On the 14th of May 2025, a Delhi court acquitted 11 persons accused of arson, rioting with a deadly weapon, theft, and being part of an unlawful assembly during the 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi Riots. The court raised questions over the credibility of the police witnesses who identified the accused men and observed that the witnesses were artificially planted.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Court noted that charges against accused persons, namely: Ankit Chaudhary alias Fauji, Sumit alias Badshah, Pappu, Vijay, Ashish Kumar, Sourabh Kaushik, Bhupender, Shakti Singh, Sachin Kumar alias Rancho, Rahul and Yogesh, were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Giving the accused persons benefit of doubt, the court acquitted them of all charges.
Case background and charges against the accused Hindu youths
The case against the accused Hindu persons was registered after a complaint filed by one Mohammad Imran Sheikh at the Gokulpuri Police Station on 1st March 2020. In his complaint, Imran Sheikh claimed about loot and arson committed in his medical shop ‘Crown Medicos’. First and second floor of his shop was full with medicines. He further alleged that one Aslam who was working in a salon, which was situated in front of his medical shop, had telephonically informed him at around 01:30 AM that some persons had looted his aforesaid shop and were setting it ablaze. Immediately thereafter, complainant Imran Sheikh made call at 100 number to police about this incident. Eventually, an FIR was registered on Sheikh’s complaint.
During the probe, Investigation Officer (IO) Laxmi Narayan Sharma visited the site of incident and was later informed that accused Ankit Chaudhary and Sumit who were already arrested in another FIR, had “confessed” their involvement in vandalising Imran Sheikh’s shop. Subsequently, the duo were arrested in this case.
On 9th March 2020, the remaining accused were arrested. ASI Gajraj informed IO of this case about receiving a CD of certain video of riots in his case. He also informed that some rioters were visible in the same and that, videos related to place of incidents in this case as well. IO obtained a copy of that CD and seized it in this case. This CD was sent to FSL, Rohini for forensic examination.
On 11th March 2020, another complaint was filed by one Akram Ali at the Gokulpuri Police Station. In his complaint, Akram Ali alleged that he was running his shop at C-12, Main Road, ground floor, Gokalpuri in the name and style of ‘Smart Looks Salon’ and he, along with his brother Aslam was residing on rent on the second floor of C-12, Main Road, Gokalpuri. On 24.02.2020 at around 6 PM, a number of persons came and started vandalism and thereafter he and his brother left Delhi for their native place, in order to save their lives. On 29.02.2020, when Aslam Ali (brother of Akram Ali) visited said shop, he informed Akram Ali that rioters had vandalized his shop.
Given the proximity of the date, time and place of incident, Akram Ali’s complaint was clubbed in the present case. Following this, the IO added IPC section 436 in the present case.
Ankit Chaudhary alias Fauji, Sumit alias Badshah, Pappu, Vijay, Ashish Kumar, Sourabh Kaushik, Bhupender, Shakti Singh, Sachin Kumar alias Rancho, Rahul and Yogesh, were chargesheeted by the Delhi Police for offences under 147/148/149/ 380/427/436 IPC on 3rd May 2020.
The prosecution alleged that the accused Ankit Chaudhary and others formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing riots by carrying stones, sticks and other weapons of rioting and to create fear and insecurity in the minds of members of other community and by use of force or violence in prosecution of a common object of such assembly committed rioting. It was alleged that the accused persons trespassed in complainant Imran Sheikh’s shop and looted several articles.
Further, the prosecution alleged that the accused broke open the locks and entered in the aforesaid shops and then set those on fire by explosive substance with the intent to destroy the same. The prosecution also claimed that the accused committed mischief by causing wrongful loss and damage to the aforesaid shops of complainants Imran Sheikh and Akram Ali. In 2022, additional charge was framed against the accused under IPC section 188.
The prosecution presented 12 witnesses before the court to back its case against the accused.
One eyewitness Mohammad Imran Sheikh (PW2), the owner of the vandalised shop, claimed to have known a number of the accused before to the crime. However, he did not name the accused during the investigation, but rather after the trial began. The Court noticed that even while filming the video of the incident, he did not name the accused.
PW2 was declared hostile by prosecution and he denied the suggestions that he had come to shop in the night of incident, or that he had seen and identified accused persons in the mob of rioters.
