Delhi District Court
State vs Ikram And Others on 18 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 03 (NORTH EAST DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURT : DELHI.
SC No. 312/2021
FIR No. 98/2020
PS Khajuri Khas
U/s. 109/114/147/148/149/186/188/332/353/427/436/34 IPC &
3/4 PDPP Act.
State
Versus
1. Ikram,
s/o Sh. Abdul Salam,
r/o C-105, Gali no. 1,
Chand Bagh, Delhi.
2. Mustaqueem
s/o Sh. Shamsuddin,
r/o Gali No. 1, Ward No. 8,
Near Auliya Masjid,
Chand Bagh, Delhi.
3. Sarfaraz,
s/o Sh. Arfan,
r/o H. No. F-187, Gali No. 11,
Khajuri Khas, Delhi.
4. Firoz,
s/o Sh. Babuddin,
r/o B-1/3, Main 20 Foota Road,
Chand Bagh, Delhi.
FIR No. 98/20
PS Khajuri Khas 1 of 97 Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18
10:44:06
+0300
5. Gulfam, (discharged)
s/o late Ramjani,
r/o B-34, Gali No. 2,
Chand Bagh, Delhi.
6. Javed, (discharged)
s/o Sh. Jafruddin,
r/o H. No. 1092, Gali No. 13,
Rajiv Nagar, Mustafabad, Delhi.
7. Anas, (discharged)
s/o Sh. Idrish,
r/o Gali No. 1, Sanjay Chowk,
Mustafabad, Delhi.
8. Shoaib Alam, (discharged)
s/o Sh. Mustafa Hussain,
r/o A-10, Main 20 Foota Road,
Chand Bagh, Delhi.
9. Gulfam @ Zubair,
s/o sh. Mohd. Ahmed,
r/o F-546, Khajuri Khas,
Main Karawal Nagar Road,
Delhi.
10. Saddam @ Ikrar,
s/o Sh. Hazi Shabuddin,
r/o F-594, Gali No. 17, Khajuri Khas,
Main Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi. ...Accused.
Date of Committal : 20.09.2021.
Date of Arguments : 05.05.2026.
Date of Pronouncement : 18.05.2026
FIR No. 98/20
PS Khajuri Khas 2 of 97
Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18
10:44:14
+0300
(Section 481 BNSS complied by all the accused.)
JUDGMENT
Facts of Prosecution Case as per Charge Sheet 1.1 The present case relates to the rioting and arson on 24.02.2020 at Police Booth Khajuri Khas, Karawal Nagar and nearby areas. This case was registered on the statement of Ct. Kalik who alleged that on 24.02.2020 from 12 p.m. onwards, an unruly mob set ablaze various shops, rehris as well as police booth Bhajanpura. Several public persons as well as police personnel got injured in stone pelting. After registration of FIR, the investigation was assigned to SI Vipin Teotia.
1.2 During the investigation, rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared at the instance of complainant. On 24.02.2020, accused Ikram, Mustaqueem, Sarfraz and Aman @ Ali Raza were caught red handed and they were involved in stone pelting, arson and rioting. On 25.02.2020, these four accused were arrested. 1.3 During investigation, a video was shown to Hct. Rahul who identified one accused Firoz. On 06.03.2020, accused Firoz was arrested. Thereafter, further investigation was assigned to Insp. Rajni Kant. From the detailed interrogation of accused Firoz and with the help of recorded video, accused Gulfam, Javed, Anas and Shoaib Alam were arrested in this case. Scene of crime was got inspected by FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 3 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:44:26 +0300 the Crime Team. After ossification test, Ali Raza was found to be minor. During the investigation, complaint received on 01.03.2020 vide DD No. 79B and complaint received on 06.03.2020 vide DD No. 29B were clubbed in this FIR. Section 188 IPC was added in this FIR. Exhibits of the case got deposited in FSL. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Ikram, Mustaqueem, Sarfraz, Anas, Firoj, Javed, Gulfam and Shoaib Alam. 1.4 Thereafter, during further investigation, on 29.06.2020, HC Rahul produced one Gulfam @ Zubair @ Mohd. Ahmed and stated that he was a part of violent mob on 24.02.2020 and had pelted stones on police party. After interrogation, accused Gulfam @ Zubair was arrested. During investigation, certified copies of CDR and location of mobile numbers of accused were obtained. Thereafter, supplementary charge sheet was filed against accused Gulfam @ Zubair.
1.5 During further investigation, on 19.0.2021, accused Saddam @ Ikrar was produced by Ct. Rahul. After interrogation, accused Saddam was arrested in this case and a supplementary charge sheet was filed against him.
1.6 Thereafter, vide supplementary charge sheets no. 3 and 4, FSL report and site plan were filed.
Charges 2.1 Vide order on charge dated 04.04.2022, accused Gulfam FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 4 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.05.18 10:44:34 +0300
s/o late Ramjani, Javed, Anas and Shoaib Alam were discharged and charges for the offences u/s 147/148/186/188/332/353/427/436 IPC r/w section 3/4 PDPP Act r/w section 149 IPC were ordered to be framed against accused Sarfraz, Firoz, Ikram, Mustaqueem, Gulfam @Zubair and Saddam @ Ikrar.
2.2 On 13.10.2022, charge for offence u/s 147/148 r/w section 149 IPC and section 188 IPC; u/s 186/332/353 IPC r/w section 149 IPC and u/s 427/436 IPC r/w section 3/4 PDPP Act r/w section 149 IPC was framed against accused Sarfraz, Firoz, Ikram, Mustaqueem, Gulfam @Zubair and Saddam @ Ikrar.
Prosecution Evidence 3.1 In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 25 witnesses, brief description of their testimonies is as under:-
Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witness No. PW1 Ct. Kalik Tomar He was working as a driver for SHO/ Insp. Pawan. On 24.02.2020, he drove SHO alongwith other staff to main Karawal Nagar road. He was the material eye witness of the incident. FIR was registered on his statement. He had correctly identified Mustaqueem, Sarfaraz and Ikram, in the court.
PW2 Sh. Sanchit Khanna He had been working as Photo FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 5 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:44:42 +0300 Journalist since the year 2017. On 24.02.2020 on the instructions of his seniors, he went to the terrace of a building situated near the road going towards Bhajanpura PS, in order to take position for photography. When a huge mob of around 300 persons was pelting stones towards him, he sat on the terrace in order to cover himself.
After some time, he saw that his m/cycle was on fire. He tried to take the pictures in that situation, but he was not able to do so. The mob had probably seen him, so he was asked to come downstairs by the mob and accordingly, he came downstairs.
The persons in the mob tried to take away his cameras (he was carrying 2 cameras). Thereafter, he begged them to leave his cameras with assurance that he would delete all the photos. One memory card was damaged by the member of the mob and other memory card was formatted by him in their presence and thereafter the mob allowed him to go away. On 06.03.2020, he visited PS Khajuri Khas and gave a written complaint and in April 2020, I had identified his m/cycle in PS. PW3 SI Bhisham Rana He was a part of the police party trying to maintain law and order on FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 6 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:44:52 +0300 24.02.2020 at main Karawal Nagar road, Bhajanpura police post and Chand Bagh. He is an eye witness to the rioting, arson and stone pelting by the mob. He had suffered injuries on his shoulder, back and leg in the incident. He had correctly identified accused Mustaqueem, Sarfraz, and Ikram, in the court.
PW4 HC Vikram He was an eye witness of the incident and his detailed testimony shall be discussed later on. He had correctly identified accused Mustaqueem, Sarfraz, Ikram and Saddam, in the court.
PW5 HC Avnish He was the material witness of the incident and his detailed testimony shall be discussed later on. He had correctly identified accused Mustaqueem, Sarfraz and Ikram, in the court. However, accused Aman was not being tried before this court.
PW6 Ct. Ashish He was the formal witness who, on 30.10.2021 on the instructions of IO/Insp. Rajni Kant, visited the office of PWD and collected one DVD and a certificate. He thereafter reached to the PS and handed it to IO. He proved seizure of aforesaid articles.
PW7 Ct. Amit On 24.02.2020, he was on emergency duty from 8 a.m. to 8 FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 7 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:44:59 +0300 p.m. On receipt of DD no.32A, he alongwith HC Anil had gone to Bhajanpura chowk, where riot was taking place in F block, Khajuri Khas. On getting the information that some police officials were injured, he, alongwith HC Anil, had gone to JPC hospital and collected 14 MLCs from JPC hospital.
He proved the arrest memos and personal search memos of accused Sarfraz, Ikram and Mustaqueem. He had correctly identified all these accused persons, in the court.
PW8 Dr. Shalabh Dass He proved MLC of Ikram, Mustaqueem, Insp. Pawan Kumar, SI Bhisham Rana, SI Vipin Kumar, HC Avneesh Kumar, HC Rahul, Ct.
Chander Prakash, Ct. Vikram, Ct.
Sandeep, Ct. Bhupender, Ct. Amit and Sarfraz.
PW9 HC Sachin He was the witness to the arrest of accused Firoz and had proved arrest and personal search memo of accused Firoz.
PW10 ACP Mahesh He was working as draftsman and at the instance of IO/Insp. Rajnikant, he prepared scaled site plan on the basis of his rough notes.
PW11 HC Vikas Tomar On 09.03.2020, he was working as photographer in mobile crime team and on the directions of I/C ASI Akshay, he took 17 photographs of FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 8 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:45:21 +0300 the police booth. He proved photographs as well as certificate in respect of those photographs.
PW12 Ct. Bhupender He was a part of the police party trying to maintain law and order on 24.02.2020 at main Karawal Nagar road, Bhajanpura police post and Chand Bagh. He is an eye witness to the rioting, arson and stone pelting by the mob. He deposed that accused Mustaqueem, Sarfraz, and Ikram were apprehended in his presence He had suffered injuries in the incident. He had correctly identified accused Mustaqueem, Sarfraz, and Ikram, in the court.
PW13 HC Chander Pratap He was a part of the police party trying to maintain law and order on 24.02.2020 at main Karawal Nagar road and Chand Bagh. He is an eye witness to the rioting, arson and stone pelting by the mob. He deposed that he alongwith other police staff had apprehended four persons from the mob and they were accused Mustaqueem, Sarfraz, and Ikram. He had suffered injuries in the incident. He had correctly identified accused Mustaqueem, Sarfraz, and Ikram, in the court.
