On the 18th of March 2025, the Karkardooma Court pronounced their judgement on the murder of a Muslim man called Babbu, during the Delhi anti-Hindu Riots. The court acquitted 11 Muslims who were charge-sheeted in the case, framing charges against 8 Hindus.
The case pertains to FIR 119/2020, which was filed by Pappu, the brother of Babbu. In the FIR, Pappu had said that his brother, Babbu, was an auto-driver and was driving back home on 25th February 2020. At about 2 PM, Babbu reached Khajuri Chowk, there was a mob, which was pelting stones. It was further alleged that Babbu got serious injuries and Babbu was admitted to Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital, Shastri Park, Delhi by police. Thereafter, Babbu was referred to UCMS and GTB Hospital for treatment and during treatment Babbu died on 27.02.2020.
Babbu’s postmortem indicated, “Cause of Death is coma as a result of head injury produced by blunt force impact. However, viscera preserved to rule out poisoning”.
Thereafter, the investigation led the police to arrest 11 Muslims and 8 Hindus in the given case. The court document says that during the investigation, the accused, including Hindus and Muslims “Admitted to their involvement in the incident of riot dated 25.02.2020 at Khajuri Khas i.e. the place of occurrence in the present case”.
What had happened on the 25th of February – as revealed by Court documents
On the 25th of February, the investigation by the police revealed that both communities started gathering at Khajuri Chowk. While members from the Hindu community were gathering towards Khajuri Khas, members from the Muslim community were gathering towards Shree Ram Colony. Both communities thereafter started raising slogans against each other and pelting stones at each other.
It is pertinent to note that all the accused – Hindus and Muslims – charge-sheeted in the current case were identified by eyewitnesses as being part of the respective mobs.
It is during this, that Babbu was caught hold of and beaten by some Hindus.
It is pertinent to note that Babbu was not an innocent bystander or just an auto-driver who was on his way home. The charge sheet, as quoted by the Court, reveals that Babbu himself was a rioter and a part of the Muslim mob.
This aspect of the investigation – that Babbu himself was a rioter and a part of the Muslim mob – has not been discredited by the court. In fact, apart from the charge sheet being quoted, the court in its judgement makes no other mention of Babbu being a part of the mob – therefore – not disregarding this finding by the police.
The court observed that it is clear that this case is of two rival groups attacking each other – as evidenced by two videos – when Babbu was chased and beaten.
On what basis did the police charge sheet the Muslim accused, later acquitted
As evidenced by the charge-sheet excerpt, the police had arrested and charged the Muslim accused by invoking Section 149 of the IPC. Section 149 essentially says that those who are a part of the mob are assumed to have a common objective to commit crime and are therefore, individually, severally and vicariously responsible for the crimes committed.
Section 149 says:
If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
The logic employed by the police was simple – Hindus and Muslims were both face-to-face – and the ensuing riot from both sides ended up in the killing of Babbu – identifiable members from both sides were individually and severally liable for the crime.
What the court said about section 149, acquitting the Muslim accused
The court said, “for inviting liability by virtue of Section 149 IPC, it is not required to prove overt act on the part of every member of the mob. However, it is important for the prosecution to show that the alleged act was done by the members of that mob in pursuance to the common object of that mob and accused was member of such mob at the relevant time. Hence, common object of an unlawful assembly plays important role in fixing the vicarious liability”.
The court said that the members of the Muslim mob were “sympathisers” of Babbu and after he was beaten up by the Hindus, it was the Muslim mob that picked him up and took him away.
As such, Section 149 cannot be invoked because while it is true that to invoke Section 149, an overt act is not necessary to be proven against members of the mob, it is important that a “common object” is displayed. Since the deceased was a Muslim, the Muslim mob, while they were rioting, cannot be said to have played a part in killing Babbu since it was the Hindu mob which shared the “common objective” against the Muslim rioters.
Were the 11 Muslims acquitted in this case innocent? Not at all – what the court said
In para 49 of the judgement instructing to frame charges against the Hindu accused, the court made an important observation.
The court said:
The chargesheet itself refers to a different case being investigated i.e. FIR no. 103/20 by SI Naveen, wherein all these aforesaid accused persons were arrested. FIR 103/20 was also registered in respect of an incident taken place at the same place during same time period, wherein Ct. Amit had sustained fracture in his hand. This example is sufficient to say that for any other riotous activity of aforesaid accused persons, they should have be separately booked. They cannot be prosecuted in this case, which relates to culpable homicide of Babbu. In this case, court has to look for culpability of accused persons, who are connected with incident of beating of Babbu, which resulted into his death.
The judgement notes that the Muslim accused, acquitted in this case, are already being tried in another case of rioting on the same day and in the same place. Essentially, FIR 103/2020 pertains to the Muslim rioters injuring and targeting police officials and Hindus. It is the same incident in which the Hindus beat up Babbu. Since the Muslim rioters are already being tried in a separate case for the same incident of rioting, they cannot be tried in this case since this would amount to double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same crime).
