Delhi District Court
State vs Sagar And Others on 24 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 03 (NORTH EAST DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURT : DELHI.
SC No. 79/21
FIR No. 36/2020
PS Sonia Vihar
U/s 147/148/149/395/427/435/436 IPC & 3/4 DP Act
State
Versus
1. Sagar,
s/o Sh. Pyare Lal,
r/o G-3/200, Gali no. 16,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
2. Devender Gautam,
s/o Sh. Kamal Singh,
r/o G-4/68, Gali No. 4,
Pusta-5, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
3. Anmol,
s/o Sh. Jagbir,
r/o G-1/55, Gali No. 1, 5th Pushta,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi. ...Accused
Date of Committal : 29.01.2021.
Date of Arguments : 31.01.2026.
Date of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026
JUDGMENT
Facts of Prosecution Case as per Charge Sheet Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH FIR No. 36/20 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 PS Sonia Vihar 1 of 60 15:56:53 +0530 1.1 Briefly stated, on 26.02.2020, the present FIR was registered on the statement of Ct. Ajay, who stated that on 25.02.2020, he along with HC Manoj was on patrolling duty at Beat No. 7, Milan Garden, Sonia Vihar. In and around the streets of Milan Garden, there was gathering of large mob, which came towards Masjid Wali Gali from the side of Ram Raheem Chowk. Some members of aforesaid mob were instigating the mob for arson and pelting of stones. They were also raising slogan of 'Jai Shri Ram' and were saying that CAA and NRC had been implemented and protesters would not be spared.
At around 2 PM, mob came into the streets and started vandalism and arson in Masjid Wali Gali. Ct. Ajay and HC Manoj tried to make them understand and to stop them, but they did not relent and became furious. To save themselves from this mob, Ct. Ajay and HC Manoj hid themselves in the street. On receipt of information, SHO along with staff reached there. Seeing them, the mob scattered and situation came under control. By this time, the mob had already set on fire one car, one moped, one house as well as wood and scraps kept in a nearby plot, in Masjid Wali Gali. This mob also vandalized electricity meters and CCTV cameras in that area. Ct. Ajay further stated that during that period he came to know from Ct. Sandeep that mob coming from the side of Milan Garden had set on fire a motorcycle near Madeena Masjid and one scrap shop near Lodhi Medical Store in G block. On the basis of the statement of Ct. Ajay, rukka was prepared Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH FIR No. 36/20 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 PS Sonia Vihar 2 of 60 15:57:14 +0530 and the present FIR was registered. After registration of FIR, investigation was assigned to SI Jitender Kumar. 1.2 During the course of investigation of this case, IO/SI Jitender Kumar prepared a site plan indicating the places of incident.
IO seized a burnt car bearing registration no. DL-10CA-8679 of Sh. Abrar Hussain and a burnt moped bearing registration no. DL-5SAH-3941 of Sh. Abdul Rahim. IO also seized CCTV camera of model 'HIKVISION', which was lying on the ground in broken condition. Thereafter, IO seized various burnt articles from the different places of incident and prepared site plans. During further investigation, on 06.03.2020, IO got video recordings of affected places done. He obtained video clips in a pendrive with certificate u/s 65B of I.E. Act from videographer Sh. Nanhe Chorasiya and seized this pen-drive. IO also prepared mirror copy of four video clips, which were received from public domain/resources, saved them in different pen-drives, seized them and obtained certificate u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act. On 06.03.2020 IO had shown footage of these four videos to Ct. Sandeep, who identified five persons including Sagar, Anmol and Devender. On the same day, accused Sagar and Devender were arrested from their houses. At the instance of accused Sagar, one danda was recovered. During further investigation, Section 395 IPC was added in the present case.
1.3 After completion of investigation, chargesheet against
Digitally signed
PARVEEN by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 SINGH
SINGH
Date: 2026.02.24
PS Sonia Vihar 3 of 60 15:57:30 +0530
accused Sagar and Devender was filed for offences u/s.
143/147/149/395/435/436/427/188/34 IPC & 3 PDPP Act. 1.4 On 21.06.2021 first supplementary chargesheet was filed filed and name accused Anmol was added in the said charge sheet. 1.5 On 28.10.2021 second supplementary chargesheet was filed. On 24.08.2022 third supplementary chargesheet alongwith consolidated site plan and FSL reports, was filed. On 19.11.2022 fourth supplementary chargesheet along with one statement was filed. On 15.02.2023 fifth supplementary chargesheet alongwith additional statements was filed. On 18.04.2023 sixth supplementary chargesheet alongwith some more documents and statements was filed. On 18.05.2023, seventh supplementary chargesheet alongwith two sealed parcels from FSL, Delhi was filed .
Charges 2.1 On 28.02.2024, charge for offences punishable u/s 148 IPC r/w section 149 IPC and section 188 IPC; u/s 3 PDPP Act r/w section 149 IPC; u/s 427 IPC r/w section 149 IPC; u/s 435 IPC r/w section 149 IPC; u/s 436 IPC r/w section 149 IPC; u/s 380 IPC r/w section 149 IPC and u/s 395 IPC r/w section 149 IPC was framed against all the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence 3.1 In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Digitally signed by PARVEEN FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date: PS Sonia Vihar 4 of 60 2026.02.24 15:57:42 +0530
27 witnesses, description of which is given as under:-
Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witness No. PW1 Nasibuddin He is a witness of riots. As per his testimony, on 25.02.2020, at about 10-11 a.m, around 40-50 persons came on the main road in front of his house i.e. H. No. 4, G-2, 25 Foota Road, Sonia Vihar.
They were carrying danda, stone etc. and were raising slogan of Jai Shri Ram. The mob demolished a half constructed wall of his shop on the ground floor and also broke the glass pane on the front side of his house. At about 1-2 p.m, he alongwith his family left the house for Khajuri Khas. At about 5-5.30 p.m, police called him and informed him that his house had been set afire. At the time of incident, he had seen faces of 10-20 persons in the mob but he did not know them. He further deposed that after 2-4 days, police had shown him certain photographs but none of the persons in the photographs were seen by him in the mob.Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 5 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 15:57:58 +0530 PW2 Zahiruddin He is a witness of the riots. As per his testimony, he had been taking care of Madina Masjid.
On the day of riot, at about 2.00 p.m, after the prayers, he heard the slogans of Jai Shri Ram coming from the side of Ram Rahim Chowk. Everyone fled from the mosque and he and Sohraj Hafiz were left in the mosque. He saw that 40- 50 persons entered their gali and they were carrying stone, brick etc. He and Hafiz closed the door of mosque and went upstairs. From the terrace, they shifted to another property and hid themselves.
He could not see face of anyone in the mob as they were covered their faces.
From the small window, he saw that the persons from the ob had broken the government's camera installed over his house. Some persons from the mob broke the door of his house, pout the articles from his house and set them on fire.
PW3 HC Sandeep He deposed that on 22.05.2020, vide RC no.
39/21/20 (Ex.PW3/A), he collected exhibits from Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 6 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 15:58:10 +0530 MHCM and deposited them in FSL, Rohini.
PW4 Shakeela She was a witness of the riots.
She deposed that on the day of riot, she was at her home.
When noise started taking place, her husband came home. The noise was coming from the side of Ram Rahim Chowk and persons were coming in her gali, while raising slogans. Those persons reached Madina Masjid and started vandalizing and setting afire the things. They broke electricity meter of her house and pelted stones on the gate of her house. She did not see anyone in those rioters.
PW5 Munni She deposed that on the day of riot, she was at parchoon shop, which was being run from H. no. A-19, Gali No. 1, Milan Garden, Sabhapur, Delhi. She deposed that at about 2.00 p.m, she heard noise of Jai Shri Ram coming from the side of Ram Rahim Chowk. She immediately closed her shop and went inside her house. Rioters had attacked at her house also. She had not seen anyone in the mob. Police had taken FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed PS Sonia Vihar 7 of 60 PARVEEN by PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.02.24 15:58:20 +0530 photographs of her house, which were Mark 5/P1 to Mark 5/P2. On the same day, she saw that Madina Masjid had been set afire.
PW6 HC Deepak Kumar He was working as dossier operator in PS Sonia Vihar.
On the directions of IO SI Jitender, he had produced the photographs of accused Sagar, Devender Gautam @ Sheru and Anmol to IO, which were seized vide memos Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B. PW7 Shabnam She deposed that on 25.02.2020, riot had taken place in the area of Milan Garden, Sabhapur. However, on the day of incident, she was not at her home. When she returned to her home, she found that glass panes and cover of electricity meter were damaged. Police had taken photographs of the damages, which were Mark 7/P1. She further deposed that she see some damages appearing on Madina Masjid.