PW14 HC Sandeep He was a part of the police party trying to maintain law and order on 24.02.2020 at main Karawal Nagar road, Bhajanpura police post and FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 9 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:45:28 +0300 Chand Bagh. He deposed that SHO had made an announcement that section 144 Cr.P.C was in operation. He is an eye witness to the rioting, arson and stone pelting by the mob. He had suffered injuries in the incident. He had correctly identified accused Mustaqueem, Sarfraz, and Ikram, in the court.
PW15 HC Amit He was a part of the police party trying to maintain law and order on 24.02.2020 at main Karawal Nagar road, Bhajanpura police post and Chand Bagh. He deposed that they had made an announcement that section 144 Cr.P.C was in operation. He is an eye witness to the rioting, arson and stone pelting by the mob. He had suffered injuries in the incident. He had correctly identified accused Mustaqueem, Sarfraz, and Ikram, in the court.
PW16 Sh. Geetesh Patel He was an expert of the Forensic Lab in Physics division and on 21.04.2020, two exhibits of this FIR were allotted to him for examination. He was to examine authenticity of video footages in those exhibits. After examination, he did not find any indication of alteration in any video files or any image files. He proved his report in FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 10 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:45:36 +0300 respect of aforesaid examination.
PW17 Dr. Bharti Bhardwaj She was an expert of the Forensic Lab in Physics division and on 21.03.2023, two sealed parcels with the seal of RK were received by her for examination. She proved her report in this regard and a certificate u/s 65B of IE Act.
PW18 Sh. Prem Singh He was running a photo studio in the name of Prince Digital Studio, since 2002. He used to do photography for Delhi Police and on 24.02.2020, he had sent his photographer namely Amit alongwith video cameras, battery and memory card. Thereafter, he copied the video recorded by Amit in a DVD. He has proved the seizure memo of DVD and certificate u/s 65B of IE Act in respect of the video.
PW19 Sh. Amit Shaky In February, he was working as a photographer in Prince Studio, Khajuri, Delhi. He had accompanied SHO and had recorded video at the instance of SHO. As per him, camera was working properly and he had recorded what he had seen, he did not do any addition, deletion or alteration in the recordings.
Thereafter, he had returned the video camera to Prem Singh (owner of studio).
FIR No. 98/20PS Khajuri Khas 11 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:45:43 +0300 PW20 SI Vipin Teotia He was the 1st IO of the case. PW21 Sh. Pradeep Verma He deposed that on 24.02.2020, he as at his parking lot at E-98/2, Khajuri Khas. At around 1.15p.m, a mob of Muslims attacked on his him, set afire the vehicles in his parking lot and ransacked it. On 21.02.2021, in the photographs shown to him by the IO, he identified some of the persons whom he had seen in the riots.
Those persons were Gulfam, Firoz and Bobby Hotelwala. He identified Firoz and Gulfam in the court.
PW22 HC Rahul He deposed that on 24.02.2020, due to the protests, he was on duty at Bhajanpura Chowk. He witnessed o the rioting, arson and stone pelting by the mob. He deposed about apprehension of accused Sarfaraz, Mustaqueem, and Ikram from the mob. He was a witness to the arrest of accused Firoz, Gulfam @ Jubair and Saddam @ Ikrar. He had correctly identified accused Mustaqueem, Sarfraz, Ikram, Gulram and Saddam @ Ikrar in the court.
PW23 SI Sandeep On 29.06.2020, he was assigned the investigation of this case. He had arrested accused Gulfam @ Jubair and Saddam @ Ikrar. He proved arrest and personal search memo of accused Gulfam @ Jubair and FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 12 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:45:54 +0300 Saddam @ Ikrar. He also proved seizure memo of mobile make Samsung, which was seized from Saddam. He had correctly identified accused Gulfam @ Juabair and Saddam @ Ikrar.
PW24 Insp. Rajnikant He was the IO of the case and had proved seizure memo of DVDs, certificates u/s 65B of IE Act and motorcycle. He filed the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th supplementary chargesheets in this case. He correctly identified accused Firoz, in the court.
PW25 Insp. Pawan Kumar He was SHO on 24.02.2020. As per his testimony, in his presence the mob had set fire to the vehicles of the public and they also broke the shutter of a shop by the name of Aggarwal Sweets and set it afire.
The police booth was also set afire
in his presence. Accused
Mustaqueem, Sarfraz, Ikram and
Aman were apprehended in his
presence. Witness has correctly
identified accused Mustaqueem,
Sarfraz, and Ikram.
3.2 Further the prosecution proved the documents as given in
the table below:-
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved/
Attested by
FIR No. 98/20
PS Khajuri Khas 13 of 97 Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18
10:46:02
+0300
Ex.PW1/A Seizure memo of stones PW1
Ex.PW2/A Complaint of Sanchit Khanna PW2
Ex.PW6/A Seizure memo of DVD and a PW6
certificate
Ex.PW7/A Arrest memo of Ikram PW7
Ex.PW7/B P/search memo of Ikram PW7
Ex.PW7/C Arrest memo of Mustaqueem PW7
Ex.PW7/D P/search memo of Mustaqueem PW7
Ex.PW8/A MLC of Ikram PW8
Ex.PW8/B MLC of Mustaqueem PW8
Ex.PW8/C MLC of Insp. Pawan Kumar PW8
Ex.PW8/D MLC of SI Bhisham Rana PW8
Ex.PW8/E MLC of SI Vipin Kumar PW8
Ex.PW8/F MLC of HC Avneesh PW8
Ex.PW8/G MLC of HC Rahul PW8
Ex.PW8/H MLC of Ct. Chander Prakash PW8
FIR No. 98/20
PS Khajuri Khas 14 of 97
Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.05.18
10:46:11 +0300
Ex.PW8/I MLC of Ct. Vikram PW8
Ex.8/J MLC of Ct. Sandeep PW8
Ex.PW8/K MLC of Ct. Bhupender PW8
Ex.PW8/L MLC of Ct. Amit PW8
Ex.PW9/A Pointing out memo at the instance of PW9
Firoz
Ex.PW10/A Site plan PW10
Ex.PW11/A Certificate regarding photographs PW11
Ex.PW16/1 Report dt. 07.08.3020 PW16
Ex.PW17/1 Report regarding preparation of two PW17
copies of 'copy of Exhibit-2
Ex.PW17/2 Certificate u/s 65B of IE Act PW17
Ex.PW17/ DVD PW17
Article-1
Ex.PW18/1 Seizure memo of DVD PW18
Ex.PW18/2 Certificate in respect of DVD PW18
Ex.PW19/V-1 Four audio video recordings PW19
to
Ex.PW19/V-4
Ex.PW20/1 Site plan PW20
Ex.PW22/1 Arrest memo and p/search memo of PW22
Gulfam
Ex.PW24/1 Seizure memo of m/cycle PW24
Ex.PW24/2 Seizure memo of pendrive containing PW24
video
Ex.PW25/1 Seizure memo of certificate u/s 65 B PW25
of IE Act
3.3 During the trial, all the accused, u/s 294 Cr.P.C, admitted
FIR No. 98/20
PS Khajuri Khas 15 of 97
Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18
10:46:18
+0300
the following documents:-
S. No. Description of the document Exhibit No.
1 Endorsement on rukka Ex.A-1
2 FIR Ex.A-2
3 Certificate u/s 65B of IE Act in respect of FIR Ex.A-3
4 GD No. 32A Ex.A-4
5 PCR form Ex.A-5
6 Finger print expert report Ex.A-6
7 GD No. 21A Ex.A-7
8 Arrest memo and personal search memo of Ex.A-8 and
accused Sarfraz Ex.A-9
9 Arrest memo and personal search memo of Ex.A-10 and
accused Firoz Ex.A-11
10 Prohibitory order u/s 144 Cr.P.C Ex.A-12
11 MLC of Sarfraz Ex.A-13
12 Complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C Ex.A-14
13 Crime Scene Visit Report dated 01.06.2020 Ex.A-15
14 Notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C with certificate u/s 65B Ex.A-16 and
of Evidence Act in respect of mobile no. A-17 8512013294 FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 16 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:46:25 +0300 15 Notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C with certificate u/s 65B Ex.A-18 and of Evidence Act in respect o mobile no. A-19 9718247070 16 Notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C with certificate u/s 65B Ex.A-20 and of Evidence Act in respect of mobile no. A-21 9891967512 17 Notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C with certificate u/s 65B Ex.A-22 and of Evidence Act in respect of mobile no. A-23 8588924129 18 Notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C with certificate u/s 65B Ex.A-24 and of Evidence Act in respect of mobile no. A-25 9990263650 19 Certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act in respect Ex.A-26 of mobile no. 9871938081 20 Letters to Nodal Officer to IO Ex.A-27 and A-28 21 Certificates u/s 65B of Evidence Act in Ex.A-29 and respect of mobile numbers 9958575866 & Ex.A-30 9315187940 22 Arrest memo and personal search of accused Ex.A-31 and Saddam Ex.A-32 FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 17 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:46:35 +0300 23 Complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C Ex.A-33 24 Request letter to PWD by SI Sandeep Ex.A-34 25 Letter of PWD addressed to SHO regarding Ex.A-35 CCTV footage 26 CCTV footage certificate dated 26.10.2021 Ex.A-36 27 Request letter to PWD Ex.A-37 28 Letter to BEL dated 12.11.2021 Ex.A-38 29 Notice u/s 92 Cr.P.C to Nodal Officer, BAL Ex.A-39 30 Letter of Nodal Officer to IO Ex.A-40 31 Entry in register no. 21 Ex.A-41 32 Acknowledgment of case acceptance at FSL Ex.A-42 33 Copy of relevant entries made in register no. Ex.A-43, 19 and 21 Ex.A-44 & Ex.A-46 34 FSL acknowledgments Ex.A-45 and Ex.A-47 35 Seizure memo of Samsung Mobile Phone of Ex.A-48 accused Saddam.