Crime of commission – How Live Law presented the judgement
LiveLaw, a legal portal, published a thread on X (formerly Twitter) on the 19th of March.
Delhi Court discharges 11 muslim men in a #DelhiRiots case concerning death of one Babbu.
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) March 19, 2025
Court says mob of Muslim community had no role to play in deceased’s beating, rather they were sympathisers.
Murder charges framed against 8 men belonging to mob of Hindu community. pic.twitter.com/xw8yyUFi8d
In the thread, they mentioned the portions of the judgement which acquitted the Muslims and ordered the framing of charges against the Hindus without mentioning that the Muslim rioters were not innocent and had not been implicated falsely but were rioters who were already being tried in a different case for targeting Hindus and police officials.
The report which was published on the 20th of March by LiveLaw also missed this important aspect of the judgement, portraying the Muslim rioters as innocent men, falsely implicated by the police.
How propagandists used the Live Law report to exonerate Muslims and why they are wrong
One propagandist claimed that innocent Muslims who “risked their lives to help the victim” were framed by the police.
Delhi Police framed the very people who risked their lives to help others during the riots.
— Prabal🌹 (@RationalPrabal) March 19, 2025
11 innocent Muslim men suffered just for their identity, while the real culprits walked free for years. https://t.co/Cc5sAwLwos
One Muslim propagandist claimed that the “court said that “Muslims were targeted because of their religion”.
Delhi Riots: The court acquitted 11 Muslims in the murder case of auto driver Babbu, while framing charges against 8 Hindus in murder cases. The court stated, “Muslims were targeted because of their religion.”
— Noor Mahvish (@TheNoorMahvish) March 19, 2025
Source @SocialTimes01 pic.twitter.com/NDEMQ3r4uP
This is, of course, a misrepresentation. The court said that the Muslims were targeting Hindus for their religion and the Hindus were targeting the Muslims in turn. In the case of Babbu, the court used this to ascertain blame for Babbu, saying that the Hindus were beating Babbu up for his religious identity, however, the court also said that the Muslim mob was pelting stones and was armed against the Hindus.
Another misrepresentation was by a propagandist called “Drunk Journalist”. He claimed that police had charged the Muslim men claiming that the Muslims killed Babbu.
Babbu was killed by 8 men belonging to the Hindu community but Delhi Police arrested 11 Muslim men claiming they killed Babbu.
— Drunk Journalist (@drunkJournalist) March 19, 2025
Thankfully due to video evidence, they were discharged and criminals got caught. https://t.co/6WPySOZpdM
In reality, the Muslims were charged owing to Section 149. As explained, the police had booked the Muslims saying that since Muslims were also a part of the mob which created the riot, they would be individually and severally responsible. They were not charged by the police for directly killing Babbu. Such narrative is peddled often to discredit the investigation of the police – not because the propagandists want to save the specific Muslim accused – but because they want to cast a shadow of doubt on the entire police investigation – specifically to whitewash the crimes of the conspirators like Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and others.
It is pertinent to note that the conspiracy to create violence and burn Delhi started right on the 6th of December 2019 – with the explicit involvement of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and several others. Detailed coverage of how the conspiracy unfolded can be read here.
Beyond the conspiracy, if we analyse only the violence which broke out on the 23rd, 24th and 25th of February 2020, it is also documented in the charge sheet how the violence was initiated by the Muslim mob and not the Hindus. conspiracy
In charge sheet 59/2020, which explains the Delhi anti-Hindu Riots conspiracy, it is categorically mentioned that on the first day of the Delhi anti-Hindu riots – the 23rd of February – it was the Muslim mob which started the violence.
A group of individuals who were demanding the opening of the 66-foot road near Jafrabad had assembled at Maujpur Chowk around 3:00 PM on 23rd February. The Maujpur Chowk where they had assembled was about 750 M away from the Jafrabad Metro Station.
The charge sheet then reveals that the residents of Jafrabad and Kardampuri who were supporting the blockage of the Jafrabad metro station congregated in the thousands and started pelting stones from all quarters at the group that was demanding the re-opening of the roads.
However, this portion of the charge sheet proves that the incidents of violence were indeed started by the anti-CAA protestors – the Muslim mob.
The first murder to have been committed during the Delhi anti-Hindu Riots was that of Constable Ratan Lal by the Muslim mob.
It was only by the latter half of 24th February 2020 did the Hindus started defending themselves and retaliating. This fact is evident by the judgement in the case of the death of Babbu – who was beaten by Hindus – causing his ultimate death. The incident happened on the 25th of February when Hindus started defending themselves and retaliating against the Muslim mobs who had gone on a rampage since the 23rd of February. In no way does that whitewash the fact that the Delhi anti-Hindu riots were indeed orchestrated, planned and executed by the Muslims and Leftists to specifically target Hindus of Delhi – as evidenced by the police investigation and several court orders covered in the past.
