his charred and unrecognisable body was discovered in the Anil Sweet Shop where he had worked. The shop was set on fire by the rioters. Later, it was found that the dead body was of Dilbar Negi. His dead body was identified by his brother Devender Singh. An FIR was filed under various Sections of the IPC, including rioting, murder and arson.
The matter was eventually transferred to SIT of the Crime Branch. The charge sheet was filed in the case in June 2020, naming twelve individuals as accused. The eyewitnesses attested that the rioters entered the building where Negi was hiding. He was killed and subsequently was burned along with the building.
Back in January 2022, the Karkardooma Court granted bail to six of the 11 accused in the case. Mohammad Tahir, Shahrukh, Mohd Faizal, Mohd Shoaib, Rashid and Parvez were accused of vandalism and setting Anil Sweet Corner on fire resulting in the death of 22-year-old Dilbar Negi.
Three accused Muslim men in the murder of Dilbar Singh Negi even confessed to firing indiscriminately at Hindus in Shiv Vihar during the communal riots in North-East Delhi. Shahnawaz, Salman and Sonu Saifi, admitted to procuring a pistol, while Salman confessed to “firing at Hindus”. The Delhi Police also confirmed that call records prove that the three accused were present in the area during the said riots. The CCTV footage from Rajdhani School confirms the presence of six of the accused at the scene.
OpIndia reported how the Rajdhani School was turned into an attack base by the Islamists to target Hindus.
On 25th October 2023, out of 12 accused persons, 11 people namely Mohammad Faizal, Azad, Asraf Ali, Rashid alias Monu, Sharukh, Mohammad Shoaib, Parvez, Rashid alias Raja, Mohammad Tahir, Salman and Sonu Saifi were discharged due to lack of evidence.
However, the court back then had framed charges against Shahnawaz alias Shanu and noted that there was evidence on record that showed Shahnawaz to be part of the riotous mob. On 25th October 2023, charges were framed against accused Shahnawaz for offences punishable under Section 148/436/302/450/153-A of the IPC read with Section 149 IPC and 188 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The charges were framed in the following terms: “…more than five persons from the Muslim community had formed an unlawful assembly, the common object whereof was to cause maximum damage to the properties of persons from Hindu community, and to commit vandalism, arson and riot, by the use of force and violence, and to disturb the public tranquility by jeopardizing harmony between religious communities of Hindus and Muslims; to harm Hindus by all means including to kill them; and in the prosecution of the common object of such assembly, and in violation of the proclamation issued under section 144 Cr.P.C. by DCP, NorthEast, vide order dated 24.02.2020… this mob including you accused committed riot being equipped with dangerous weapons like stones, danda, bottles of petrol bomb etc. and you knew being member of the aforesaid unlawful assembly that an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of that common object,” the court document reads.
Mohammad Shahnawaz and other Muslim mobsters were charged with committing “mischief by fire or explosive substance such as petrol bomb etc. and by using those explosive substances, you set ablaze the Godown situated at A-29, Chaman Park, Delhi, belonging to Sh. Anil Pal; and thereby you accused committed an offence punishable under section 436 IPC read with section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.”
Furthermore, it was alleged that the accused Shahnawaz and the rioting Muslim mob pelted petrol bombs and set the godown of Anil Pal on fire knowing that the person present in such property or being hit with a petrol bomb and catching fire, will burn to his death.
“Thirdly, on the aforesaid date at around 9 PM and thereafter, within the jurisdiction of PS Gokalpuri, Dilbar Negi died out of asphyxia due to inhalation of smoke, as a result of pelting petrol bombs and setting Godown of Anil situated at A-29, Chaman Park, on fire by this mob including you accused and you all are presumed to know that the person present in such property or being hit with petrol bomb and catching fire, will burn to his death; and thereby you accused committed an offence punishable under section 302 IPC read with section 149 IPC within my cognizance,” the court document reads adding that the accused and the accompanying mob committed such acts against Hindus and their properties, so as to vandalize and set on fire such properties to disturb communal harmony.
Hostile witnesses weakened the prosecution’s case
The prosecution examined 20 witnesses in support of its case, however, several of them were declared hostile after cross-examination. Public Witness number 3 (PW 3) Chidda Lal Tomar was declared as a hostile witness. Tomar, a resident of Karawal Nagar had testified that on 24th February 2020, a riot erupted in his area while he was present in his house.