Statement of Accused 4.1 Thereafter, on 13.03.2026, statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C/ 351 FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 18 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.05.18 10:46:45 +0300
BNSS of all the accused were recorded and accused Sarfraz preferred to lead evidence in his defence. However on 02.04.2026, accused Sarfraz, without leading any evidence, closed his evidence. Contentions of ld. SPP and of ld. Counsel for accused 5.1 I have heard ld. SPP for State as well as ld. counsel for accused and perused the record very carefully. 5.2 It has been contended by ld. SPP that by virtue of document Ex.A-12, it has been established that on 24.02.2020, DCP North East, in exercise of his powers under law, had imposed section 144 Cr.P.C in the entire area of North East District. He has further contended that through the testimonies of witnesses such as Ct. Kalik, SI Bhisham Rana, HC Vikram etc. including PW25 , the prosecution has established that SHO himself had travelled in the area and announced imposition of section 144 Cr.P.C. He has further contended that from the testimonies of these witnesses, who are injured witnesses and stamped police witnesses, it stands established that despite the imposition of section 144 Cr.P.C, a mob of rioters had gathered on both sides of the road which is called Karawal Nagar Road and at around 12 p.m, these rioters, having the strength of around 1000-1200 people, started pelting stones upon police and committing arson thereby burning shops and rehris etc. He has further contended that these witnesses are stamped witnesses who had been injured in this incident and their presence cannot be doubted as they were FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 19 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:46:53 +0300 accompanying the SHO. He has further contended that these witnesses have categorically deposed about the act of the rioters and that three accused namely Ikram, Mustaqueem, Sarfraz were arrested from the spot during the riot. However, it could only be done after RFA had arrived and somehow the situation was brought under control. The fact that the accused were arrested from the spot during the riot is established from the testimony of these witnesses. This fact is also corroborated by MLCs of these accused which were prepared on that day itself. He has further contended that no material contradiction has emerged in the testimony of any of the witnesses which would make the court disbelieve their testimonies. He has further contended that HC Rahul on being shown a video, had identified accused Firoz in the said video. HC Rahul had also deposed that he had seen accused Firoz on the day of incident but accused Firoz could not be apprehended and managed to escape. However, accused Firoz was arrested later on and this accused was visible in the video. HC Rahul, who appeared as PW22, had also identified accused Gulfam in a video as one of the rioters and was a witness to his arrest. He has further contended that the contradictions, if any in the testimonies of police witnesses, are minor variations which can come in the testimonies of truthful witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused are liable to convicted for the offences for which charges have been framed against them.FIR No. 98/20
PS Khajuri Khas 20 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:47:01 +0300 5.3 On the other hand, ld. counsels for accused had orally
argued as well as filed written arguments. They have contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The testimonies of police witnesses do not vary on minor details but there are serious conflicts on the timing of apprehension, their movement from the spot to hospital and police station, composition of team and the sequence in which names of accused became known. They have further contended that as per the deposition of PW25, on 24.02.2020, he had left the police station on 8 a.m in official vehicle and he was accompanied by his staff. However, none of other staff members who were stated to be with him had supported his claim that he had left the police station at about 8.00 a.m. Contradicting PW25, PW1 deposed that on that day, he had driven SHO and other staff at about 10.00 a.m. Contradicting both of them, PW3 SI Bhisham Rana deposed that on that day at around 9.00 a.m, he accompanied SHO Insp. Pawan Kumar, HC Avneesh, HC Rahul, Ct. Kalik, Ct. Amit, Ct. Chandra Pratap and other police officials to main Karawal Nagar Road. However, PW5 deposed that on that day, he had left PS at around 9-9.15 a.m for law and order duty at the protest site of Chand Bagh and they were positioned for duty at Karawal Nagar Road Bhajanpura. He had stated that they had reached that place at about 10.00 a.m and Ct. Kalik was driving the vehicle of SHO. PW12 Ct. Bhupender deposed that he was on patrolling duty FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 21 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:47:09 +0300 with SHO since 9.00 a.m on that day and some other staff namley SI Bhisham Rana, HC Avneesh, HC Rahul, Ct. Kalik and some other staff were also on duty with him. PW14 HC Sandeep on the other hand deposed that on 24.02.2020 at about 9.30-10.00 a.m, he accompanied IO Insp. Pawan Kumar, SI Bhisham Rana, HC Avneesh, HC Rahul, Ct. Chandra Pratap, Ct. Vikram and some other police staff with driver Ct. Kalik to Karawal Nagar Road in two official vehicles.
They have further contended that DD No. 13B dated 24.02.2020 records that SHO i.e. PW25 alongwith Ct. Kalik, Ct. Amit and Ct. Sadneep had left the Police Station at about 08.10 a.m. However, none of the witnesses had supported the claim of this DD. As per DD No. 26B, SI Bhisham Rana left the Police Station on 24.02.2020 at 11.05 a.m with HC Avnish, Ct. Vikram, HC Vikram, Ct. Vipin, Ct. Rahul and Ct. Chander Pratap and had not accompanied SHO. PW19 deposed that on reaching the Police Station, he was asked to accompany SHO, he accompanied SHO and recorded video at the instance of SHO. However, he could not have accompanied SHO because as per DD No. 26B, he had left the Police Station at around 11.05 a.m. 5.4 They have further contended that the prosecution has not been able to prove the imposition of section 144 Cr.P.C. No witness has stated about seeing the written copy of proclamation and the claim is of mere oral announcement. However as per law, the proclamation FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 22 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:47:16 +0300 was required to be publicized by affixing copies at visible places with written records and oral mike announcements without proof of formal issuance and dissemination is not sufficient. The prosecution was required to establish that accused had actual or constructive knowledge of the same. There is no evidence that this proclamation or promulgation was exhibited or pasted at conspicuous places, served in the locality or otherwise publicly promulgated through legally recognizable means beyond generalized assertion of oral announcement from a moving vehicle. They have further contended that not witness has proved proved the exact area covered, the period of operation, the mode of publication or the identity of the officer who formally received or executed such promulgation. They have further contended that PW25 had not stated that he had made announcement of section 144 Cr.P.C. He had merely stated that he had repeatedly made announcements that these gatherings were unlawful and asked the public persons to return to their houses. Similarly PW3 also did not state that SHO announced that section 144 Cr.P.C had been imposed. PW4 HC Vikram stated that he did not remember if he had stated before SI Vipin that SHO had announced that proclamation section 144 Cr.P.C was in operation.PW5 also did not state that SHO announced the imposition of section 144 Cr.P.C and merely stated that he asked public persons to peacefully go back to their houses. PW7 also did not state about any announcement made by SHO of FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 23 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:47:27 +0300 imposition of section 144 Cr.P.C. PW13 also did not depose about any announcement of section 144 Cr.P.C being made by the SHO and merely stated that SHO asked the mob to go back to their houses. PW15 deposed in the court about announcement of section 144 Cr.P.C. However, this was an improvement. PW15 was confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW24 in his cross examination had admitted that he had seen DD entry through which order u/s 144 Cr.P.C had been received in the police station and it was received in the PS in the evening of 24.02.2020 and thus, there could not have been any announcement of proclamation as it had not been received in the PS. They have further contended that IO did not collect any DD. In the light of these circumstances, it is clear that no announcement of section 144 Cr.P.C was made and at the most, it is proved that SHO had announced that public persons to remain silent and go back to their houses.
5.5 They have further contended that there are contradictions between the testimonies of witnesses about the time line from the apprehension of accused to taking them to JPC Hospital, the return to the PS and even in the arrest memos. It is claimed that accused were apprehended on 24.02.2020. However, they were only arrested in the morning at 12.20 p.m on 25.02.2020. There is no spot arrest memo or apprehension memo. They have further contended that there was no documentation of any sort that it had taken place at the spot where the FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 24 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:47:34 +0300 accused were apprehended. This reflects that accused were not apprehended from that place. It is admitted that the accused were apprehended at 6.30 p.m and therefore, there is a delay of almost 12 hours which reflects that they were not arrested. They have further contended that as per Ct. Kalik (PW1), these four persons were apprehended at about 4-4.30 p.m and they were immediately taken for their medical examination. However, SI Bhisham Rana stated that they had remained at Bhajanpura Chowk till about 7-7.30 p.m. This contradicts the claim of PW1 who stated that after apprehension, accused were immediately taken to hospital. They have further contended that arrest memo were not prepared at the spot and the paper work was done only on the next day and this raises doubt about the prosecution claim. Even the safeguards laid down in D.K Basu v.
State of West Bengal were not followed. They have further contended that as per the claim of the prosecution, accused were apprehended from the violent spot, then taken into custody to JPC Hospital where they were medically examined and the medical documents would normally provide a contemporaneous chain of custody but there was no DD of arrival of the accused at the PS after their medical at the hospital. Thus, the alleged arrest of accused is doubtful. They have further contended that arrest of the accused as claimed by the prosecution is also doubtful because had the accused been truly apprehended at around 6.30 p.m, there was no reason for not preparing FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 25 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:47:45 +0300 arrest memos at the spot or at the hospital. The delay in preparing the arrest memos renders the prosecution story highly suspect. They have further contended that there is also inconsistency in the time line given by the witnesses regarding departure to JPC Hospital. AS per PW1 Ct. Kalik, accused were apprehended at about 4-4.30 p.m whereafter they were taken for their medical examination at JPC Hospital. However, later on he stated that he as well as other police staff with jeep remained near the Mazar for whole night of 24.02.2020 and that he went back to the police station only at about 8.00 a.m on 25.02.2020 where he made arrival entry. Therefore, it is clear that he had remained at the Mazar for whole night and thus, he could not have gone to the hospital. They have further contended that if the accused were immediately removed to hospital at around 4-4.30 p.m, the version of remaining at the place for whole night becomes incompatible with the later sequence narrated by the same witness. They have further contended that contradicting PW1, PW3 stated that they had remained at Bhajanpura chowk till about 7-7.30 p.m before going to JPC Hospital and that they reached JPC Hospital in about 30 minutes and remained there for 02 hours and reached PS at around 10.30-11.00 p.m. On the other hand, PW4 stated that they reached JPC Hospital at around 8.00 p.m and remained there for 1½ to 2 hours and reached PS at around 10-10.30 p.m though he admitted that he had not made any arrival entry or departure entry in the morning. This also FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 26 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:47:54 +0300 conflicts with the version of PW1 who claimed immediate removal of the accused after apprehension.
5.6 Then there are serious contradictions about who had accompanied whom or who was with the SHO in the gypsy and who was in the other vehicle. As per PW1 Ct. Kalik, SI Bhisham Rana, HC Avneesh, HC Rahul, Ct. Bhupender, Ct. Amit and Ct. Sandeep were accompanying SHO in the vehicle. As per PW3 Bhisham Rana, besides him and SHO, HC Avneesh, HC Rahul, Ct. Amit and Ct.