PW8 Abrar Hussain He had suffered loss during the riots.
As per his testimony, on 25.02.2020, riots had taken place in the area of Milan Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 8 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 15:58:31 +0530 Garden, Sabhapur. On that day, at about 02.00 p.m, he saw a mob of 40-50 persons coming from the side of Ram Rahim Chowk and they were raising slogans of Jai Shri Ram. He went to the terrace of the house of Jahiruddin and from there, he saw that the said mob had damaged his car bearing no. DL-10CA-8679 and also set on fire Madina Masjid. Articles and cash were also looted from his house.
PW9 Abdul Rahim As per his testimony, on 25.02.2020, he, on his scooty, had gone to H. No. A-12, Gali No. 1, Milan Garden where his brother was constructing house. At about 02.00 p.m, 50-60 persons came there and they were raising slogans of Jai Shri Ram. He remained locked inside and did not see them. He heard noise of cracking/ breaking of glasses in the gali. After about one house, he came out and saw that his scooty / moped TVS had been set afire.
PW10 HC Vikas He deposed that on 13.09.2021, vide RC (Ex.PW10/A), he had FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 9 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 15:58:42 +0530 collected one sealed envelope and two copies of RC from MHCM and deposited them in FSL, Rohini. After depositing the exhibits, he handed over copy of RC and acknowledgment letter to MHCM.
PW11 Mainuddin He deposed that on 25.02.2020, he was not at home and at about 2.00 p.m, he came back and found that masjid situated in his gali was on fire and some other properties had been vandalized.
PW12 Farman Haider He deposed that on 25.02.2020, riot had taken pace in his gali i.e. gali No. 1, Ram Rahim Chowk, Milan Garden. At about 2.00 p.m, a number of persons came from the side of Ram Rahim Chowk while raising slogans of Jai Shri Ram. They started vandalizing the properties in his gali. From inside his house, he could only see that they were carrying danda, bricks etc. He could not identify anyone amongst the rioters as many of them had covered their faces.
PW13 Shakeela Begum She deposed that on FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 10 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 15:58:52 +0530 25.02.2020, riots had taken place in her area. However, he only heard noise of damage being caused outside and did not see anything.
PW14 Anwar Ahmed He deposed that on 25.02.2020, riot had taken place in his area i.e. Milan Garden, Sabhapur. However, he was not at his home on that day. On 11.03.2020, when he came to his house, he found his house in the same condition in which he had left it. He had furnished copy of electricity bill to police.
PW15 Mohd. Sohrab He was a witness to the riot.
He deposed that on 25.02.2020 at about 01.45 p.m, he was offering prayer in a masjid. He heard noise of slogans of Jai Shri Ram, being raised by some persons. He went upstairs and he kept hearing the noise and smoke rising up from the gali. When the mob went back, he found that the masjid was set afire.
His motorcycle was also slightly damaged and the electricity meter outside the masjid was also damaged. He could not see anyone in the mob.
FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 11 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 15:59:02 +0530 PW16 Sheikh Manjoor He deposed that on 25.02.2020, riot had taken place in his area. At about 12- 1.00 p.m, he heard noise of some persons. He did not see anyone in the mob. However the electricity meter of his house was damaged.
PW17 ASI Satbir On 24.02.2020, on the directions of SHO, he had announced the imposition of section 144 Cr.P.C in the area of B, C, D, E, G, blocks of Sonia Vihar; Milan Garden;
Sabhapur Village; Chauhan Patti village; Yamuna Khader village. He further deposed that on 26.02.2020, he registered FIR of this case and further investigation was assigned to SI Jitender.
PW18 Ali Ahmed He was the Imam of Madina Masjid. He deposed that on 25.02.2020, riot had taken place in his area. On that day, at about 11-11.30 a.m, he heard noise coming from the road. Out of fear, he went upstairs and did not see anyone in the mob.
PW19 HC Ajay He was an eye witness. He was also a witness to the seizure of articles by the IO and of preparation of site FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed PS Sonia Vihar 12 of 60 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 15:59:12 +0530 plans by the IO.
PW20 Rahisuddin He deposed that he could not tell the date but on 25th day of second month, riot had taken place in the area of Milan Garden, Sabhapur. On that day, at about 02.00 p.m, when he was coming out of masjid, he saw a mob of around 150- 200 persons coming from the side of Ram Rahim Chowk.
They were carrying iron rod, country made pistol etc and were raising slogans of Jai Shri Ram. They vandalized the masjid and also burnt all the articles lying therein. They also broke the electricity meter of his as well as other houses. Due to fear, he had gone to the terrace of his house. The rioters had covered their faces and could not see and identify anyone. He further deposed that police had shown him a video of riot and he identified one rioter carrying brick in that video.
He further deposed that his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW20/A) was recorded.
He identified accused Devender in the court and in FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 13 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 15:59:22 +0530 the video played during his testimony.
PW21 Guddu Khan He is a witness to the riot. As per his testimony, on 25.02.2020, between 2-2.30 p.m, he saw a mob of around 30-40 persons coming from the side of Ram Rahim Chowk and they were carrying bricks, stones, dandas, rods etc and were raising slogans of Jai Shri Ram. They attacked over a madrasa being run by one Rahisuddin. They also damaged a moped and a Santro car. They also broke electricity meters of 15-20 houses of that gali. He had seen faces of two persons in that mob. He identified two persons in the video played in the police station. He proved his complaint Ex.PW21/A. He identified accused Devender and Anmol in the court as well as in the video played during his testimony.
PW22 Mohd. Javed He deposed that on 25.02.2020, riot had take place in the area of Sonia Vihar, where he was residing.
On that day, at about 10-11 a.m, 40-50 persons, with FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 14 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 15:59:31 +0530 covered faces, came to his house, broke the shutter of his property and took away the articles i.e. motorcycle, one bicycle and 3 gas cylinders.
They set ablaze the motorcycle and bicycle at the chowk and took the cylinder with them. They had also looted cash of Rs.10,000/- and gold items from his house.
PW23 ASI Narender He deposed that on 05.09.2021, on the pointing of secret informer, he alongwith IO SI Jitender had arrested accused Anmol, vide arrest memo Ex.A-8. Personal search of accused Sagar was conducted vide memo Ex.A-9.
At the instance of accused Anmol, pointing out memo (Ex.PW23/A) was prepared.
PW24 Dr. Bharti Bhardwaj FSL witness PW25 Nanhe Chaurasia He was a photographer who had done video recordings of condition of properties affected during the riots on 26.02.2020 and 27.02.2020.
PW26 HC Sandeep He is an eye witness of the incident. He is also a witness of the arrest of accused. His detailed testimony shall be discussed later as and when Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN by PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 15 of 60 SINGH Date: 2026.02.24 15:59:44 +0530 required.
PW27 SI Jitender IO of the case.