PW 3 said that he had seen a riot on that day at about 3-4 PM. At about 3 PM from the terrace of his house, PW 3 saw a number of persons, who were coming from the side of Mustafabad towards his home and they had come up to the shop and Godown of Anil Pastry and near Chawla’s Book Store. Shop of Anil Pastry was located on the main Brijpuri road and his Godown was located at A-29 in the street. PW 3 testified that rioting persons were having danda (stick) in hands. They were pelting stones on the properties and set Anil Pastry shop on fire. Thereafter, they set Chawla’s Book Store on fire. After Chawla’s Book Store, the mob came inside his street. In his street, they were making a lot of noise and they were abusing Hindus. This mob looted the articles from the Godown of Anil, alongside utensils and cylinders etc.
He further said in his statement that the Muslim rioters then proceeded to the terrace of Rajdhani Public School and from there, this mob was throwing something like Molotov cocktails, towards houses of Hindus, and towards persons who had taken shelter near the dispensary & towards Kunwar Vatika parking situated on the back side of his house. The vehicles parked in Kunwar Vatika parking had caught fire due to pelting of Molotov cocktails. PW 3 who stayed at his terrace all night, however, said that he had not seen the face of any rioter as it was dark.
During cross-examination by the prosecutor, it emerged that PW 3 had told police that he had seen accused Shahnawaz entering Godown of Anil at A-29 along with his friends while carrying petrol-like items in bottles. However, he did not remember if he had told police that he had seen Shahnawaz and others setting that Godown on fire. PW 3 admitted the suggestion that he had seen accused Shahnawaz and his friends entering A-29 along with bottle containing material like petrol, from the terrace of his house. Tomar also said that he called the police and Anil, the owner of Anil Pastry Shop, to inform him about rioters entering his shop, however, PW 3 said that he did not remember if he had mentioned the name of the accused Shahnawaz in his conversation with Anil.
Similarly, PW 4 Ankit Pal was also declared a hostile witness. Pal was in Ghaziabad for some work on the day riots happened, and was informed by his brother Amit not to come to Anil Pastry Shop as riots were ongoing and he had taken shelter in the shop. PW4’s other brother Sachin was also stuck in the same shop. By 3:30 PM, PW 4 reached the shop, however, he too had to take shelter there as rioters returned. The trio moved to the shop’s terrace and within five minutes, the shop was set ablaze by rioters. At the same time, mob of rioters was pelting stones and petrol bombs towards them from the Godown situated just in front of this shop, and across the road.
Ankit Pal further claimed that on 26th February 2020, he, along with his brothers, went to the burnt pastry shop to find Dilbar Negi who was missing. On the 2nd floor of this Godown, they saw a dead burnt body without hands and legs. Thereafter, PW 4 informed police officials. Besides, PW 4’s uncle had received information that the Godown of Anil where Dilbar Negi had gone was also set on fire. PW 4 was shown CCTV footage related to the riots and he identified the accused Shahnawaz as he knew him since the latter ran a betel shop.
PW 5 Amit Pal (PW 4’s brother) was also declared a hostile witness. He had testified that he, along with his brothers, had found body of Dilbar Singh Negi. The body was in completely burnt condition and the hands and legs of the body were missing. PW 5 was shown the video of riots by the police and he identified them by their faces.
PW 7 Gulshan Kumar, who was presented as an eyewitness of the incident, was also declared a hostile witness. Kumar, who ran the Chawla Book Centre at Mahalakshmi Enclave, testified that he saw some people pelting stones at the public passing by on the road and he did not see the face of any rioter. He added that at around 9 PM, he was at the house of PW 3 Chidda Lal Tomar but since there was no electricity, he did not see accused Shahnawaz and only heard his name. PW 7 denied the suggestions of the prosecutor that he had seen Shahnawaz among the rioters from the corner of that street, or had seen Shahnawaz alias Shanu entering this Godown at about 9 PM.