Chandra Pratap were in the vehicle and ERV staff had gone separately. As per PW4 HC Vikram, he alongwith SI Bhisham Rana, HC Avneesh, HC Rahul and Ct. Chandra Pratap were sitting with SHO in his gypsy. As per PW14, he accompanied IO Insp. Pawan Kumar, SI Bhisham Rana, HC Avneesh, HC Rahul, Ct. Chandra Pratap, Ct. Vikram and some more police staff with driver Ct. Kalik. Thus, the prosecution has failed to present a stable version regarding the officers who formed the team, who was in the gypsy of SHO and who was in the ERV. There is no evidence as to how and by whom, the accused persons were apprehended. PW1 admitted that he could not tell which particular officer had apprehended which particular person. This omission strikes at the root of individual attribution. 5.7 They have further contended that the video footage seized by the IO from the SHO was not reliable because the original video was never sent to FSL for examination and hence, the origin of the FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 27 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:48:09 +0300 alleged video or availability of the said video on the mobile phone of SHO was questionable. They have further contended that no facial recognition was done of accused Mustaqueem with the persons allegedly visible in the alleged videos. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused are entitled to be acquitted.
5.8 With regard to accused Ikrar @ Saddam, it has been contended that this accused was arrested on 19.02.2021 i.e. almost after one year of the alleged incident and that too on the basis of identification by the police witnesses. It has further been contended that the PW4 HC Vikram, in his testimony, had deposed that he had not seen the faces of any of the four accused persons. He did not state the IO that he could identify some persons from the mob in his initial statement. Thus, if this witness could not see the faces of the four persons who were allegedly apprehended from the spot, he could not have identified Saddam, who was never apprehended on 24.02.2020. It has further been contended that PW1 admitted that accused Saddam was wearing a black helmet thus, identification of person who was wearing helmet is impossible. It has further been contended that PW22 identified Saddam @ Ikrar from a screenshot shown by IO. However, prior to 19.02.2021, this witness never informed the IO about this fact. It has further been contended that from the mobile phone seized from accused Saddam, nothing incriminating was recovered. It is further FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 28 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:48:18 +0300 been contended that no independent witness had supported the case of the prosecution.
Findings
6.1 I have considered the rival submissions. 6.2 The prosecution has produced some eye witnesses who were members of the police force and for the decision of this case, it is necessary that their testimonies are reproduced in some detail. 6.3 PW1 Ct. Kalik Tomar, on 24.02.2020, was the driver of SHO PS Khajuri Khas He deposed that on that day at around 10.00a.m, he drove SHO Insp. Pawan Kumar and other staff to main Karawal Nagar Road. There was a mob on both sides of the road i.e. F Block Khajuri Khas and A,B Block Chand Bagh. Through a loud hailer, the SHO announced proclamation of section 144 Cr.P.C and asked those mobs to return to their houses. Near a mazar in F Block Khajuri Khas was a protest site where protest against CAA/NRC was going on. He, SHO and other staff reached near that mazar at around 12 p.m and protesters started pelting stones upon them. The mob from AB Block, Chand Bagh came out of the gali and joined the protesters. SHO again announced about proclamation of section 144 Cr.P.C and asked them to go back. However, the mob did not relent and continued pelting stones. The police team and RAF fired tear gas shells at the mob which then dispersed and the police team managed to apprehend four members of that mob. In the incident, 7-8 police officials had FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 29 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:48:28 +0300 suffered injuries. He took four members of the mob and the injured police officials to JPC Hospital, Shastri Park. After their medical examination, he took them to PS Khajuri Khas. Thereafter, he alongwith SHO again went to Karawal Nagar Road. On 25.02.2020, his statement was recorded by HC Anil and subsequently SI Vipin prepared site plan at his instance. From the road where the incident had happened, SI Vipin lifted some stones and he had signed upon seizure memo of the stones. He identified his signatures upon the said memo, which was Ex.PW1/A. He identified accused Mustaqueem, Safaraz and Ikram as three of the persons who had been apprehended by the police on that day.
6.3.1 During his cross examination on behalf of accused Firoz, Saddam, Sarfaraz and Gulfam, he deposed that other staff members of PS, who had accompanied him, and the SHO in the vehicle included SI Bhisham Rana, HC Avneesh, HC Rahul, Ct. Bhupender, Ct. Amit and Ct. Sandeep. After reaching the mazar, he remained in police jeep and did not come out of the vehicle. He as well as other police staff of the jeep remained near mazar for the whole night of 24.02.2020 till 08.00 am on the next day when he returned to the police station. He recorded his arrival in the PS on 25.02.2020. As he had not seen the time, he could not tell about the time when they left the place of incident to go to the hospital or when they reached the hospital or when they returned to PS. He could not tell which particular police FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 30 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:48:40 +0300 had apprehended which particular accused. He denied that he was not present near the mazar on 24.02.2020 or that he had not seen the riots or that he had not taken any apprehended person to the hospital. 6.3.2 During his cross examination on behalf of accused Ikram and Mustaqueem, he deposed that he parked his vehicle on the wrong side of the road on the way of Khajuri Khas and opposite Bhajanpura Petrol Pump. While moving on the road, in the vehicle, the SHO had continuously made announcement for about 30-45 minutes. The back of his vehicle was hit by some stones; at around 1-2.00 p.m the shops and carts were vandalized and set ablaze. At the time of pronouncement of section 144 Cr.P.C, he was driving vehicle at a speed of around 10-15 Km/h. The tear gas shells started around 1.00 p.m and with intervals in between, it continued for about 3-4 hours.
He had not sustained any injuries and four persons, who were apprehended at around 4-4.30 p.m, were immediately taken for their medical examination. He had not personally seen any of the accused pelting stones.
6.4 PW3 Insp. Bhisham Rana. On 24.02.2020, he was posted as SI in PS Khajuri Khas. He deposed that on 24.02.2020, he had accompanied SHO, Ct. Kalik, HC Avneesh, HC Rahul, Ct. Sandeep and other officials to Main Karawal Nagar Road. They reached there at about 10.00 a.m, because they had gone there while patrolling other areas. There was mob in each gali which would be meeting Karawal FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 31 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:48:50 +0300 Nagar Road from Chand Bagh and Khajuri Khas. SHO repeatedly made announcement from the mike of his official vehicle asking the mob to peacefully go back to their houses but the mob did not move. The strength of mob kept increasing. He further deposed that at around 12 p.m, they reached near Bhajanpura Police Post. A protest against CAA/ NRC was going in and these protesters started pelting stones on police team. Immediately a mob of around 1000-1200 persons also came from the side of A,B Block of Chand Bagh and started pelting stones upon police. This mob set fire to the shops, vehicles and hard carts near and in front of F Block Khajuri Khas. The police post Bhajanpura was also set on fire. Police used minimum force and fired tear gas shells but mob kept pelting stones. During this time, some extra force arrived and police apprehended four persons from mob which were pelting stones on the police. He did not remember the names of the police officials who had apprehended those four persons. On inquiry, the persons, who were apprehended, introduced themselves as Mustaqueem, Sarfaraz, Ikram and A (CCL). In the pelting of the stones, police officials had also sustained injuries and SHO took four apprehended persons and injured policemen to JPC Hospital. He had also accompanied them. Due to pelting of stones, he had sustained injuries on his shoulder, back and neck. All injured officials and the four apprehended persons were medically examined and their MLCs were prepared. The four persons, who were FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 32 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:49:00 +0300 apprehended, were also carrying lathi, danda and stones and they were instrumental in pelting stones on police. He further deposed that after the treatment from hospital, the police alongwith injured returned to PS whereafter they (the police personnel) returned to Bhajanpura Chowk. Out of four apprehended persons, three were present in court and he correctly identified Mustaqueem, Ikram and Sarfaraz in the court.
6.4.1 During his cross examination, he deposed that he was not a witness in any of the riot case. On 24.02.2020, before leaving PS , SHO had conducted a briefing which was attended by 90% of the staff of PS. The departure entry was made by SHO and he was not assigned any specific duty but to accompany the SHO. From the PS, he had travelled in an official gypsy driven by Ct. Kalik and the SHO, HC Avneesh, HC Rahul, Ct. Amit and Ct. Chander Pratap were also in that vehicle. ERV of the police station had also gone to that place.
They were not static at a particular point, while announcement was being made by SHO asking the mob to disperse and rather their vehicle was moving slowly. At around 12 p.m, their vehicle was at a little distance from Bhajanpura Chowk towards Khajuri Chowk. The ERV was also near them and the vehicle of SHO was ahead of ERV. Subsequently, as a duty officer, he had received a number of complaints regarding incidents in front of F block Khajuri but did not remember of receiving a complaint of arson at 'Brand Hub Shop'.
FIR No. 98/20PS Khajuri Khas 33 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:49:06 +0300 Though he did not remember correctly but before going to JPC Hospital, they had remained at Bhajanpura Chowk till about 7-7.30 p.m. They reached the hospital in about 30 minutes, found a lot of rush in hospital and remained there for 2 hours. He had signed his MLC and they would have returned to PS in about 10.30-11.00 p.m. He was having a mobile phone but did not prepare any video of the incident. He denied that none was not apprehended from spot or that accused Sarfaraz, Ikram were shown to him by the IO in the police station. He denied that he was not medically treated at JPC Hospital. 6.5 PW4 was HC Vikram. He deposed that on 24.02.2020, he was posted as constable at PS Khajuri Khas. On that day, he was on duty in the area of Khajuri Khas with some other police officials including the SHO, SI Bhisham Rana, HC Avneesh, HC Rahul, Ct.