3.2 Further the prosecution proved the documents as given in the table below:-
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved/ Attested by Ex.PW3/A RC No. 39/21/20 PW3 Ex.PW6/A Seizure memo of photos of accused PW6 Devender and Sagar Ex.PW6/B Seizure memo of photos of accused PW6 Anmol Ex.PW10/A RC No. 92/21/21 PW10 Ex.PW19/A Tehrir PW19 Ex.PW19/B Site plan PW19 Ex.PW19/C Seizure memo of CCTV Camera PW19 Ex.PW19/D Seizure memo of burnt materials from PW19 madrasa Ex.PW19/E Seizure memo of burnt materials from PW19 open plot Ex.PW19/F Seizure memo of danda PW19 Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 16 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 15:59:54 +0530 Ex.PW19/G Seizure memo of bricks and stones PW19 Ex.PW19/H Seizure memo of burnt moped and car PW19 Ex.PW19/I Site plan PW19 Ex.PW19/J Common seizure memo of burnt PW19 motorcycle and bicycle Ex.PW19/K Site plan PW19 Ex.PW19/L Site plan PW19 Ex.PW20/A Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C PW20 Ex.PW21/A Complaint PW21 Ex.PW21/B Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C PW21 Ex.PW23/A Pointing out memo PW23 Ex.PW24/A FSL report PW24 Ex.PW24/B FSL report PW24 Ex.PW24/C Copy of forwarding letter PW24 Ex.PW26/A Pointing out memo PW26 Ex.PW27/1 Endorsement PW27 Ex.PW27/2 Seizure memo of pen drive PW27 Ex.PW27/3 Seizure memo of pen drive PW27 Ex.PW27/4 Certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act PW27 FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed PS Sonia Vihar 17 of 60 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:00:04 +0530 Ex.PW27/5 Disclosure Statement of Sagar PW27 Ex.PW27/6 Seizure memo of danda PW27 Ex.PW27/7 Seizure memo of hard disk PW27 Ex.PW27/8 Seizure memo of mobile phone of Sagar PW27 Ex.PW27/9 Site plan PW27 3.3 During the trial, all the accused, u/s 294 Cr.P.C, admitted the following documents:-
S. No. Description of the document Exhibit No. 1 DD No. 11B dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-1 2 DD No. 12B dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-2 3 DD No. 32B dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-3 4 Arrest Memo of Devender Gautam Ex.A-4 5 Personal Search Memo of Devender Gautam Ex.A-5 6 Arrest Memo of Sagar Ex.A-6 7 Personal Search Memo of Sagar Ex.A-7 8 Arrest Memo of Anmol Ex.A-8 9 Personal Search Memo of Anmol Ex.A-9 10 Certificate u/s 65B of IE Act Ex.A-10 11 Copy of FIR Ex.A-11 FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 18 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:00:14 +0530 12 Endorsement on Rukka Ex.A-12 13 Acknowledgment of case acceptance Ex.A-13 14 Copy of R/C No. 29/21/20 Ex.A-14 15 Notice u/s 160 and 175 CrPC to Jamshed Ex.A-15 dated 25.03.2020 16 BSES Bill dated 11.06.2019 Ex.A-16 17 Notice u/s 160 and 175 CrPC to Babu dated Ex.A-17 25.03.2020 18 BSES Bill dated 13.02.2020 Ex.A-18 19 Notice u/s 160 and 175 CrPC to Ashraf dated Ex.A-19 25.03.2020 20 BSES Bill dated 10.08.2020 Ex.A-20 21 Notice u/s 160 and 175 CrPC to Shakir dated Ex.A-21 25.03.2020 22 BSES Bill dated 15.01.2020 Ex.A-22 23 Notice u/s 160 and 175 CrPC to Rashid dated Ex.A-23 25.03.2020 24 BSES Bill dated 10.06.2016 Ex.A-24 25 Fire Report dated 15.03.2021 Ex.A-25 26 Letter dated 28.07.2020 issued by Sh. SK Ex.A-26 Digitally signed by PARVEEN FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 19 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:00:24 +0530 Tomar 27 Request Letter by IO to provide PCR Form Ex.A-27 28 Authority Letter dated 18.08.2020 Ex.A-28 29 PCR Forms Ex.A-29 to Ex.A-41 30 Complaint us/ 195 CrPC by DCP, NE District, Ex.A-42 against Sagar and Devender 31 Complaint us/ 195 CrPC by DCP, NE District, Ex.A-43 against Anmol 32 Copy of Prohibitory Order u/s 144 CrPC dated Ex.A-44 24.02.2020 33 Vehicle Particulars issued by MLO, Rajouri Ex.A-45 Garden dated 08.06.2021 for Vehicle No. DL10CA8679 34 Vehicle Particulars issued by MLO, Loni Ex.A-46 Road dated 08.06.2021 for Vehicle No. DL5SAH3941 35 Vehicle Particulars issued by MLO, Loni Ex.A-47 Road dated 08.06.2021 for Vehicle No. DL5SAS8666 36 Wireless Log and Diary dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-48 FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed PS Sonia Vihar 20 of 60 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:00:37 +0530 with Sheet No. 140 37 Wireless Log and Diary dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-49 with Sheet No. 79 38 Wireless Log and Diary dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-50 with Sheet No. 72 39 Wireless Log and Diary dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-51 with Sheet No. 69 40 Wireless Log and Diary dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-52 with Sheet No. 67 41 Wireless Log and Diary dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-53 with Sheet No. 60 42 Wireless Log and Diary dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-54 with Sheet No. 48 43 Notice u/s 91 CrPC to SDM Karawal Nagar Ex.A-55 dated 06.09.2021 44 Compensation Claim Form claimed by Ex.A-56 Nasiruddin 45 Sanction Order issued by SDM Karawal Ex.A-57 Nagar dated 13.03.2020 46 List of Victims dated 13.03.2020 who Ex.A-58 obtained Compensation Digitally signed by PARVEEN FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 21 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:00:47 +0530 47 List of Victims dated 12.03.2020 who Ex.A-59 obtained Compensation 48 Claim Form applied by Javed Ex.A-60 49 Sanction Order issued by SDM Karawal Ex.A-61 Nagar dated 21.03.2020 50 Compensation Claim Form claimed by Ex.A-62 Rahisuddin 51 Grant of Ex-gratia Relief dated 16.03.2020 Ex.A-63 52 Sanction Order issued by SDM Karawal Ex.A-64 Nagar dated 18.03.2020 53 Seizure Memo of Exhibits (Debris) dated Ex.A-65 01.09.2021 54 Request Letter by IO, dated 01.09.2021 for Ex.A-66 conducting inspection of Burnt Vehicle 55 Request Letter by IO, dated 01.09.2021 for Ex.A-67 conducting inspection of Burnt Vehicle 56 Request Letter by IO, dated 01.09.2021 for Ex.A-68 conducting inspection of Burnt Vehicle 57 Request Letter by IO, dated 01.09.2021 for Ex.A-69 conducting inspection of Burnt Vehicle 58 Crime Scene Report dated 13.09.2021 vide Ex.A-70 Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 22 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:00:56 +0530 FSL No. SFSLDLH/8680/21 59 Crime Scene Report dated 13.09.2021 vide Ex.A-71 FSL No. SFSLDLH/8678/21 60 Crime Scene Report dated 13.09.2021 vide Ex.A-72 FSL No. SFSLDLH/8677/21 61 Crime Scene Report dated 13.09.2021 vide Ex.A-73 FSL No. SFSLDLH/8679/21 62 Forwarding Letter dated 27.09.2021 vide FSL Ex.A-74 No. SFSLDLH/8677/2021/18768 63 Forwarding Letter dated 27.09.2021 vide FSL Ex.A-75 No. SFSLDLH/8678/2021/18770 64 Forwarding Letter dated 27.09.2021 vide FSL Ex.A-76 No. SFSLDLH/8679/2021/8742 65 Forwarding Letter dated 27.09.2021 vide FSL Ex.A-77 No. SFSLDLH/8780/2021/18774 66 Record of Statement of Victim Rashid u/s 164 Ex.A-78 CrPC dated 20.09.2021 67 Fitness Report of Rashid for statement u/s 164 Ex.A-79 CrPC 68 Statement of Rashid Ali u/s 164 CrPC Ex.A-80 69 Certificate issued by Ld. Reliever MM dated Ex.A-81 Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 23 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:01:07 +0530 20.09.2021 70 Record of Statement of Witness / Victim Ex.A-82 Rahisuddin u/s 164 CrPC dated 20.09.2021 71 Fitness Report of Rahisuddin for statement u/s Ex.A-83 164 CrPC 72 Certificate issued by Ld. Reliever MM dated Ex.A-84 20.09.2021 73 Record of Statement of Witness / Victim Ex.A-85 Guddu Khan u/s 164 CrPC dated 20.09.2021 74 Fitness Report of Rahisuddin for statement u/s Ex.A-86 164 CrPC 75 Certificate issued by Ld. Reliever MM dated Ex.A-87 20.09.2021 76 Notice to Commissioner, EDMC Delhi, u/s 91 Ex.A-88 CrPC dated 27.09.2021 77 Notice to Chief Engineer, PWD (HQ) u/s 91 Ex.A-89 CrPC dated 27.09.2021 78 Notice to Incharge, DFC (HQ), u/s 91 CrPC Ex.A-90 dated 27.09.2021 79 Notice to Incharge, Division Head, BSES, Ex.A-91 Karawal Nagar, Delhi u/s 91 CrPC dated Digitally signed by PARVEEN FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
PS Sonia Vihar 24 of 60 2026.02.24
16:01:18 +0530
28.09.2021
80 Notice to SDM Karawal Nagar, u/s 91 CrPC Ex.A-92
dated 27.09.2021
81 Notice to Javed u/s 91 CrPC dated 03.09.2021 Ex.A-93
82 Notice to Abdul Rahim u/s 91 CrPC dated Ex.A-94
03.09.2021
83 Notice to Abrar Hussain u/s 91 CrPC dated Ex.A-95
03.09.2021
84 Notice to Incharge, Division Head, BSES, Ex.A-96
Karawal Nagar, Delhi u/s 91 CrPC dated 11.04.2023 85 Reply by BSES dated 17 April 2023 Ex.A-97 86 Meter Installation Reports Ex.A-98 to Ex.A-116 87 Reply by BSES Business Manager, Division Ex.A-117 Karawal Nagar, dated 15 May 2023 88 Certificate u/s 65B of IE Act Ex.A-118 89 Customer Application Form Ex.A-119 90 OTP Verification Ex.A-120 & Ex.A-121 91 CDR Ex.A-122 FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed PS Sonia Vihar 25 of 60 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:01:32 +0530 92 Acknowledgment of Case Acceptance dated Ex.A-123 22.05.2020 93 Relevant entries in register No. 19 Ex.A-124 & Ex.A-125 94 Copies of R/C Ex.A-126 & Ex.A-128 95 Copy of Duty Roster dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-127 96 Acknowledgment of Case Acceptance dated Ex.A-129 06.09.2021 97 Further Material receiving of FSL dated Ex.A-130 13.09.2021 98 Copy of R/C Ex.A-131 99 Acknowledgment of Case Acceptance dated Ex.A-132 & 07.10.2021 and 17.11.2022 Ex.A-133 100 Request letters to PWD Ex.A-134 to Ex.A-136 101 Four memos dated 12.03.2020 pertaining to Ex.A-137 to Hard Disk retrieval from CCTV sites in riots Ex.A-141 affected areas 102 Letter dated 08.05.2020 issued from PWD Ex.A-142 department to SHO, PS Sonia Vihar, Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 26 of 60 SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.02.24 16:01:41 +0530 regarding CCTV footage along with certificate u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act 103 CCTV footage certificate issued from BEL Ex.A-143 104 Letter confirming for receiving of footage Ex.A-144 Statement of Accused 4.1 Thereafter, on 26.09.2025, statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C/ 351 BNSS of accused Devender and Sagar was recorded and they preferred not to lead evidence in their defence. On 09.10.2025, statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C/ 351 BNSS of accused Anmol was recorded and he preferred not to lead evidence in his defence. Contentions of ld. SPP and of ld. counsels for accused 5.1 I have heard ld. SPP for State as well as ld. counsels for accused and perused the record very carefully. 5.2 It has been contended by ld. SPP that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. He has contended that three of the prosecution witnesses have identified the accused. These witnesses are PW20 Rahisuddin, PW21 Guddu Khan and PW26 HC Sandeep. PW20 and PW21 are the victims of the riots and PW26 was on duty on the day of riots at the place where the riots had happened.