Meanwhile, PW5 Aslam (brother of Akram Ali) identified accused Ankit before the court, stating that on previous occasion he could not identify Ankit on display screen. PW5 had recorded incidents of vandalism by the mob on his mobile phone. PW5 earlier identified accused Sumit alias Badshah, Rahul, Amit, Ankit Chaudhary, Vijay and Pappu before the court by taking their correct names. He claimed that he knew their names. PW5 identified accused Sandeep @ Mogli, Rahul, Shakti Singh, Saurabh, Ashish before the court, stating that he did not know their names. PW5 deposed that Saurabh was known as Kachhua in the locality. PW5 had not handed over videos recorded by him to the police, rather he had uploaded them on Facebook. Later, he provided these videos to the police.
PW6 Akram Ali, the other complainant said in his statement that he did not see any incident in the shop and he remained closed inside his room with other workers. His brother Aslam had locked them in a room and had gone to terrace. PW6 had wrongly mentioned in his complaint that on 24.02.2020 PW6 had left Delhi along with Aslam.
Arguments of defence and prosecution
The accused persons pleaded not guilty and asserted that they have been falsely implicated by the investigators. They also argued that the prosecution witnesses in this case have deposed falsely against them. They took plea that they were falsely identified by witnesses at the instance of IO and that PW9 ASI Jahangir & PW10 ASI Vanvir were planted witnesses in this case.
Notably, PW9 and PW10 had identified about 10-11 persons in that mob and they knew them by their names. They were accused Ankit Chaudhary, Sumit Badshah, Sachin, Saurabh, Bhupender, Ashish, Rahul, Vijay, Shakti & Pappu. As per PW9 and PW19, the accused youths were also part of the mob which had vandalised Crown Medicos. PW9 & PW10 identified all accused before the court by taking their correct names.
The defence counsels challenged the presence of PW5 at the relevant time in the property of his shop. They referred to complaint which was made by brother of PW5. In this complaint it was mentioned that PW6 and his brother both fled away from their shop and went to village through train. Before the court, PW6 had clarified that his brother PW5 had not gone with him. However, defence treated it as false improvement in the stand.
The, however, noted that the videos of the incident were examined by the CFSL, and there is no reason to suspect the veracity of these videos, which were claimed to be recorded by PW5 himself, with his voice recorded therein.
The Delhi court said that the core issue was the identification of the accused, whether they were a part of the mob that was responsible for setting ablaze Crown Medicos and vandalising Smart Look Salon or not.
The prosecution relied upon PW5, PW9 and PW10 to argue the presence of all accused in the mob of rioters, which attacked both the aforesaid shops. PW5 deposed that he already knew accused Ankit Chaudhary, Sumit @ Badshah, Rahul, Amit Kumar, Vicky, Sumit. He identified accused Sumit @ Badshah, Vijay and Pappu, as the persons whom he knew by their names.
Delhi court finds merit in defence’s arguments, raises question over credibility of testimonies of prosecution witnesses
ASJ Pulastya Pramachala noted accused Ankit Chaudhary was appearing through video conference and PW5 could not identify him. However, during his examination on a subsequent date, when he had identified videos in DVD furnished by him, accused Ankit was physically present in the court and at that moment PW5 identified him, stating that on previous occasion he could not understand the appearance of the person on the computer screen and he was not told name of that person, hence, he could not identify Ankit Chaudhary on that occasion.
PW5 further identified accused Sandeep @ Mogli, Rahul, Shakti Singh, Saurabh and Ashish, stating that they were also members of the mob of rioters, but he did not know their names. At the same time PW5 deposed that Saurabh was known as Kachhua in that locality. Meanwhile, PW9 and PW10 identified all the accused persons claiming that they knew them since prior to the incident.
The court, however, noted that “both these officials were posted in the same police station, despite that their statement regarding identifying the accused persons, was recorded at much belated time.”
In addition, the court pointed out that if these accused persons were already known to these two police officials, then there could not have been any need to identify them in any video or photographs.
“It is worth to note here that by the time IO recorded statement of these two police officials, all accused were already arrested and chargesheeted in this case. Therefore, their identification of accused persons, at such belated time, is not beyond controversy and doubt,” the court noted.