Amit and some other officials. On that day at around 9.00 a.m, they had left in two official gypsy one being the vehicle of SHO and the other being an ERV In other vehicle, there were para military force. While patrolling in the area, they reached Karawal Nagar Road at around 10.00 a.m. There was a mob coming onto Karawal Nagar Road from adjoining galis. From the mike installed in his vehicle, the SHO announced that proclamation u/s 144 Cr.PC was in operation and asked the public persons not to gather at that place and peacefully returned to their houses. However, mob did not relent and their vehicle kept moving slowly to Bhajanpura while SHO kept making FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 34 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:49:14 +0300 announcement. On reaching Bhajanpura police post, SHO again made the same announcement. There was a protest site against CAA/ NRC on the side of the road going towards Yamuna Vihar from Bhajanpura police post and at about 12 p.m, a mob of around 1000-1200 persons from the protest site came towards police and started pelting stones on them. On the two opposite sides of main Karawal Nagar Road, there was area of F Block, Khajuri Khas and A & B Block of Chand Bagh. Mob came from both these sides, started pelting stones on police team, assembled on main Karawal Nagar Road, set ablaze Bhajanpura Police post and also burnt the vehicles and carts parked on the side of F Block Khajuri Khas. The police team fired tear gas shells in order to control the mob. Some police officials, including him, were injured in pelting of stones. Members of team apprehended four persons from mob and SHO took all injured including him as well as four apprehended to JPC Hospital. They were examined in the hospital. The four rioters were also examined and MLCs were prepared. From the hospital, they returned to PS, left the rioters in police custody of other officials and all of them went back to Main Karawal Nagar, Bhajanpura Police Post where they remained on duty. He deposed that out of four, who were apprehended, only three were present in the court and correctly pointed towards Mustaqueem, Sarfraz and Ikram. He further deposed that on 19.02.2021, SI Sandeep was interrogating a boy in PS. On seeing that boy, he identified him and informed SI FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 35 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:49:22 +0300 Sandeep that the said boy was also a part of the mob which had pelted stones on them on 24.02.2020. SI Sandeep disclosed the name of that person as Saddam. Saddam was one of the person who was throwing back tear gas shells fired by the police team at the mob. On that day, Saddam was wearing black helmet but he had seen his face when Saddam had removed his helmet from his face. He correctly identified accused Saddam in the court.
6.5.1 During his cross examination, he deposed that during the pelting of stones he had not seen the faces of the four persons and that he did not remember the time of apprehension of those persons. He did not know which official had apprehended the four rioters from the mob. The rioters were apprehended from Bhajanpura Police Post. He denied that no rioter was apprehended by police team from that place or that he had not seen Saddam in the mob or that he was not on duty at Bhajanpura police post on 24.02.2020 or that he was not taken to JPC Hospital and his examination was not conducted there. He had travelled in official gypsy of SHO. SHO and driver were occupying front seats and rest of them i.e. SI Bhisham Rana, HC Rahul HC Avneesh and Ct. Chand Pratap were sitting on the back seat with him.
In the morning, before reaching main Karawal Nagar Road, they had covered the area of main Pushta Road, Khajuri Khas Village area and Sherpur Chowk. In his statement to SI Vipin, he had stated that mob had come from Khajuri Khas and Chand Bagh onto main road. He was FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 36 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:49:31 +0300 confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C where it was not so recorded. He deposed that he had not stated to the IO that he could identify some persons and he deposed that he had so stated because had not seen any face of rioter on 24.02.2020. He had stated before SI Sandeep that he had seen face of Saddam when Saddam had removed his helmet for sometime. He was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C where it was not so recorded. 6.5.2 He further deposed that they would have reached hospital at around 8.00 p.m and remained there for about 2 - 2.5 hours. His MLC was prepared in his presence but he had not signed the MLC and had not informed about his PIS number but he had informed the doctor about identification mark on his body that is mole on his chin. From JPC hospital, they might reach PS at around 10-10.30 p.m. when they reached Bhajanpura police post, vehicle was parked on main Bhajanpura Road and ERV was also parked there. 6.6 The next witness is PW5 HC Avneesh who was posted in PS Khajuri Khas on 24.02.2020. He deposed that on that day at around 9-9.15 a.m, he left for law and order duty at protest site against CAA/ NRC which was going on at Chand Bagh and his duty was at Karawal Nagar Road, Bhajanpura. SHO Insp. Pawan, SI Bhisham Rana, HC Rahul, Ct. Amit, Ct. Chander Pratap and Ct. Kalik had also gone to the same place for their duty. They reached at that place at around 10.00 a.m. Vehicle of SHO was being driven by Ct. Kalik. Through FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 37 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:49:41 +0300 the mike installed in his gypsy, SHO, while moving from Bhajanpura Chowk towards Sher Pur Chowk, made an announcement asking public persons to peacefully go back to their houses but the mob which was in the galis joining main Karawal Nagar Road, did not relent. The mob from protest site started pelting stones upon them and this mob was joined by another mob which came from A & B Block Chand Bagh which also started pelting stones upon them. The mob also vandalized shops on both sides of road and set ablaze vehicles and carts. The police post was also set ablaze. Tear gas shells were fired towards the mob. Due to stone pelting, he had received injuries on his shoulder, knee and ankle. Some other police officials were also injured in stone pelting. They managed to apprehend and overpower four persons from this mob and he was one of the officials who had apprehended these four persons. SHO took injured police officials and four apprehended persons to JPC Hospital where they were examined and their MLCs were prepared. From the hospital, SHO took all of them to the police station and after leaving four apprehended persons in Police Station, they again went to Bhajanpura Chowk. During the inquiry made by SHO, he came to know the names of those four apprehended persons who had introduced themselves as Mustaqueem, Ikram, Sarfaraz and A (CCL). He correctly identified accused Mustaqueem, Ikram and Sarfaraz but stated that he could not find fourth person in the court. The accused were not empty handed and FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 38 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:49:51 +0300 were carrying stones, danda, glass bottles etc. 6.6.1 During his cross examination on behalf of accused Sarfarz, Firoz, Gulfam, Mustaqueem and Saddam, he deposed that he did not remember whether he had mentioned to the IO that he was one of the officials who had apprehended the four persons. He denied that he was giving evasive reply because he had not stated it before IO. He deposed that he had informed IO that the four persons were also having danda stones etc. He was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C where it was not so recorded. He could not tell the name of other officials who had apprehended four persons. No document regarding their apprehension was prepared at the spot. He admitted that after apprehension of these persons, no items like stone, danda were recovered from them. He could not say whether these persons had any injuries. There were no public persons who would have been present at that place without being a part of the mob. The gypsy, in which he had travelled, was parked near police post. Outer force had travelled in his own vehicle which was parked near Bhajanpura Chowk. He further deposed that they had reached JPC Hospital at around 8.00 p.m and he would have been examined at around 9.30 p.m. He did not remember which official was examined first but the same doctor had examined all the officials. His MLC was prepared in his presence but he did not remember about signing the MLC. He had informed about identification mark on his body to doctor. They would FIR No. 98/20 Digitally signed PS Khajuri Khas 39 of 97 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:49:59 +0300 have returned to police station from the hospital at around 10.30 p.m. He denied that on 24.02.2020, he was not present near Bhajanpura Police Post on law and order duty or that he had not seen any incident or that no person was apprehended by him and others at that place or that neither he nor any public person were taken to JPC Hospital. 6.6.2 During his cross examination on behalf of accused Ikram, he deposed that he had not stated to the IO that the accused persons were not empty handed. He deposed that he had not stated to IO that he had sustained injuries but it was observed by the court that this fact was not mentioned in his statement. He denied that he had not received any injury. While going to JPC Hospital, their vehicle due to jam on one side was driven on wrong side.
6.7 The next witness is PW12 Ct. Bhupender who, as per his testimony, was posted at PS Khajuri Khas on 24.02.2020 and since about 09.00a.m, was on patrolling duty with SHO. He deposed that other staff namely SI Bhisham Rana, Ct. Kalik, HC Rahul, HC Avneesh and some others were also on this duty with them. They were patrolling in official gypsy being driven by Ct. Kalik and during their patrolling, they found a mob on Karawal Nagar Road towards the side of Chand Bagh. The mob was standing at the corner of adjoining galis of this road and at around 12 p.m, when police party was present near police post, situated near a mazar on Karawal Nagar Road, the mob started pelting stones upon them. This mob of around 1000-1200 FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 40 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:50:06 +0300 persons, being armed lathi, danda, stones etc., set fire to the handcarts standing on the side of F Block, Khajuri Khas on the service road as well as on the main Karawal Nagar road. The police fired tear gas shells to disperse the mob. Four persons from that mob, who were pelting stones, were apprehended by police staff and on inquiry, they disclosed their names as Mustaqueem, Sarfaraz, Ikram and A (CCL). Police staff including him had also received injuries in the pelting of stones. All the injured police officials were taken to JPC Hospital where their MLCs were prepared. He deposed that he could identify the rioters which were apprehended by police and correctly identified Mustaqueem and Ikram by taking their names however he wrongly identified Gulfam as Sarfaraz.
6.7.1 He was cross examined by ld. SPP and deposed that as he did not remember, he could not admit or deny that the person who had been identified by him as Sarfaraz was in fact Gulfam. He deposed that he did not remember due to lapse of time. 6.7.2 During his cross examination on behalf of accused Mustaqueem, Ikram, Saddam, Sarfaraz and Firoz, he deposed that he was not a witness in any other riot case. That morning they had travelled from Police Station to Khajuri Chowk and then to Bhajanpura Chowk. SHO was sitting on front seat and he was on back seat. Initially they had reached Karawal Nagar at 10.30 a.m and then after patrolling again reached there at about 12.00 p.m. At the time of FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 41 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:50:14 +0300 pelting stones, the gypsy was near police post but he did not remember towards which direction the head light of gypsy was facing. He had gone to JPC Hospital in gypsy and in that gypsy, SHO, Ct. Kalik, Bhisham Rana and some other staff had also travelled to JPC Hospital. It could be at around 07.30 p.m that they had left for JPC Hospital and they had travelled on the wrong side of the road. They would have reached the hospital at around 08.00 p.m and remained there till 10- 10.30 p.m. His MLC was prepared at around 9.30 p.m because there was huge rush in the hospital. He did not remember putting thumb impression or signing on MLC. While leaving the police station, SHO made DD entry but he did not see that entry. In his presence, no document of arrest of four apprehended persons was prepared at the spot. On 24.02.2020, he might have returned to Police Station at 11.00 p.m and in Police Station also, no arrest memo of apprehended rioters was prepared in his presence. He denied that he was not a part of the police team on 24.02.2020 or that no rioter was apprehended from the spot or that he had identified three persons on the basis of photographs and on being tutored by IO.
6.8 The next witness is PW13 HC Chander Pratap. He deposed that on 24.02.2020, he was also on duty at Main Karawal Nagar alongwith SHO, SI Bhisham, HC Avneesh, HC Rahul and other officials. There was a mob on the streets on both sides of road and SHO through the mike made announcement asking the mob to go back FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 42 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:50:24 +0300 to their houses. Despite SHO's announcement, the mob did not relent and remained on streets. Its strength kept increasing with passage of time. At around 12.00 p.m, they had reached police booth at Bhajanpura Chowk. An agitation against CAA/NRC was going on at the side of Chand Bagh. The mob of agitators started pelting stones on police team. A mob also came from adjacent roads from the side of A and B Block of Chand Bagh and that mob also started pelting stones on them. The mob on Karawal Nagar road side was armed with danda, lathi and bottles. The bottles were being lit and thrown whereafter they burst into fire. The mob set ablaze carts, vehicles and properties.