The fact that PW26 was on duty on that day at that place is not disputed. The duty roster of that day has been placed on record and is Ex. A-127. He has further contended that apart from testimonies of Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN by PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 27 of 60 SINGH Date: 2026.02.24 16:01:50 +0530 these witnesses, electronic evidence in the form of CCTV footage has also proved the involvement of these accused. The said CCTV footage was collected by the IO through Ct. Satpal from PWD. It was collected on 21.03.2020 and was seized vide seizure memo dated 01.05.2020, which is Ex.PW27/7. He has further contended that the certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act with regard to this CCTV footage was later on sent by PWD to the IO through forwarding letter dated 08.05.2020, which has been admitted by the accused and the said letter is Ex.A-142. The certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act has also been admitted by accused and is Ex.A-143. He has further contended that this hard disk containing the CCTV footage was sent to FSL for examination. PW24 Dr. Bharti, Sr. Scientific Officer from FSL deposed that she had received this hard disk, which was duly sealed with the seal of JK and the seal tallied with the sample seal. She marked the hard disk as Ex.1 and examined it. She further deposed that she had examined Ex.1 and on frame by frame analysis, using Video Analyst System, she did not find any indication of alteration or tampering in the same. She prepared her report Ex.PW24/A. During the testimony of PW24, the hard disk was exhibited as Ex.PW24/Article-1. He has further contended that the accused are clearly visible in this video footage and have been identified by the witnesses before the court as well as in the video footage. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
Digitally signed by PARVEENFIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 28 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:02:00 +0530
5.3 Countering it, ld. counsels for accused have contended
that the prosecution has no evidence against the accused at all. They have contended that two of the public witnesses have been tutored by the IO to depose against the accused. They further contended that PW20 Rahisuddin deposed that on the day of incident, out of fear, everyone had gone inside and he had gone to the terrace of his house and had seen such things while hiding there. PW20 further deposed that the rioters had covered their faces and he could not see anyone. They were taking each other's name but he could not remember the same and that he could not identify anyone from the rioters. He then went on to state that he had identified some rioters in the footage. Therefore, the testimony of PW20 is based on what he had seen in the video footage. They have contended that PW21 Guddu Khan deposed that he had seen faces of two persons in that mob but the identification of those to persons by this witness came very late and in order to explain why he identified them late, he deposed that initially because of fear, he did not identify anyone. However, on being made understand by the residents of the locality as well as the committee members, he identified two persons in the footage, which was played by the police before him. PW21 further deposed that he had seen those two persons indulging into vandalism, pelting stones etc. and those two persons were accused Devender and Anmol. He had also identified those two persons in the court as well as in video footage.
Digitally signed by PARVEENFIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 29 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:02:11 +0530
Ld. counsels for accused have contended that it is to be noticed that PW21 took an excuse that it was out of fear that he initially stated before the IO that he did not recognize anyone but, during his cross examination, he deposed that when he had gone to the police for the first time to give his statement in March 2020, he was not under any kind of fear and his correct statement was recorded by the police. PW21 admitted that on that day, he had mentioned before the police that he did not identify anyone from the rioters. On that day, police had shown him photographs and he identified no one from those photographs. Therefore, admittedly PW21 was not under any fear when his first statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded and in that statement, he clearly stated that he could not identify anyone. Thus, it was only after he had been shown video and tutored by the police that he stated before ld. MM in his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C that he had seen two persons.
5.4 With regard to accused Sagar, ld. counsels have contended that there is no evidence at all against this accused. They have further contended that the electronic evidence in the form of copy of CCTV footage, as collected by the IO, is not admissible. They have contended that IO had got the CCTV footage in hard disk on 21.03.2020. However, the IO did not seize or seal the hard disk on that day. The hard disk was never deposited in malkhana on that day. Therefore admittedly, till the date of its seizure i.e. on 01.05.2020, the Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 30 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.02.24 16:02:21 +0530 hard disk remained with the IO in open condition. Therefore, the sanctity of the CCTV footage and the chain of custody is completely broken. They have further contended that the alleged certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act is not a certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act because firstly, it does not fulfill the requirements of section 65B of Evidence Act. Secondly it does not even state the medium upon which the CCTV footage was copied. The forwarding letter, Ex.A-142, stated that what was being sent to the SHO was the CCTV footage, CD and the certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act with regard to the said CCTV footage. It also stated that the CD was enclosed. That means that the alleged certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act, which was Ex.A-143, was not the certificate in respect of the hard disk, which had been exhibited during the testimony of PW24 as Ex.PW24/Article-1. They have further contended that as PW24 had merely scientifically examined the hard disk, the marking of exhibit on hard disk in her testimony was only for the purpose of identification and this hard disk could only have been proved by the maker of the article who never stepped into the witness box. Therefore, in absence of any certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act, the video footage is inadmissible and cannot be looked into by the court. 5.5 Countering it, ld. SPP has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana, Crl.
Appeal No. 1418/2013 and in the light of this judgment, he has Digitally signed by PARVEEN FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 31 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:02:31 +0530 contended that at the time of exhibition of hard disk as Ex.PW24/Article-1, no objection was taken and as the certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act was admitted by the accused; at this stage, accused do not have any right to challenge the admissibility of this document because, the defect was curable and had the accused taken any objection regarding the mode of proof of the hard disk containing the CCTV footage, the defect could have been cured. Furthermore, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi & Ors., 2023 INSC 988 and has contended that in the light of this judgment, the electronic evidence is admissible. 5.6 Countering it, ld. counsels for accused have contended that the question is not of taking objections by the accused but of the admissibility of the electronic evidence and law in this regard has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v.
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 571 which categorically held, that secondary evidence is not admissible unless there is a valid certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act. Once the document is not admissible, the marking of exhibit on the hard disk and accused not taking objection to it is of no value because, the court cannot look into that evidence.
Findings
6.1 I have considered the rival submissions and gone through
Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 32 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:02:41 +0530
the record very carefully.