Finding merit the defence’s argument, the court noted that defence challenged evidence of PW9 and PW10, mainly on the grounds that despite being posted in the same police station, they came up to name and identify photographs of the accused persons after a huge gap of around 10 month.
“I do find merit in this argument. If PW9/ASI Jahangir and PW10/ASI Vanvir had actually seen and identified the accused persons among the rioters on 24.02.2020, then there was no good reason for them to keep silence for such a long period. From the record of duty roster, even IO could have known the particulars of officials, who were on duty at the concerned place. Still, even IO did not make any attempt to examine such officials at the earliest possible time,” ASJ Pramachala stated.
Deeming the visual evidence provided by PW9 ASI Jahangir, ASJ Pramachala stated, “Showing photographs of accused to PW9, when they were already arrested in this case, appears to be unnatural action, giving impression that PW9 was artificially made an eye witness to identify the accused persons. Therefore, evidence of PW9 cannot be relied upon to assume presence of any accused in the mob of rioters. Same logic applies to discard the identification by PW10.”
The court further noted that the defence counsel challenged the credibility of PW5’s (Aslam)testimony contending that he falsely identified the accused persons before the court as after-thought plea. Aslam confirmed to have identified that the accused persons since they were residents of the same locality, however, he denied defence’s allegation that he identified the accused since they were Hindus and he had enimity with them.
The court pointed out that if PW5 (Aslam) had informed PW6 and his brother Akram about the incident, and knew some of the rioters whom he identified before the court, then why he did not mention their names before PW6 as well. ASJ Pramachala noted that neither in his complaint nor in his testimony did PW6 (complainant Akram) mentioned that he was ever informed by his brother about the names of the rioters.
“It has to be appreciated that PW5, though claimed that he knew some of the accused persons by names since prior to this incident, but he did not get name of any such person mentioned in the complaint made by his brother Akram/PW6. PW6 deposed that PW5 had informed him about the incident. If that was so and if PW5 knew at least some of the rioters by their names, whom he identified before the court, then it was natural for PW5 to mention their names before PW6 as well. However, PW6 neither in his complaint nor in his testimony before the court, stated that he was ever informed about name of any of the rioter by his brother PW5,” ASJ Pramachala observed.
The court further noted that even in the statement recorded by the Investigation Officer LN Sharma, there was no mention of of all the names of rioters as claimed by PW5 before the court. IO Sharma said that except for the disclosure statement of the accused persons, he had no evidence against them at the time of arrest. Sharma added that Aslam had stated that he could identify the culprits from the video, however, that phone and video was not provided to IO Sharma by Aslam.
“If PW5 knew the name of rioters as named by him before the court, then even if he did not have his mobile phone to hand over the videos to police/PW1, PW5 would have mentioned those names before PW1. Thus, claims of PW5 that he knew some accused persons by their names since prior to the incident and that he also had seen and identified them among the rioters, are incompatible with his omission to mention such names before PW6 or before PW1 at the first occasion itself,” the court said.
The court noted that even in the videos PW5 himself recorded during the incident, he did not take names of the persons he could see indulging in arson and vandalism. Although PW5 did point out to accused Sumit and Ankit in two videos, they could not be clearly seen in the videos.
“Therefore, naming and identification of accused persons by PW5 before the court for the first time, in the background of his claim of having known some of them since prior to the incident, is suspicious, and in absence of any corroboration to such evidence of PW5, it is risky to act upon his identification,” the court stated.
All 11 accused acquitted of all charges levelled against them
Judge Pramachala thus concluded that charges levelled against the accused persons in this case are not proved beyond all reasonable doubts and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Consequently, the accused were acquitted of all charges brought up against them.
“In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I find that charges levelled against the accused persons in this case are not proved beyond all reasonable doubts and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, all accused 1. Ankit Chaudhary @ Fauzi, 2. Sumit @ Badshah, 3. Pappu, 4. Vijay, 5. Ashish Kumar, 6. Sourabh Kaushik, 7. Bhupender, 8. Shakti Singh, 9. Sachin Kumar @ Rancho, 10. Rahul and 11. Yogesh, are acquitted of the charges levelled against them,” the judge stated.