Outer force joined them and thereafter, tear gas shells were fired by police force. With the help of outer force, he along with SHO, SI Bhisham Rana had apprehended four persons. On interrogating, they disclosed their names as Mustaqueem, Sarfaraz, Ikram and A (CCL). Mustaqueem was in front of the mob while pelting of stones. Due to pelting of stones, some police staff including him, SHO, SI Bhisham Rana, HC Avneesh, Ct. Sandeep, Ct. Amit and some others had received injuries. Along with the four accused persons, injured police officials were taken to JPC Hospital where they were examined and their MLCs were prepared. After Medical examination accused were taken to PS and their custody was handed to duty officer and the police party again left for Bhajanpura Chowk. He correctly identified accused Mustaqueem, Sarfaraz and Ikram in the court.
FIR No. 98/20PS Khajuri Khas 43 of 97 Digitally
signed by
PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.05.18
10:50:31
+0300
6.8.1 During his cross examination, he deposed that he had left
Police Station at around 9-9.30 a.m and at around 12 p.m while SHO was making announcement, they had reached Bhajanpura Chowk. It was at around 10.30/11.00 p.m that they had reached PS. Right from the time leaving PS in morning uptill coming back to PS with accused, he remained along with aforesaid police officials. They might have reached JPC Hospital at around 7.30 p.m. His signatures were not taken on his MLC. He might have informed abut his belt and PIS number to the doctor. There was a lot of rush and emergency ward was filled with persons. He denied that he was not injured or that he was not was a part of police team or that he had not apprehended any person. He did not remember whether he had stated to IO that he was one of the person who had apprehended accused and denied that he was giving evasive reply or that he had not given any such statement. He deposed that he had not mentioned to IO that Mustaqueem was in front of mob and that they had handed over custody of 04 accused to DO whereafter they left for Bhajanpura Chowk. No document of handing over of custody of accused to DO was prepared. Between 24.02.2020 to 04.03.2020, he met SHO and SI Vipin and volunteered, that every one was busy during this period. He admitted that during this period, he neither offered to give his statement nor the IO sought to record his statement.
6.8.2 During his cross examination on behalf of Sarfarz and
FIR No. 98/20
PS Khajuri Khas 44 of 97
Digitally
signed by
PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.05.18
10:50:40
+0300
Firoz, he deposed that at Bhajanpura Chowk, he had seen the vehicles of police which included gypsy of SHO, ERV and one vehicle of outer force parked on Wazirabad Road and Bhajanpura Chowk. The gypsy was parked on wrong side facing Khajuri Chowk. He deposed that immediately on reaching Bhajanpura, he de-boarded the gypsy of SHO and got onto the road. Thereafter, gypsy moved towards Khajuri Chowk and parked at a distance of 15-20 meters. He did not remember which of the accused was apprehended by which police official. 6.8.3 He was re-examined by ld. SPP and shown his MLC and deposed that in his MLC, instead of Chander Pratap his name had been mentioned as Chander Prakash. He had pointed this error to doctor but doctor did not pay any attention. 6.8.4 He was again cross examined on behalf of accused and he deposed that he did not inform IO that his name was wrongly mentioned in MLC, he did not move if any application before his department or hospital to intimate the said error. He denied that he had mentioned about the error in his name on subsequent tutoring of the IO.
6.9 PW 14 is HC Sandeep. He deposed that on 24.02.2020, he was posted as Constable in PS Khajuri Khas and at around 9.30/10.00 a.m, he accompanied Insp. Pawan Kumar, SI Bhisham Rana, HC Avneesh, HC Rahul, HC Chander Pratap, Ct. Vikram and some other police staff with driver Ct. Kalik to Karawal Nagar Road FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 45 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:50:48 +0300 in two official vehicles. There were a number of people in the streets of Khajuri Khas and Chand Bagh that were joining main Karawal Nagar Road. The SHO kept making announcements through the mike of his gypsy that section 144 Cr.P.C was imposed and people should not assemble and should return to their homes. The mob however kept growing and at around 12.00 p.m, police party reached Bhajanpura Chowk near which protest against CAA/NRC was going on. The protesters started pelting stones on the police and seeing this, the mob from A & B Block of Chand Bagh and Karawal Nagar Road also started pelting stones. The mob vandalized and set ablaze carts and vehicles on the service road of F Block and also set fire to police booth. A part of outer force reached and police fired tear gas shells to control the mob. By the evening, the police had apprehended four of the rioters. One of these rioters, who later disclosed his name as Mustaqueem, was apprehended by him. The others had introduced themselves as Sarfaraz, Ikram and A (CCL). During the stone pelting, he and the police officials sustained injuries. The accused and police officials went to JPC Hospital where their MLCs were prepared. Thereafter, they returned to the police station and after handing the custody of accused to staff in police station, they again returned to Bhajanpura Chowk. He correctly identified accused Sarfaraz, Ikram and Mustaqueem.
6.9.1 During his cross examination, he deposed that from JPC
FIR No. 98/20
PS Khajuri Khas 46 of 97
Digitally
signed by
PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.05.18
10:50:54
+0300
Hospital, they reached PS Khajuri Khas at around 10/10.30 p.m and would have stayed there for around 10-15 minutes. During this time, no document was prepared in his presence. Accused were sitting in the vehicle wherein he was sitting and the vehicle was being driven by Ct.
Kalik. Whenever there was an assembly of persons, SHO would take a halt and make announcements as stated by him in his examination in chief otherwise, the vehicle was moving in a slow pace during the time when the announcement was being made. However, he could not tell the exact number of halts taken by SHO or the time period of such halts. Both the vehicles were parked on main Wazirabad road at a distance of 20-30 meters from their location and their position was near police both Bhajanpura Chowk. Ct. Kalik remained in his vehicle. He further deposed that he had not signed over his MLC and he had informed his belt number to doctor but he did not remember if it was mentioned in the MLC. He denied that he was not a part of police team on 24.02.2020 or that none was apprehended in his presence or that it was on being tutored by IO that he had identified accused or that he had not seen any incident as deposed by him or that neither had he visited JPC Hospital nor his MLC was prepared. 6.10 PW15 is Ct. Amit. He was also posted in PS Khajuri Khas on 24.02.2020. He deposed that he, alongwith other staff, had accompanied SHO Insp. Pawan for law and order duty on account of protest against CAA/NRC. They had gone to main Karawal Nagar FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 47 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:51:01 +0300 road and in the streets on both the sides of Karawal Nagar Road, in Chand Bagh, Khajuri Khas and F Block had gatherings of people. Wherever these gatherings were found, they would disembark from gypsy and ask people to go back to their homes. Sometimes these people would go back and when they reached near Bhajanpura Police Post, where there was protest site, the protesters started pelting stones on them. Hearing that noise, persons from streets also came on main Karawal Nagar road and started pelting stones. Some of these persons were armed with dandas, glass bottles etc. The mob set ablaze hand carts, shops etc. in F Block as well as the Bhajanpura Police post. The outer force fired tear gas shells upon the mob and the police officers apprehended four persons from that mob who were made to sit in police gypsy. Some police men including him had sustained injuries. He had sustained injuries on both his hands and right leg. The SHO and the injured police staff along with four apprehended persons went to JPC Hospital where their medical examination was conducted. From the hospital, they returned to PS and handed the custody of four persons to staff whereafter they returned to main Karawal Nagar Road. He deposed that he had seen those apprehended persons who were part of the said mob and could identify them in the court. He had come to know their names when they were in hospital and their names were Mustaqueem, Ikrar, Sarfaraz and A (CCL). He pointed towards accused Ikram and Sarfaraz. He had also stated was fourth person was FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 48 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:51:09 +0300 not in the court or in VC but Mustaqueem was appearing through VC. 6.10.1 He was cross examined by ld. SPP and stated that due to confusion, he stated the name of accused Ikram as Ikrar. 6.10.2 During his cross examination on behalf of accused Mustaqueem, Ikram, Sarfaraz and Firoz, he deposed that he did not know if there was any shop by the name of Brand Hub in beat no. 7.
He further deposed that on 24.02.2020, SHO did not go to have any meeting with any senior officer. The first announcement of 144 Cr.P.C would have been made by SHO at around 10/10.15 a.m. Many times for making the announcement, they had de-boarded but there was no counting of the number of times when they would have de- boarded. They would have reached Bhajanpura chowk at around 12/12.15 p.m. The vehicle of outer force was standing on main Wazirabad road and their vehicle was standing behind it. When they returned to Police Station from hospital, SI Bhisham Rana, HC Avneesh, HC Rahul, Ct. Kalik, Ct. Chander Pratap were with him and they would have reached at around 10-10.15 p.m. They stayed there for around 15-20 minutes. He had not informed his PIS or belt number to doctor but had put his thumb impression on MLC. He further deposed that in his statement given to SI Vipin, he had stated that SHO had announced about section 144 Cr.P.C being in operation. His attention was drawn to his statement u/s 161 dated 05.03.2020. He admitted that this was the same statement which was given to SI Vipin FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 49 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:51:16 +0300 and in that statement, it was not mentioned that SHO had announced about section 144 Cr.P.C being in operation. In his presence, no documents were prepared after apprehension of four accused. He admitted that in hospital as well as in PS, no documents of arrest of four accused were prepared in his presence He further deposed that he had informed SI Vipin that custody of four accused were handed to other staff in PS. He was shown his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C whereafter he stated that this fact was not specifically mentioned. He denied that no one was apprehended by police or that these accused were subsequently shown to him by IO in PS or that their names were tutored to him by the IO or that his medical examination was not conducted on 24.02.2020.
6.11 The next eye witness is PW20 SI Vipin Teotia. He was also the initial IO of the case. He deposed that on 24.02.2020, he was assigned at duty at Khajuri Chowk where he reached. After sometime, SHO and other staff arrived at Khajuri Chowk and he was instructed to reach F Block Khajuri Khas. He walked to that place. Streets on both the sides of Main Karawal Nagar were filled with people. SHO made announcement of section 144 Cr.P.C being in operation and ask people to go to their homes. While making the announcement, SHO was moving ahead. At around 12 -12.30 p.m, SHO returned. At that time, the mob which had gathered in the area of PS Dayalpur in protest against CAA/NRC, started pelting stones on them and the mob FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 50 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:51:26 +0300 which gathered at A & B Block Chand Bagh also started pelting stones. Both the crowds then merged and set fire to vehicles, wheelbarrows, shops in the area of F Block. The police lodged tear gas shells and incident was being recorded by a private photographer who was summoned by the SHO. Police officials injured in the incident and police managed to apprehend four persons at the spot.