6.2 The case of the prosecution primarily rests on three
witnesses. The first one being PW20 Rahisuddin. 6.3 He deposed that since 2004, he had been residing at H. No. A-33, Gali No. 1, Milan Garden, Sabhapur, Delhi. On 25.02.2000, in his presence, a riot had taken place in that area. He further deposed that he was deposing in the year 2025 and riot had taken place around 4-5 years prior to that day. On that day at about 2.00 p.m, he was coming out of a masjid/Madarsa situated in same gali. A mob of around 150-200 persons, while carrying iron rod, country made pistol etc., came from the side of Ram Rahim Chowk. The mob was raising slogan of 'Jai Shri Ram'. It burnt a vikky belonging to a labour. The mob vandalized the masjid and also burnt the articles lying therein. The mob broke the electricity meter of his house as well as other houses in that gali. Out of fear, everyone had gone inside. He had gone to the terrace of his house and had seen such things while hiding there. The rioters had covered their faces also and he could not see and identify anyone amongst the rioters. The rioters were taking each other's name, but he did not remember the same. He could not identify anyone from the rioters. Police had shown him a video of riots and he identified one rioter in that video who was carrying brick in his hand. Police had told him the name of that rioter but he did not remember the name of that boy on the day of his testimony. He further deposed Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 33 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:02:52 +0530 that he had seen that boy indulging into riot in his gali on that day. He further deposed that his statement was recorded before a judge and he identified his signatures on his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C at point X. The statement was exhibited as Ex.PW20/A. During his testimony, he pointed towards accused Devender and stated that he appeared like the rioter, whom he had identified in the video before the police. It was observed by ld. Predecessor that when the witness heard the name of Devender, he reiterated that his name was Devender. During his testimony, three video files were played and he identified accused Devender in all the three videos. 6.4 He was cross examined by ld. SPP. During his cross examination by ld. SPP, he denied that he had informed name of Devender to Police and volunteered, that he had only identified him.
He denied that he had also informed police that Devender was resident of the area towards G-Block.
6.5 During his cross examination on behalf of accused, he deposed that on the day he had gone to see video in the police station, he had been called in the police station by one Ajay. The videos pertained to his gali. In those videos, rioters were seen indulging in vandalism. In his gali, there were CCTV cameras installed by PWD. He admitted that at the time line when he pointed out accused Devender in the videos, no vandalism was seen in the video. It was observed by the court that the witness had seen only limited part of Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 34 of 60 PARVEEN Date:
SINGH 2026.02.24
16:03:20
+0530
videos only for the purpose to point out the person identified by him as Devender.
6.6 He denied that he had deposed falsely about seeing and identifying Devender amongst the rioters on the day of riot and volunteered, that he had seen Devender while passing in front of his house on that day. He admitted that when Devender was passing by in front of his house, he was not indulged into any act of vandalism and volunteered, that Devender was in the mob.
6.7 The second witness is PW21 Guddu Khan. He deposed that for about 20 years, he had been residing at A-20, gali no.1, Khasra no.557, Milan Garden, Sabhapur, Delhi. In his area, on 25.02.2020 between 2-3.00 p.m, riot had taken place. He saw that a mob of around 30-40 persons came from the side of Ram Raheem chowk. They were carrying bricks, stones, dandas, rods etc. and were raising slogans of 'Jai Shree Ram'. First, they attacked a madarsa being run by one Rahisuddin. They also badly damaged a moped and threw it in an open plot. They also damaged one Santro car belonging to Gulfam and thereafter set it on fire. They also broke the electricity meter installed in about 15-20 houses of that gali. Someone from that mob had also broke rear window pane of his car bearing no.DL-1Z 7872. They also broke electricity meter installed in his house. He had seen faces of two persons in that mob. Initially, out of fear, he declined to identify any rioter before police because, a threat had been given of a similar Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 35 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:03:29 +0530 incident being repeated. Subsequently, he was made to understand by residents of that locality as well as committee members of Masjid and then, he identified those two persons in a video, which was played before him by the police in police station. He had seen that video in the 9th month of 2021 but he did not remember the exact date. At that time, some other persons from his locality were also present. Name of those two persons were found out from other residents of locality and he had informed police about their names on the next day of seeing the video. Those persons were Devender and Anmol. He further deposed that on 25.02.2020, he had seen those two persons indulging in vandalism, pelting stones and using danda. He further deposed that a common complaint with regard to incident was given to the police by several residents of his gali. He had also signed that complaint. The complaint was exhibited as Ex.PW21/A. 6.8 He further deposed that he had also gone before a lady judge and he had given his statement regarding the incident. During his testimony, he was shown a statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C and he identified his signatures at points X on the statement. The statement was exhibited as Ex.PW21/B. He deposed that he had stated correct facts before that judge.
6.9 During his testimony, he correctly identified accused Devender and Anmol in the court. During his testimony, three videos were played and he identified accused Devender and Anmol in those FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed PS Sonia Vihar 36 of 60 PARVEEN by PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.02.24 16:03:41 +0530 videos.
6.10 He was cross examined by ld. SPP. During his cross examination by ld. SPP, he admitted that he had seen videos in the police station on 16.09.2021. He did not remember the date, month or year when he had given his statement before lady judge and that it might be on 20.09.2021, when he had given the statement before the lady judge.
6.11 During his cross examination on behalf of accused, he deposed that apart from Guddu Khan, he was also known as Mobin Khan. He further deposed that the police had called him and others for inquiry on 28.02.2020 and on that day, their statement was not recorded by the police and volunteered, that out of fear, they had gone back to their house without giving any statement. He deposed that he was not under any kind of fear when in March 2020, he had gone to give his statement to the police for the first time. The police had read over his statement to him and it was correctly recorded by the police.
He had mentioned before the police that at that time, he had not identified anyone from the rioters. On that day, police had shown photographs of some persons and he denied identifying anyone from those photographs. During the period from 25.02.2020 to 16.09.2021, he had not seen Devender and Anmol. He had seen both these persons together around three days prior to the riots near Ghuiya Mandir, Vijay Vihar, which was at a distance of about 400 meters from his gali. He Digitally signed by PARVEEN FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 37 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:03:52 +0530 further deposed that while giving his statement in March 2020, he had stated before the police that when rioters were vandalizing the vehicle etc. in their gali, he alongwith his family had gone inside his house and hidden themselves. He further deposed that either prior to seeing the videos, or after seeing the videos, police did not give any information regarding Devender and Anmol. When he had gone to give his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C before a lady Judge, police had told him that his statement would be recorded. Police had not told him what was to be stated by him before the lady Judge, rather police told him that he had to tell the Judge about what had happened with him. He denied that he had given statement before lady Judge on the basis of tutoring by police or that he had identified both the accused persons at the instance of police.
6.12 The next witness is PW26 HC Sandeep. He deposed that on 25.02.2020 since about 10.00 a.m, he was deputed in his beat in Sonia Vihar. At about 11.00 a.m, a mob was present at Madina Masjid and this mob was raising slogan of 'Jai Shri Ram'. This mob was pelting stones at Madina Masjid. Additional staff from the police station arrived and the mob fled. At around 02.30 p.m, one mob gathered at Lodhi Medical Store and set ablaze a furniture shop near Lodhi Medical Store. He informed about this incident to Ct.Ajay. On 26.02.2020, he informed IO that he had seen the incident and he could identify some of the rioters. On 06.03.2020, IO SI Jitender called him Digitally signed by PARVEEN FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 38 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:04:01 +0530 to police station and showed him footage of riots wherein he identified five persons namely Anmol, Devender, Sagar, Ritik and Ajay. These persons were residents of his beat area and the footage pertained to Mangal Bazar, G Block, Sonia Vihar. Thereafter, he and IO went to Mangal Bazar at a shop of electrical items of Mahesh Gupta, situated at G-5/158. There were CCTV cameras installed in that shop. Mahesh Gupta informed them that the CCTV footage used to be erased after 3- 4 days. He again deposed that they had gone to Mangal Bazar on 15.07.2020 and not on 06.03.2020. On 06.03.2020, he and IO went to G-1 Block, Sonia Vihar. They had gone there in search of Anmol.
Anmol was not found in the area. Thereafter, they went to the house of Sagar at G-3/200, Sonia Vihar. Sagar was found at his house and was arrested by IO vide arrest memo and personal search memo, which were Ex.A-6 and Ex.A-7. Sagar made a disclosure and pursuant to the disclosure, he led them to a field in G-5 Block where at his instance, a danda was recovered. IO prepared a pullanda of that danda and sealed it with the seal of JD. IO also prepared pointing out memo of that place. Pointing out memo was Ex.PW26/A. On 07.03.2020, accsued Sagar was produced before the court and one day police remand was granted. They alongwith accused Sagar searched for Anmol, Bobby, Ritik and Ajay but they could not be found. Thereafter, they reached H. No. G-4/68, Sonia Vihar. Accsued Devender was found at his home and he was arrested vide arrest memo, Ex.A-4. Personal search of Digitally signed by PARVEEN FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 39 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:04:10 +0530 Devender was conducted vide memo Ex.A-5. On 15.07.2020 at about 12-1.00 p.m, IO called him to the police station and IO again showed him the video footages, which were shown to him on 06.03.2020. He again identified 05 accused in those videos. IO sealed pen drive with the seal of JK in a cloth pullanda. He informed IO that the video footage pertained to Mangal Bazar Road, G Block, Sonia Vihar whereafter he alongwith IO reached a shop at G-5/158. CCTV cameras were installed at that shop. IO checked the same but no footage was found therein. On return to police station, IO again showed him the video, which was shown to him on 21.03.2020. That video footage pertained to PWD. There were five videos and he identified Devender, Sagar, Anmol, Ritik and Ajay in those videos. Thereafter IO recorded his statement. He identifed accused Devender, Sagar and Anmol in the court.