PW 9 Anil Pal was also declared a hostile witness. Anil Pal ran the Anil Sweets Corner at Mahalakshmi Enclave in Shiv Vihar Tiraha, Karawal Nagar, in addition to Anil Pastry Shop and had a godown as well. On the day the riots erupted, PW 9 saw a mob of around 100-150 Muslim rioters on the main Brijpuri Road in front of Rajdhani Public School. He said that this Muslim mob was pelting stones and petrol bombs towards the direction of Shiv Vihar. He was present on his godown’s terrace along with Ankit Pal and recorded a video of a Muslim mob pelting stones and petrol bombs. When one of his staffers Shyam Singh (PW 11, he was also declared a hostile witness) called Dilbar Negi’s number in the presence of PW 9, it was switched off.
On 25th February 2020, Anil Pal and Ankit Pal went to the godown to search for Dilbar Negi and another worker Sita Ram. After reaching a dispensary, they were accompanied by the police. PW 9 said that the Muslim mob present in front of Rajdhani Public School started shouting after seeing him along with the police.
On 26th February, PW 9 received a call from someone telling him to come to the godown where he reached along with the police and found a burnt body with hands and legs lying separately on the second floor. Based on the shape of the face of this dead body and the fact that Dilbar Negi was missing, they concluded that it was dead body of Dilbar Negi. PW 9 further claimed that PW 3 Chidda Lal Tomar had told him that accused Shahnawaz and Parvez had set the godown ablaze. The police showed CCTV footage of the riots and PW 9 identified Shahnawaz alias Shanu.
PW 9 Anil Pal further stated that the Muslim mob, which was present in front of Rajdhani Public School was also abusing Hindus, raising slogans of ‘Kafiro tumhe kaat denge’ (Infidels we will slaughter you) and were throwing petrol bombs, apart from pelting stones.
The arguments of defence and prosecution
Representing the accused Mohammad Shahnawaz, his counsel Babar Chauhan said that the accused has been falsely implicated in multiple cases by the police. In a written synopsis, Advocate Chauhan mentioned that the court had convicted the accused in FIR No. 53/2020 and an appeal has been preferred by the accused before the Delhi High Court, wherein the accused has been granted bail. The defence argued that there are major contradictions in the statements of public eyewitnesses, casting a shadow of doubt over the prosecution’s case and do not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defence further argued that PW 4, PW 5, PW 7 & PW 11 did not support the prosecution and that the accused made a call to one Mahesh at about 9 PM, which shows that the incident had happened after 9 PM on 24.02.2020, whereas most of the witnesses have deposed claiming themselves to be the witnesses prior to 7 PM. The defence also asserted that PW 3 and PW 9 did not see the accused Shahnawaz at around 9 pm when the incident in question happened.
In their arguments, the prosecution asserted that accused Mohammad Shahnawaz was clearly seen entering the godown owned by Anil Pal where deceased victim Dilbar Negi’s charred and mutilated body was found. It was further mentioned that PW 3 also made a telephonic call to PW 9 informing him that he had seen accused Shahnawaz with his friends entering Anil Pal’s godown along with a bottle containing material like petrol. They added that PW 9 also corroborated the testimony of PW 3 that he had made a telephonic call to him and informed him that accused Shahnawaz along with some other boys had set his godown on fire.
Furthermore, the prosecution asserted that PW 11 Shyam Singh had confirmed that Dilbar Negi was present at the said godown. The prosecution also emphasised that accused Shahnawaz, being part of the said riotous mob, had played an active role and indulged in riotous activities as well as setting the Godown on fire, due to which Dilbar Negi lost his life. It asserted that testimonies of PW 3, PW 9 and PW 11 are sufficient and reliable.
In their final argument, the prosecution asserted that despite the fact that PW 3, PW 9 and PW 11 have resiled from their statements given to the Investigating Officer, they had supported the case of prosecution with respect to the role attributed to accused Shahnawaz, to some extent. Citing judgments in certain other cases, the prosecution argued that even if witnesses resile from their statement, it should be read in entirety.
The prosecution further contended that the evidence available against accused Shahnawaz, placed him at the scene of the incident, as part of a riotous mob, thereby firstly attracting conviction for offence under Section 148 IPC read with Section 188 IPC. The prosecution also mentioned that testimonies of PW 3, PW 9 and PW 11, proved that accused Shahnawaz entered the godown where Negi was found dead, with some other persons along with petrol-like substances and then set ablaze the said godown inside which Dilbar Negi was present.
“Post mortem report further corroborates that cause of death of Dilbar Negi as asphyxia i.e. due to inhalation of smoke on the night of 24/25.02.2020. Aforesaid acts attract conviction of accused under Section 302/436/450 IPC,” the prosecution argued.