The names of those persons were found as Sarfaraz, Ikram, Mustaqueem and A. Next day, on the FIR being registered, investigation was assigned to him and he prepared site plan (Ex.PW20/1) at the instance of Ct. Kalik, collected some stones lying on road in plastic sac, sealed with the seal of VKT and seized them vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. The four apprehended persons were arrested by him. Arrest memo and personal search memo of Ikram was Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B and those of Mustaqueem were already Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D. The arrest memo and personal search of Sarfaraz had been admitted as Ex.A-8 and Ex.A-9. On 05.03.2020, he examined HC Rahul who informed him that one Firoz was a member of stone pelting mob whereafter, at F Block Khajuri Khas, on the identification of HC Rahul, he apprehended accused Firoz. On the disclosure statement of Firoz, accused Shoaib Alam, Javed, Anas and Gulfam were arrested at his instance. He correctly identified Firoz, Ikram. Sarfaraz and Mustaqueem in the court.
6.11.1 With regard to incident in question, during his cross
FIR No. 98/20
PS Khajuri Khas 51 of 97
Digitally
signed by
PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.05.18
10:51:33
+0300
examination, he deposed that on 24.02.2020, no document regarding the four persons who had been apprehended at spot were prepared in his presence. On that day, he had left PS at around 8.30-9.00 a.m and SHO might have arrived PS at around 9.30 a.m. Ct. Kalik was the driver of SHO. He did not recall seeing any injuries on Ct. Kalik on that day. He did not see or collect any entry with regard to Ct. Rahul which could have been recorded on 24.02.2020. He also did not collect any entry that proclamation u/s 144 Cr.P.C had been received in Police Station. He deposed that he had recorded statements of witnesses verbatim of what was stated to him and denied creating these statements by copying one statement. He did not recall whether any of the witnesses had told him about section 144 Cr.P.C being announced. He denied that none of the witnesses told about 144 Cr.P.C because no such announcement was made. He denied that no one got injured or was taken to hospital on that day. 6.12 PW22 is HC Rahul. He deposed that on 24.02.2020, he was posted as head constable in PS Khajuri Khas and on that day, he was assigned duty at Bhajanpura chowk also known as F Block Khajuri Khas and it was his beat. There was a lot of crowd on main Wazirabad Road and Main Karawal Nagar Road. The crowd was also gathering on inner streets of Chand Bagh and Khajuri Khas. At around 12-1.00 p.m crowd became agitating and aggressive, started throwing stones, ransacking the area and indulged in arson. At around 2.00 p.m, FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 52 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:51:40 +0300 they managed to apprehend four of the rioters and thereafter, SHO sent those persons in custody to the Police Station. One of those persons was already known to him as his father was tea seller and that person was Firoz. He again said that Firoz was not apprehended from spot on that day. On inquiry, these persons had disclosed their names as Mustaqueem, Sarfaraz, and A (CCL). The fourth could have been Mukeem but he was not sure about it. In response to a court query, he deposed that he had stated about Firoz because he had seen him as a part of rioting mob and had immediately identified him but Firoz could not be apprehended on that day. He then recalled that the name of fourth person was Ikram and stated that he was absolutely sure about it. He correctly identified accused Sarfaraz and Ikram by their names and also correctly identified accused Mustaquem. He further deposed that he and other police staff had received injuries and he had gone to Hospital for medical examination. On 05.03.2020. SI Vipin showed him a video footage and in that footage, he identified Firoz s/o Babuddin whereafter he, SI Vipin and Ct. Sachin went to the house of Firoz wherefrom he was apprehended and then arrested. On 29.06.2020, SI Sandeep showed him a video footage in which he identified Gulfam. They had gone to the house of Gulfam, apprehended him, brought him to PS and he was arrested vide memo Ex.PW22/1 and his personal search memo was Ex.PW22/2. He correctly identified Gulfam. On 19.02.2021, SI Sandep showed him FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 53 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:51:49 +0300 screenshot of footage and he identified Saddam. They went to the house of Saddam, apprehended him and arrested him in this case. He correctly identified Saddam @ Ikrar.
6.12.1 During his cross examination on behalf Ikram, Mustaqueem, Sarfaraz and Firoz, he deposed that on 24.02.2020, he had remained at Bhajanpura Chowk till around 12/1.00 a.m on 25.02.2020. He did not remember the exact time when they reached hospital on 24.02.2020 but they had left at around 8 p.m to go to the hospital. He did not remember if he had signed any document in hospital and in response to court query, he deposed that after the hospital, he had returned to Bhajanpura Chowk for his duty. He did not remember the names of police personnel who had returned from Hospital to Bhajanpura chowk but stated that they had travelled in government gypsy. Before 05.03.2020, he had informed SHO that Firoz had been identified by him. He denied that he was not a part of investigation or that none had been arrested in his presence or that he had falsely identified the accused at the instance of IO. 6.12.2 During his cross examination on behalf of accused Saddam @ Ikrar, he deposed that he did not remember whether prior to 19.02.2021, he had informed the IO or any other officer that Saddam was one of the rioters. He knew Saddam as he was resident of his beat but he did not know his address or had told his address to the IO. He denied that he did know Saddam or that at the instance of IO, FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 54 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:51:57 +0300 he had identified him in the court.
6.12.3 During the cross examination on behalf of Gulfam he deposed that he came to know about Gulfam after making inquiries in his beat and prior to 24.02.2020, he did not know Gulfam by his name.
He had informed the SHO that he could identify some of the people who were involved in rioting on 24.02.2020 but did not know whether the SHO recorded this fact in writing. On 24.02.2020, he had seen Gulfam in the area of police booth which is situated at main Wazirabad Road and main Karawal Nagar road and is near Bhajanpura Chowk. Gulfam was a part of the crowd which sometimes advanced and sometimes retreated and he had seen Gulfam in the video which was recorded by private photographer on 24.02.2020. He stated that he could identify Gulfam in that video. At that stage, DVD Ex.PW17/Article-1 was played and at 46:15, he identified one boy in black jeans/ trousers and black and orange swat shirt who seemed to be pelting stones as Gulfam. He denied that the person whom he identified in DVD was not Gulfam @ Jubair. 6.13 PW25 is Insp. Pawan Kumar. He was SHO of PS Khajuri Khas on 24.02.2020. He deposed that on that day at around 8.00 a.m, he along with his staff, had left Police Station in his official vehicle for patrolling in the area as well as for attending a meeting in the office of DCP, North East. First he went to the office of DCP, North East and after the meeting returned to PS, briefed his staff and then FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 55 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:52:05 +0300 left PS for patrolling in the area. At around 10.00 a.m, he reached Bhajanpura Chowk and thereafter, while patrolling he proceeded towards Karawal Nagar via Sherpur Chowk. On the one side of the road, was F Block Khajuri Khas and on the other side was Chand Bagh area. Public in large numbers had gathered outside the galis on both the sides of the road and on seeing this, he took out loud hailer and repeatedly made announcements that these gatherings were unlawful and asked them go to back to their houses. However, the gatherings did not disperse and while making announcement, he reached Sherpur chowk and then started to return. At around 12.00 p.m, when he had just reached Bhajanpura Chowk, he noticed a chaos at the protest site and people started pelting stones. The people from the area of Chand Bagh and from the area of Khajuri Khas descended on the road. The crowd from F Block was diagonal to him and one from Chand Bagh was straight in front of him. Both these crowds started pelting stones. Reinforcement in the form of CRPF arrived. Tear gas shells were lobbed on to the crowd. Police positioned itself behind the barricades. However the crowd kept pelting stones but did not advance. This continued for about 5-5.30 p.m. At around 05.30 p.m, more reinforcement arrived and they managed to nab four of the rioters. He along with his staff received some injuries from the stones which were pelted by the mob. The injuries were received on upper part of the body because lower parts were protected by barricades.FIR No. 98/20
PS Khajuri Khas 56 of 97
Digitally
signed by
PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.05.18
10:52:17
+0300
Thereafter, he alongwith the members of his staff who were injured and the four who were apprehended reached JPC Hospital where they were medically examined. On return to Police Station, four persons were handed over to staff in police station and then they returned to the area of his patrolling. The mob during the riot had set fire to the vehicles of public and a shop by the name of Aggarwal Sweets as well as police booth. He deposed that he could identify the four persons who were apprehended during rioting of 24.02.2020. He correctly identified Ikram, Safaraz and Mustaqueem by name and stated that fourth one was not in the court or on VC.
6.13.1 During his cross examination, he deposed that he alone had gone to attend the meeting in his official vehicle and rest of the staff whose departure was recorded in DD No. 13B remained at PS awaiting his instructions. After meeting with the DCP, he had met Ct.
Sandeep for the first time at Police Station. He did not remember and could not tell whether there was any point of time when there was no duty officer in PS and volunteered that duty officer was always there. He admitted that as per rules, when a person is arrested, a DD entry in this regard is made and the names of arrested persons are displayed on notice board. On 24.02.2020, there was no DD entry reflecting the arrest of the four persons who according to him had been apprehended on that day. He then volunteered that these persons were arrested on 25.02.2020 and thus DD was recorded on 25.02.2.2020. The FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 57 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:52:24 +0300 documentary evidence that they were arrested on 24.02.2020 is in the form of their MLCs when they were taken to JPC Hospital and alongwith them, MLCs of injured staff were also prepared. In response to a specific question whether any record was maintained in the Police Station of the persons who had been apprehended and not arrested but had been kept in lock up, he answered, that without arrest no one is put in the lock up. On 25.02.202 and 26.02.2020, no regular morning briefings could be held. However, he had held a general briefing on 27.02.2020 where he had issued directions that if anyone had any information regarding riots, that person should meet the IO of the case and provide the information. Prior to 24.04.2020, he had verbally informed the IO that he had recorded video but told the IO that as he was busy in aftermath of riots, he would hand over the video to IO the moment he found time. He further deposed that on the day of incident, there were no street vendors however there were carts of fruit sellers near the booth. FIR were registered with regard to rioting and arson of shops at F Block. It had not come to his knowledge that Safaraz had a shop by the name of Brand Hub and that it was set afire. He denied that when on 25.02.2020, Sarfaraz reached Police Station with complaint of burning of his shop, he was apprehended and implicated in this case. He further deposed that he did not remember if he had signed on his MLC. He denied that his MLC did not bear his signatures because it was not prepared on that day. He further deposed FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 58 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:52:32 +0300 that no documentation was done at that place where these four persons were apprehended. He denied that as he had not recorded any video, the fact of such recording is not mentioned in his statement. He denied that neither had he gone to Bhajanpura Chowk on 24.02.2020 nor had he apprehended Sarfaraz, Mustaqueem and Ikram on that day. 6.14 I have considered the rival contentions, carefully evaluated the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record. 6.15 The defence has argued that the witnesses of police are planted witnesses because there are serious contradictions between their testimonies. However, it had been argued by ld. SPP that these are minor variations which would necessarily come in the testimonies of truthful witnesses. Therefore, it is necessary to first see the legal propositions on this issue.