6.13 During his testimony, five videos were played and he identified accused Devender, Sagar and Anmol in three of the videos and Devender and Anmol in other two videos. 6.14 During his cross examination, he deposed that in the beginning of the year 2020, he had come to know that accused Sagar was having a barber shop in G Block, Sonia Vihar. He had visited that shop many times. On 25.02.2020, he was at Madina Masjid and at around 11-11.30 a.m and then returned Madina Masjid at 2.00 p.m and remained there till 2.15 p.m. He reached Lodhi Medical at around Digitally signed by PARVEEN FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 40 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:04:19 +0530 11.40-11.45 a.m and remained there till 12.30 p.m. He returned Lodhi Medical at around 02.30 p.m and remained there till 4-4.30 p.m. When he was at Madina Masjid, crowd had started gathering, however, on seeing him and the team, crowd dispersed. He could not tell the distance till which the mob retreated because there were many streets and mob had dispersed in different streets. During his first visit at Madina Masjid, after it had dispersed, the mob did not return. The distance between Madina Masjid and Lodhi Medical was around 500- 700 meters. The crowd at Lodhi medical had some old faces and had some new faces also. When he reached Madina Masjid, the mob was in the process of gathering and on his reaching there, the mob dispersed. He denied that during his stay at Lodhi medical, crowd did not engage in any unlawful activity and volunteered, that after dispersing, crowd returned and started rioting. The crowd returned at around 2.30 p.m and started rioting. During the incident, he called duty officer and asked him to send staff. Prior to the riots, he had not visited the house of Devender for official or unofficial purposes. He could not tell the exact date on which he had seen Devender for the first time. Devender resided in G Block and he had seen Devender a lot of times in the market etc. It was as a part of his job that he had to try and find out maximum people and identify them and that is how, he might have come to know the name of Devender. He could not tell the names of people residing in the neighbourhood of Devender. Prior Digitally signed by PARVEEN FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 41 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:04:39 +0530 to the riots, he had not visited the house of Anmol for official or unofficial purposes. He could not tell the exact date on which he had seen Anmol for the first time. Anmol resided in G Block and he had seen Anmol a lot of times in the market etc. It was as a part of his job that he had to try and find out maximum people and identify them and that is how, he might have come to know the name of Anmol. He could not tell the names of people residing in the neighbourhood of Anmol. At the time of riots, the crowd was so large that he could not have identified the individuals at that time and that is why, before seeing the videos, he did not inform the authorities or the IO that accused Sagar, Devender and Anmol were involved in rioting at Madina Masjid and Lodhi Medicals. He denid that he had not seen any rioting on 25.02.2020 or that he had never been a part of investigation or that IO had introduced him as a witness because he was the beat constable of the area or that he had deposed on being tutored by the IO.
6.15 I have carefully weighed the testimonies reproduced above.
6.16 From the testimony of PW20 Rahisuddin and PW26 HC Sandeep, it is apparent that the identification of the accused by these witnesses is based upon the CCTV footage. I say so because PW20, in his examination in chief, had stated that when the riot had started, due to fear, he had gone into his house and was watching the riot from the Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH FIR No. 36/20 SINGH Date:
PS Sonia Vihar 42 of 60
2026.02.24
16:04:49 +0530
terrace of his house. He further deposed that the rioters had covered their faces and he could not see or identify anyone amongst the rioters.
He further deposed that the rioters were taking each other's name, but he did not remember those names and then, he again deposed that he could not identify anyone from the rioters. Thereafter, during his testimony, when the videos were played, he identified accused Devender on the basis of that video.
6.17 Similarly, PW26 had identified the accused only on the basis of the videos because, in his cross examination, he deposed that at the time of the riots, crowd was so large that he could not have identified the individuals at that time and that is why; before seeing the videos, he did not inform the authorities or the IO that accused Sagar, Devender and Anmol were involved in rioting at Madina Masjid and Lodhi Medicals. Hence, it is only after seeing the videos that this witness had identified accused. Meaning thereby, that though as per the testimonies of PW20 and PW26, they were present during the riots but during the riots they did not identify anyone, or see any particular face, which they could have otherwise remembered and it was only during the process of watching the videos, that they had identified the accused.
6.18 Coming on the testimony of PW21 Guddu Khan. PW21 is a witness, who during the riots, claimed to have seen the faces of two persons in the mob.
Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH FIR No. 36/20 SINGH Date: PS Sonia Vihar 43 of 60 2026.02.24 16:04:58 +0530 6.19 PW21 deposed that he had seen the faces of two persons
in that mob. Initially before the police, he declined to identify any of the rioters as he was afraid that similar situation might develop again but when he was counseled by the residents of the locality and the committee members of Masjid, he identified two persons in the videos, which were shown to him in September 2021. He had found out the names of these two persons from other residents of the locality and he informed police about their names on the day next to the day he had seen the videos. Those persons were Anmol and Devender. He also deposed that on 25.02.2020, during the riots, he had seen those two persons indulging in vandalism, pelting stones and using danda. He identified accused Devender and Anmol in the court. He also proved his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C vide Ex.PW21/B. 6.20 Thereafter, during his testimony, videos were played and he identified accused Devender and Anmol in those videos. 6.21 During his cross examination, he deposed that he was called for an inquiry by the police on 28.02.2020. On that day, police did not record his statement. He then volunteered, that out of fear, they had gone (returned) to their house. He further deposed that when his first statement in March 2020 was recorded, he was not under any kind of fear and the police had recorded his correct statement which had been read over to him. Thereafter, he admitted that on the day when his statement was recorded in March 2020, police had shown FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 44 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.02.24
16:05:06
+0530
him certain photographs but he could not identify anyone from those photographs at that time. He then deposed, that during the period from 25.02.2020 to 16.09.2020, he had not seen Devender and Anmol and stated, that he had seen them together around 03 days prior to the riots near Guhiya Mandir, Vijay Vihar. He also admitted that in March 2020, he had stated to the police that when the rioters were vandalizing the vehicle in their gali, he along-with his family had gone inside their house and had hidden himself.
6.22 Now, if this testimony of PW21 is seen, it is apparent that he admits that in March 2020, when his first statement by the police was recorded, he was not afraid or scared. That being the case, the explanation that initially he did not identify accused before police could only be valid till 13.03.2020 when his first statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded because on 13.03.2020, as per his own testimony, he was not under fear. On that day, he was shown photographs of some persons and he stated that he could not identify anyone. He had further stated, that he could not see any of the boys who were a part of that mob and was unable to identify them. Therefore, he states in his first statement to the IO, when admittedly he was not under any threat or fear, that he had not seen anyone and he could not identify anyone. However, on 16.09.2021, when he was again examined by the IO, he went on to state in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that after seeing the mob, he went to the terrace of his house, hid himself there and from Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN by PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 45 of 60 SINGH Date: 2026.02.24 16:05:15 +0530 his roof, he saw that one boy who was wearing black T-shirt was Devender and one boy who was wearing green T-shirt was Anmol and that those persons resided in G Block to who he had usually seen at Ram Rahim Chowk. This part of his statement comes after the video footage were shown to him on the laptop.
6.23 It is also to be noticed that as per his testimony on the day when he was shown the videos i.e. on 16.09.2021, he was not aware about the names of two boys who were identified by him and he found out the names of those boys from the persons of the locality and informed about their names to the police on the next day. 6.24 If his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C is looked at, he states that when he was hiding at the second floor terrace of his house and watching the riot from there, mask of some of the rioters slipped off and he saw Anmol wearing gree T shirt and Devender wearing black T-shirt as a part of that mob.
6.25 If his testimony is analyzed, it is evident that before he had seen the video, he had not identified anyone before the IO and claimed that he could not identify anyone, as he and his family had hidden themselves. He was confronted with this statement during his cross examination and he did not put forward any explanation. It is also to be seen that even after seeing the videos, as per his examination in chief, he was not aware about the names of Devender and Anmol and he found out about their names from the members of Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 46 of 60 SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.02.24 16:05:35 +0530 his locality and informed the IO about these names on the next day. 6.26 That being the case, his identification apparently was not on the basis of what he had seen, or the persons he had seen on the day of riot, but on the basis of what he had seen in the video footages. In his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C also, he identified the accused by the colour of their dress etc but this statement was also recorded after the videos had been seen by him.