Court observations
The court noted that witnesses PW 3, PW 4, PW 5, PW 7, PW 9, PW 11 and PW 12 testified that on 24th February 2020, a mob comprising Muslim men was running riot in Karawal Nagar’s Shiv Vihar area wherein the godown in question was located and were pelting stones and bottles containing inflammable liquid on properties of the local Hindus. The Muslim mob also entered into the godown in question with such articles. This godown and the adjoining properties were found burnt the next day.
The court noted that the police witness (PW 2) AIS Gajraj Singh also deposed that on his visit to Anil Pal’s godown on 26th February 2020, he found it in burnt condition. The cop also found a dead body, which was subsequently identified as the body of Dilbar Negi. It was also confirmed that Negi worked for Anil Pal and was present at the godown during his lunchtime on the day the riots erupted.
The court further noted that the defence focused on the non-involvement of accused Shahnawaz in Dilbar Negi’s killing and did not challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution.
“Even otherwise, aforesaid evidence on the record proves it beyond doubt that an unlawful assembly had been formed, which indulged into vandalism and arson, and that Godown in question was also burnt in that process. It is also well established that deceased Dilbar Negi had been hiding himself in that Godown on the 2nd floor, and he was telephonically in contact with some persons including PW 11, PW 12 and PW 14,” ASJ Pramachala noted.
“These witnesses vouched for having conversation with Dilbar till around 8 PM. Unfortunately, on the record I could not find any material to divulge the mobile number being used by deceased, or CDR/CAF/location chart of mobile number of deceased. These materials could have shown the time of last conversation on the mobile phone of deceased. Still, the deposition of aforesaid witnesses, leave no doubt that deceased Dilbar was alive in that Godown till around 8 PM, and he was beyond contact since around 9 PM. Thus, he might have become unconscious by 9 PM, or he might have died by that time,” ASJ Pramachala continued adding that Dilbar Negi’s postmortem report did not mention tentative time of death, due to which exact time of the Negi’s death remains unknown. He, however, found that Negi’s death indeed happened in this incident.
Regarding accused Shahnawaz’s identification and role in setting the Godown ablaze, the court noted the prosecution’s argument that despite certain eyewitnesses turning hostile, Shahnawaz’s involvement has been proved and that PW 7 Gulshan Kumar and PW 3 Chidda Lal Tomar had seen Shahnawaz and his friends entering the Godown at 9 pm and this Godown being set ablaze subsequently.
The court noted that the owner of the godown Anil Pal and his family members were also examined in this case and as per the prosecution, they had also seen accused Shahnawaz entering this Godown at different points of time.
ASJ Pramachala, however, noted that since it had been a concrete stand of prosecution that Shahnawaz had entered into this godown with his companions at around 9 PM and set the godown ablaze. Thus, the evidence referring to the activity of different timelines does not help much in deciding the culpability of the accused in the burning of the godown and Dilbar Negi’s death.
“Hence, evidence referring to activity of different timeline, does not help much in deciding culpability of accused in the incident of arson at this Godown and the death of Dilbar Negi. This is so because if a person ceased to be member of the mob by the time when the Godown was set on fire, then mere on the basis of his presence in the past in that mob, he cannot be made liable for actions of the mob as taken place in his absence,” ASJ Pramachala stated.
ASJ Pramachala quoted the relevant parts of the testimonies of hostile witnesses and said that PW 3 denied seeing any incident at around 9 pm on 24th February 2020. He noted that while PW 3 in the concluding part of his testimony claimed to have known and seen Parvez and Shahnawaz entering the Godown, however, he had initially said that he did not see any rioter as there was no electricity and it was dark at that time. Similarly, PW 7 also denied having seen the accused Shahnawaz enter the Godown at 9 PM or setting it ablaze.
“He also belied the stand of prosecution that he had tried to stop the rioters, but rioters did not listen to him. In such situation, even if PW 9 admitted the suggestion of the Prosecutor that PW 3 had informed him about name of Shanawaz @ Shanu being part of the rioters, who had set his Godown on fire, such testimony of PW 9 cannot be a substantive and complete evidence to show that accused Shahnawaz was among the rioters or to show that all these rioters entered aforesaid Godown at about 9 PM and thereafter set it on fire,” ASJ Pramachala stated in the order.