6.27 Hence considering these facts and circumstances, it is more probable that the testimony of this person, whereby he identified accused Devender and Anmol to be a part of the rioting mob, is not based upon the fact that he had seen them on that day, but is based upon the subsequent knowledge about those two persons which he gained after seeing the videos. This probability is further strengthened by the fact that as per him during period from 25.02.2020 to 16.09.2020, he had not seen Devender and Anmol and that he had seen them together around 03 days prior to the riots near Guhiya Mandir, Vijay Vihar.
6.28 In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the entire case of the prosecution is dependent upon the CCTV footage which were obtained by the IO from PWD. Hence, the question that needs to be decided whether, these CCTV footage have been proved as per Indian Evidence Act and can be looked into by the court?
6.29 Admittedly, these CCTV footage are a secondary piece of
Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 47 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:05:46 +0530
evidence because, the primary source of CCTV footage were the DVRs or the hard drives in those DVRs which had recorded these CCTV footage and it is from those DVRs, that a copy was obtained which the prosecution seeks to prove. Therefore as per the settled law, these CCTV footage are required to be proved u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act (as was applicable at the relevant time). The law in this regard has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar PV (Supra) which was later on re-affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao (supra).
6.30 It has been contended by ld. SPP that the requirements of law have been met as there is a certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act which was admitted by the accused and was exhibited as Ex.A-143. Therefore, the electronic evidence has become admissible and is to be read.
6.31 On the other hand, ld. counsels for accused have contended that the certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act (Ex.A-143) is no certificate in the eyes of law.
6.32 I have considered the rival submissions on this certificate being a proper certificate as required u/s 65B of Evidence Act. 6.33 Before proceeding upon this issue, it is to be observed that has been a serious lapse on the part of the IO, who as per his testimony, had received the CCTV footage in a hard drive on 21.03.2020. However, till 01.05.2020, he neither sealed it nor seized it Digitally signed by PARVEEN FIR No. 36/20 SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 48 of 60 PARVEEN Date:
SINGH 2026.02.24
16:05:56
+0530
through a seizure memo. As per the law, chain of custody of evidence is required to be maintained properly so that the sanctity of the evidence is maintained. However, the IO failed to do so and kept the hard drive in open condition and only sealed and seized it on 01.05.2020. The reason given by the IO for not sealing and seizing the hard drive immediately on its receipt was, that he did not do so because, there was no certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act accompanying the hard drive. However, even on 01.05.2020, when the IO had sealed this hard drive, seized it and deposited in the malkhana, he did not have any certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act as according to the prosecution's own case, it was received subsequently. 6.34 That being the case, the explanation given by the IO for not sealing, seizing and depositing the hard drive in malkhana is not inspiring confidence.
6.35 Coming on the certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act, which is Ex.A-143.
6.36 It is correct that the accused had admitted this certificate and therefore, the formal proof of issuance of this certificate was dispensed with. However, this admission of this certificate by the accused is only to the extent that such a certificate was issued by the person who is purported to have issued this certificate and therefore that person was not required to step in to the witness box to prove it. However, the admission of the accused only dispenses with the need Digitally signed by PARVEEN FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 49 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:06:43 +0530 of proving this document, but whether, this document fulfills the requirement of law can still be contested by the accused. I so observe because, this admission can only have the effect that the court can now read this document in evidence, however, whether this document and its contents fulfill the requirements of Sec. 65B of the evidence act or not remains an open question.
6.37 If this certificate (Ex.A-143) is seen, it does not state the medium in which the footage was stored and sent or the particulars/ details of the electronic evidence for which this certificate was issued.
Therefore, the certificate does not state whether it is a certificate for the hard drive given to HC Satpal on 21.03.2020 or some other electronic device. Therefore, the court has to fall back upon the covering letter of this certificate which was Ex.A-142. The covering letter states as under:-
Sir, With reference to your letter no. FIR no. 36/20 dt. 26.02.2020 please find enclosed herewith the required CCTV footage and certificate in original duly signed by the authorize signatories BEL (Bharat Electronics Limited) who have been entrusted the job of installing commissioning of CCTV as well as their annual maintenance. It is also clarified that BEL (Bharat Electronics Limited) are the custodians of CCTV system all round Delhi who have been installed recently.
Encl: Footage CD with certificate Digitally signed by PARVEEN FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH PS Sonia Vihar 50 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:06:54 +0530 6.38 Hence, this certificate is not pertaining to the hard drive given to HC Satpal on 21.03.2020 or any hard drive, but it pertained to a CD, which was sent with the forwarding letter along-with this certificate and which, according to this letter, was containing CCTV footage.
6.39 That being the case, this certificate cannot be read in evidence as the certificate for the hard drive in which the CCTV footage were collected by HC Satpal on 21.03.2020 and which was handed over by HC Satpal to IO.
6.40 It is this hard drive that was played in the court and in the videos contained in the hard drive, the witnesses had identified accused. However, in absence of any certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act, this electronic evidence becomes inadmissible. 6.41 Faced with this situation, ld. SPP has pressed into service the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonu @ Amar (supra) and has contended, that at the time when these videos were played and hard drive was exhibited as Ex.PW24/Article-1, no objection was taken by accused to the exhibition of hard drive and thus, at this stage, this objection cannot be raised and the electronic evidence has become admissible.
6.42 I have considered this judgment. With all due respect, I must say that this judgment was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court before pronouncement of judgment of larger bench in Arjun Panditrao Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 51 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:07:10 +0530 (supra) and also after the passing of judgment of Anvar PV (supra). In Arjun Panditrao (supra), it has been held as under:-
33. The non-obstante clause in sub-section (1) makes it clear that when it comes to information contained in an electronic record, admissibility and proof thereof must follow the drill of Section 65B, which is a special provision in this behalf - Sections 62 to 65 being irrelevant for this purpose. However, Section 65B(1) clearly differentiates between the "original" document - which would be the original "electronic record" contained in the "computer" in which the original information is first stored - and the computer output containing such information, which then may be treated as evidence of the contents of the "original"
document. All this necessarily shows that Section 65B differentiates between the original information contained in the "computer" itself and copies made therefrom - the former being primary evidence, and the latter being secondary evidence.
34. Quite obviously, the requisite certificate in sub- section (4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, a computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the concerned device, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In cases where "the computer", as defined, happens to be a part of a "computer system" or "computer network" (as defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000) and it becomes impossible to physically bring such network or system to the Court, then the only means of proving information contained in such electronic record can be in accordance with Section 65B(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4). This being the case, it is necessary to clarify what is contained in the last sentence in paragraph 24 of Anvar P.V. (supra) which reads as "...if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act...". This may more appropriately be read without the words "under Section 62 of the Evidence Act,...". With this minor clarification, the law stated in paragraph 24 of Anvar P.V. (supra) does not need to be revisited......
FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
PS Sonia Vihar 52 of 60 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:07:20 +0530
52. We may hasten to add that Section 65-B does not speak of the stage at which such certificate must be furnished to the Court. In Anvar P.V.2, this Court did observe that such certificate must accompany the electronic record when the same is produced in evidence. We may only add that this is so in cases where such certificate could be procured by the person seeking to rely upon an electronic record. However, in cases where either a defective certificate is given, or in cases where such certificate has been demanded and is not given by the person concerned, the Judge conducting the trial must summon the person/persons referred to in Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, and require that such certificate be given by such person/persons. This, the trial Judge ought to do when the electronic record is produced in evidence before him without the requisite certificate in the circumstances aforementioned. This is, of course, subject to discretion being exercised in civil cases in accordance with law, and in accordance with the requirements of justice on the facts of each case. When it comes to criminal trials, it is important to keep in mind the general principle that the accused must be supplied all documents that the prosecution seeks to rely upon before commencement of the trial, under the relevant sections of the CrPC.
53. In a recent judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath 33, after referring to Anvar P.V.2 held: (M.R. Hiremath case 33, SCC p. 523, paras 16-17) "16. The same view has been reiterated by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Ravindra V. Desai 34. The Court emphasised that non-production of a certificate under Section 65-B on an earlier occasion is a curable defect. The Court relied upon the earlier decision in Sonu v. State of Haryana 35, in which it was held: (Sonu case 35, SCC p. 584, para 32) "32.... The crucial test, as affirmed by this Court, is whether the defect could have been cured at the stage of marking the document. Applying this test to the present case, if an objection was taken to the CDRs being marked without a certificate, the court could have given the prosecution an opportunity to rectify the FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed PS Sonia Vihar 53 of 60 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:07:30 +0530 deficiency."