ASJ Pramachala further observed that the accused Shahnawaz’s name was nowhere mentioned before the police by any of these witnesses immediately after this incident, nor it is so mentioned in the FIR.
“Had it been a case that PW 9 was informed about the name of Shahnawaz @ Shanu as one of the rioters as identified by PW 3 on 24.02.2020 at around 9 PM, then PW 9 had the occasion to mention name of Shanu in the call made by him to the police at 100 number or on next date i.e. 25.02.2020 or on 26.02.2020 when according to PW 3 the dead body was recovered in the afore-said Godown and it had come to the knowledge of all these persons including PW 9, who was the owner of this Godown,” the court said.
Noting that if PW 9 had indeed seen accused Shahnawaz enter the godown along with his companions and set it on fire, he would have mentioned his name before police before the registration of FIR (the FIR was registered on 28th February 2020) and police could have registered FIR rather on the basis of such information provided by PW 9.
“Hence, I find that prosecution has failed to establish the fact, that accused Shahnawaz had entered this Godown along with other rioters at about 9 PM and thereafter, this Godown was set on fire by those rioters,” ASJ Pramachala stated.
Thus, ASJ Pulastya Pramachala concluded that the allegations levelled against Mohammad Shahnawaz were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him of all charges.
“In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I find that charges levelled against accused Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu in this case, is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu is given benefit of doubt and he is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him in this case,” ASJ Pramachala ruled.
Dilbar Negi’s hands and feet were severed but no one killed the Hindu boy
There appears to be a mismatch between the physical evidence and the legal framing of the case. The Delhi Police had mentioned in the chargesheet that Dilbar Negi was burnt alive after his limbs were severed. PW 18, Inspector Pramod Joshi, testified that “both legs and both hands of the dead body were missing and it was in burnt condition”. His testimony corroborates the fact that the Hindu victim was attacked and brutally assaulted, his limbs chopped before he was burnt to death along with the Godown. Thus, the assertion that the Hindu boy succumbed to his burn injuries or died solely due to asphyxiation and that his death was an accident does not hold water.
Although Negi’s postmortem report revealed that his both legs and hands were missing, it mentioned the cause of death as asphyxia i.e. due to inhalation of smoke. The prosecution argued that the acts of accused Shahnawaz and other rioters setting the Godown ablaze with Dilbar Negi inside it leading to his death, attracted the conviction of the accused under Section 302/436/450 IPC. The court also observed that Dilbar Negi “might have become unconscious by 9 PM, or he might have died by that time.”
However, neither the prosecution nor the court delved into the question of whether the missing hands and legs of the deceased were on account of chopping or on account of burn. It is pertinent to mention here that PW 19 Inspector Kanwar Sain had testified that on 27th February 2023, he wrote a letter to the GTB Hospital where Dilbar Negi’s postmortem was conducted seeking their opinion if missing hands and legs of the deceased were on account of chopping or on account of burn and on 2nd May 2023, the hospital provided their opinion regarding the same, however, the opinion of the hospital on whether Negi’s limbs were missing on account of chopping or burn was not mentioned in the relevant court order.
The prosecution’s case, as reflected in the court’s observations, seems to have centred primarily on the setting ablaze of the godown and accused Shahnawaz’s alleged role in it, leading to Negi’s death by asphyxiation rather than the deceased victim’s missing limbs or the accusation that his limbs were first chopped and then the godown was set blaze to leave his body to burn thus there remaining no evidence. This raises the question whether the full scope of the violence inflicted on the Dilbar Negi was adequately considered. Apparently, the missing limbs of the deceased were not the point of contention, suggesting that the postmortem report was not leveraged to differentiate between chopping and burning as the cause of missing limbs.
While the court did not explicitly declare that ‘no one killed Dilbar Negi’, the acquittal of the sole accused combined with the lack of evidence leads to a paradoxical situation where the judicial system has failed to uphold anyone accountable for the gruesome killing. Negi’s limbs were missing, this could not plausibly occur accidentally or due to burning since the skull and remaining body though charred and turned into a thick mass was found on the spot. The disconnect between the brutality inflicted on Dilbar Negi and the legal outcome in this case leaves so many questions unanswered. In the end, Mohammad Shahnawaz got the “benefit of doubt” while Dilbar Negi’s family’s hope for justice vanished.