54. It is pertinent to recollect that the stage of admitting documentary evidence in a criminal trial is the filing of the charge-
sheet. When a criminal court summons the accused to stand trial, copies of all documents which are entered in the charge-sheet/final report have to be given to the accused. Section 207 CrPC, which reads 37 as follows, is mandatory. Therefore, the electronic evidence i.e. the computer output, has to be furnished at the latest before the trial begins. The reason is not far to seek; this gives the accused a fair chance to prepare and defend the charges levelled against him during the trial. The general principle in criminal proceedings therefore, is to supply to the accused all documents that the prosecution seeks to rely upon before the commencement of the trial. The requirement of such full disclosure is an extremely valuable right and an essential feature of the right to a fair trial as it enables the accused to prepare for the trial before its commencement.
55. In a criminal trial, it is assumed that the investigation is completed and the prosecution has, as such, concretised its case against an accused before commencement of the trial. It is further settled law that the prosecution ought not to be allowed to fill up any lacunae during a trial. As recognised by this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai (2002) 5 SCC 82, the only exception to this general rule is if the prosecution had 'mistakenly' not filed a document, the said document can be allowed to be placed on record. The Court held as follows:
"7. From the aforesaid sub-sections, it is apparent that normally, the investigating officer is required to produce all the relevant documents at the time of submitting the charge-sheet. At the same time, as there is no specific prohibition, it cannot be held that the additional documents cannot be produced subsequently. If some mistake is committed in not producing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report or the charge-sheet, it is always open to the investigating officer to produce the same with the permission of the court."
56. Therefore, in terms of general procedure, the Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 54 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.02.24 16:07:39 +0530 prosecution is obligated to supply all documents upon which reliance may be placed to an accused before commencement of the trial. Thus, the exercise of power by the courts in criminal trials in permitting evidence to be filed at a later stage should not result in serious or irreversible prejudice to the accused. A balancing exercise in respect of the rights of parties has to be carried out by the court, in examining any application by the prosecution under Sections 91 or 311 of the CrPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act. Depending on the facts of each case, and the Court exercising discretion after seeing that the accused is not prejudiced by want of a fair trial, the Court may in appropriate cases allow the prosecution to produce such certificate at a later point in time. If it is the accused who desires to produce the requisite certificate as part of his defence, this again will depend upon the justice of the case - discretion to be exercised by the Court in accordance with law......
61. We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. (supra), and incorrectly "clarified" in Shafhi Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v.
Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D 426, which has been followed in a number of the judgments of this Court, can also be applied. Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if lead in the manner stated and not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose.....
73. The reference is thus answered by stating that:
73.1.Anvar P.V. (supra), as clarified by us hereinabove, is the law declared by this Court on Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The judgment in Tomaso Bruno (supra), being per incuriam, does not lay down the law correctly. Also, the judgment in SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2011 reported as Shafhi Mohammad (supra) and the judgment dated 03.04.2018 reported as (2018) 5 SCC 311, do not lay down the law correctly and are therefore overruled.
73.2. The clarification referred to above is that the FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed PS Sonia Vihar 55 of 60 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:07:49 +0530 required certificate under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the concerned device, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In cases where the "computer" happens to be a part of a "computer system" or "computer network" and it becomes impossible to physically bring such system or network to the Court, then the only means of providing information contained in such electronic record can be in accordance with Section 65B(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4). The last sentence in Anvar P.V. (supra) which reads as "...if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act..." is thus clarified; it is to be read without the words "under Section 62 of the Evidence Act,..." With this clarification, the law stated in paragraph 24 of Anvar P.V. (supra) does not need to be revisited.
6.43 Therefore, in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar PV (supra) and Arjun Panditrao (supra), secondary electronic evidence, in absence of any certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act, is inherently inadmissible because, the admissibility of such evidence is completely dependent upon a valid certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act.
6.44 Even in Sonu @ Amar (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under:-
27. It is nobody''s case that CDRs which are a form of electronic record are not inherently admissible in evidence. The objection is that they were marked before the Trial Court without a certificate as required by Section 65B (4). It is clear from the judgments referred to supra that an objection relating to the mode or method of proof has to be FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed PS Sonia Vihar 56 of 60 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:07:59 +0530 raised at the time of marking of the document as an exhibit and not later. The crucial test, as affirmed by this Court, is whether the defect could have been cured at the stage of marking the document. Applying this test to the present case, if an objection was taken to the CDRs being marked without a certificate, the Court could have given the prosecution an opportunity to rectify the deficiency. It is also clear from the above judgments that objections regarding admissibility of documents which are per se inadmissible can be taken even at the appellate stage. Admissibility of a document which is inherently inadmissible is an issue which can be taken up at the appellate stage because it is a fundamental issue (emphasis supplied). The mode or method of proof is procedural and objections, if not taken at the trial, cannot be permitted at the appellate stage. If the objections to the mode of proof are permitted to be taken at the appellate stage by a party, the other side does not have an opportunity of rectifying the deficiencies. The learned Senior Counsel for the State referred to statements under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 as an example of documents falling under the said category of inherently inadmissible evidence. CDRs do not fall in the said category of documents. We are satisfied that an objection that CDRs are unreliable due to violation of the procedure prescribed in Section 65 B (4) cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage as the objection relates to the mode or method of proof.
6.45 Therefore, even as per the judgment of Sonu(supra) this document being inherently inadmissible, the mere fact that an FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed PS Sonia Vihar 57 of 60 PARVEEN by PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.02.24 16:08:09 +0530 objection was not taken by the accused at the time of its exhibition, will not make it admissible. Therefore, if the document is inherently inadmissible, the mere exhibition of that document would not make the document admissible in evidence unless the bar, which made the document inherently admissible, was removed. Hence, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonu @ Amar (Supra) cannot help the prosecution in this case.
6.46 Ld. SPP has also argued that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Arjun Panditrao(supra), the certificate u/s 65B of the evidence act can be filed at any stage. He has contended that it is not the case where no certificate was filed but in this case, the certificate filed was defective and therefore, the court should summon the relevant witness to produce a valid certificate. 6.47 I have considered this submission. On this issue Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao(supra) has carved a clear distinction between civil and criminal cases. In criminal cases the court, while allowing the filing of a certificate u/s 65B of the at a later stage, has to be extra careful. The court has to be mindful of the fact that its order allowing the certificate to be filed, does not violate the right of the accused to a fair trial. Para 54 of the judgment of Arjun Panditrao (supra) lays down the guiding principal. Para 54 is as under:
54. It is pertinent to recollect that the stage of admitting documentary evidence in a criminal trial is the filing of the charge-
sheet. When a criminal court summons the accused to stand trial, FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 58 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.24 16:08:23 +0530 copies of all documents which are entered in the charge-sheet/final report have to be given to the accused. Section 207 CrPC, which reads 37 as follows, is mandatory. Therefore, the electronic evidence i.e. the computer output, has to be furnished at the latest before the trial begins. The reason is not far to seek; this gives the accused a fair chance to prepare and defend the charges levelled against him during the trial. The general principle in criminal proceedings therefore, is to supply to the accused all documents that the prosecution seeks to rely upon before the commencement of the trial. The requirement of such full disclosure is an extremely valuable right and an essential feature of the right to a fair trial as it enables the accused to prepare for the trial before its commencement.
6.48 In this case it is not the case, that the certificate filed by the prosecution is defective and hence the defect can be allowed to be cured. In the present case, as discussed above, there is in fact no certificate in support of the electronic evidence sought to be proved by the prosecution. Therefore, allowing the filing of a certificate u/s 65B at this stge will amount to allowing a new evidence to be brought on record, which is impermissible. Faced with this situation I am left with no option but to eschew the electronic evidence in the hard drive and resultantly, the videos in it. Hence, this court cannot look into or watch the video Ex.PW24/Article 1. 6.49 As discussed earlier, the testimonies of PW-20 Rahisuddin, PW-21 Guddu Khan and PW-26 HC Sandeep, where they had identified the accused as a part of the rioting mob, are not the eye witness account of what they had seen during the riots on 25.02.2020. Their testimonies are based upon the video footage, Digitally signed FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN PS Sonia Vihar 59 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.02.24
16:08:36
+0530
wherein they had recognized these accused persons and hence, the case of the prosecution against the accused solely rests upon the video footage. However, the court as discussed above, cannot consider the video footage as evidence and accordingly, I find that there is no evidence by which the court can arrive at a finding of guilt against the accused persons. Accused are accordingly, found entitled to benefit of doubt. All the accused are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Sureties stand discharged.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by PARVEEN SINGHPARVEEN Date:
SINGH 2026.02.24
16:08:53
+0530
Pronounced in open court (Parveen Singh)
on 24.02.2026 ASJ-03, North East Distt.,
(This judgment contains 60 pages Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
and each page bears my signatures)
FIR No. 36/20
PS Sonia Vihar 60 of 60