6.16 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP v. Naresh & Ors., 2011 (4) SCC 324, quoting the judgment of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719, has held as under:
23. Evidence of injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law.
The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailants go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 59 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:52:39 +0300 should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
6.17 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of UP v. Naresh & Ors. (Supra) while quoting the judgment of State Represented by Inspector of Police v. Saravanan and Anr, AIR 2009 SC 152 has held as under:
25. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence.
Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. ''Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.'' Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/ materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discarded.
6.18 It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of MP, Crl. Appeal No. 660 of 2008 dt. 27.7.2010, (Indian Kanoon . org/doc/1732998) as under :
FIR No. 98/20PS Khajuri Khas 60 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:52:51 +0300
It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and shifting the evidence to separate truth from untruth , exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses (vide Sohrab & Anr. Vs. The State of M.P. AIR 1972 SC 2020; Bharwada Bhogini Bhai Hirji Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753; Prithu @ Prithi Chand & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009 11 SCC 588; and State of UP Vs. Santosh Kumar & Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 626).
6.19 Similarly, in Raju Vs. State (Criminal Appeal No.1221/2012, decided on 11.10.2013) it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as under :
minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution, should not be made a ground for the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. The court, after going through the entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses.
6.20 Further, Supreme Court in Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643 had held as under:-
18. To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh and Lehna v. State of Haryana. Stress was laid by the accused- appellants on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw out entire prosecution case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 61 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:53:02 +0300 prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called 'a mandatory rule of evidence'. (See Nisar Alli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh). Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a Court to differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurucharan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab). The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead- stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be shifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab s/o Beli Nayata and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh) and Ugar Ahir and Ors. v. The State of FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 62 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:53:10 +0300 Bihar. An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh) and Balaka Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab. As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki, normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects were highlighted recently in Krishna Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar. Accusations have been clearly established against accused-appellants in the case at hand. The Courts below have categorically indicated the distinguishing features in evidence so far as acquitted and convicted accused are concerned.
19. As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram the over-insistence on witnesses having no relation with the victims often results in criminal justice going away. When any incident happens in a dwelling house or nearby the most natural witnesses would be the inmates of that house. It would be unpragmatic to ignore such natural witnesses and insist on outsiders who would not have even seen any thing. If the Court has discerned from the evidence or even from the investigation records that some other independent person has witnessed any event connecting the incident in question then there is justification for making adverse comments against non- examination of such person as prosecution witness. Otherwise, merely on surmises the Court should not castigate a prosecution for not examining other persons of the locality as prosecution witnesses. Prosecution can be expected to examine only those who have witnessed the events and not those FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 63 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:53:17 +0300 who have not seen it though the neighbourhood may be replete with other residents also.
6.21 It is in the light of these legal principles that the testimonies of these witnesses are to be analyzed and evaluated. A wholistic consideration of oral evidence reflects that all the eye witnesses, whose testimonies have been reproduced earlier, have been consistent in stating that a protest site had been set up where protesters were agitating against CAA/NRC. They have uniformly deposed that the said site was situated near Bhajan Pura Chowk, in the vicinity of the Bhajan Pura police post and a mazar. These witnesses have also consistently stated that the rioting started at around 12:00 noon. Their testimonies corroborate each other on the material aspect that it was initially the crowd present at the protest site which started pelting stones at the police, and immediately thereafter, a mob from A and B Block of Chand Bagh descended upon the main road and also began stone pelting.
6.22 These witnesses have further remained consistent regarding the presence of paramilitary personnel and the assistance rendered by them, though some witnesses referred to the force as "outer force" while others identified it as RAF. They have also consistently deposed that tear gas shells were fired in an attempt to control the mob and that, with the assistance of the paramilitary forces, the situation was ultimately brought under control by the evening.FIR No. 98/20
PS Khajuri Khas 64 of 97
Digitally
signed by
PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.05.18
10:53:24
+0300
6.23 It has also come consistently in the testimonies of these
witnesses that four rioters were apprehended by the police from the spot. Thereafter, since several police personnel had sustained injuries, the SHO took the injured policemen as well as the apprehended persons to JPC Hospital. All these witnesses have deposed about their examination at JPC Hospital and thereafter returning to the police station, leaving the apprehended persons there, and again proceeding for duty at Bhajan Pura Chowk. These witnesses have also correctly stated the names of the persons apprehended from the spot and have duly identified them during the course of their depositions before the Court.
6.24 All these witnesses were cross-examined at length.
Though suggestions were put to them that they were not present at the spot at the time of the incident, or that no one had been apprehended in their presence or taken to the hospital, no material contradiction could be elicited by the defence on these material aspects so as to lend credence to such suggestions. On the contrary, during their cross examination, when asked, they had been consistent about the movements and parking of official vehicles, as well as the fact, that while going to JPC Hospital, the vehicles had to be driven on the wrong side of the road. Further, the defence also did not lead any evidence to substantiate the assertions sought to be introduced through such suggestions made during cross-examination.
FIR No. 98/20PS Khajuri Khas 65 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:53:31 +0300 6.25 The fact that on 24.02.2020, at around 12:00 noon, a huge
mob had gathered at Bhajan Pura Chowk and had started pelting stones at the police and RAF also stands corroborated from the testimony of an independent public witness, namely PW2 Sanchit Khanna, who is a photojournalist. On that day, his motorcycle, which had been parked near Bhajan Pura Chowk, was burnt by the rioters, regarding which he lodged a complaint Ex. PW2/1. 6.26 As per his testimony, he had been sent by his superiors to take photographs of a protest which was stated to be going on at Bhajan Pura Chowk. He reached there at around 12:30 PM and parked his motorcycle near Chand Baba Mazar, close to the police post. He thereafter positioned himself at a vantage point on the terrace of a nearby property. From there, he saw a mob of around 300 persons coming from the Karawal Nagar side. At that time, police force as well as RAF personnel were already present at Bhajan Pura Chowk. According to him, the said mob started pelting stones at the police team.
6.27 PW2 was cross-examined at length. However, on this material aspect, nothing could be elicited in his cross-examination which would discredit this part of his testimony. His testimony, therefore, provides independent corroboration to the version put forth by the police witnesses on the following material particulars:
a) That there existed a police booth and a mazar at Bhajan Pura FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 66 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:53:40 +0300 Chowk;
b) That at around 12:30 PM on 24.02.2020, police personnel and RAF were present at Bhajan Pura Chowk; and
c) That a huge mob of around 300 persons came from the Karawal Nagar side and started pelting stones and indulging in vandalism and arson.
6.28 This brings me to the site plan prepared by the first IO, SI Vipin, who appeared as PW20. Bereft of unnecessary details, suffice it to state that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW20/1. The relevant portion of his cross-examination concerning the said site plan is reproduced as under:
6. .........The majaar was around 4-5 steps away from the police booth at F block. I needed not to ask anyone about A or B block of Chand Bagh, because I knew about this fact as I had been posted in the area since 2019.
7. I cannot explain as to why I had not mentioned the majaar in the site plan Ex.PW20/1. It is wrong to suggest that police booth of F block is not situated where I had shown, whereas it is somewhere around at point X as marked in circle today.
8. Q: I put it to you that the place which you had shown in site plan PW20/1 is F block, Bhajanpura, is not F block, Bhajanpura.
What do you have to say?
A: The place is F block and the area is called Bhajanpura chowk and i.e. why I had so mentioned.
9. Same is my explanation to the question that why I had stated in my statement that the place was F block, Khajuri Khas and not F block, Bhajanpura. It is correct that the place where I had shown the police booth is Bhajanpura chowk. It is wrong to suggest that there are incorrections in my site plan as I had not visited that place. It is wrong to suggest that the place where I had shown Chand Bagh AB block in the site plan, is infact the place where C and D block of Chand Bagh is situated.
FIR No. 98/20PS Khajuri Khas 67 of 97
Digitally
signed by
PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.05.18
10:53:50
+0300
6.29 A bare perusal of the cross-examination shows that the
primary endeavour of the defence was to challenge the correctness of the site plan insofar as it depicted the police booth at Bhajan Pura and insofar as it allegedly showed C and D Block, Chand Bagh, as A and B Block, Chand Bagh. However, significantly, there was no challenge to the remaining portions of the site plan. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the correctness of the site plan insofar as it depicts the main Karawal Nagar Road, the road leading to Bhajan Pura Police Station, the respective positions of the mobs, and the position of the police party.
6.30 The location of the road leading towards Bhajan Pura Police Station assumes importance because it is near this place that PW2 has stated that he had positioned himself on the terrace of a property. Likewise, the location of Karawal Nagar Road is also material because, according to PW2, the mob had come from that direction and had started pelting stones at the police. 6.31 It is important to note that the testimony of PW2 to the effect that the mob came from the Karawal Nagar side and started pelting stones at the police has gone completely unrebutted. If that be so, then this part of the testimony of PW2, when read along with the site plan Ex. PW20/1, fully corroborates the testimony of PW25 wherein he stated that during the assault, the crowd from F Block was positioned diagonally to him while the crowd from Chand Bagh was FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 68 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:53:57 +0300 directly in front of him.
6.32 Thus, apart from lending general corroboration to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the manner in which the events unfolded, PW2 also provides corroboration to PW25 on a very specific and material aspect of his testimony concerning the positioning and movement of the mobs during the incident. 6.33 However during the course of final arguments, ld.
counsels for accused have argued that there are contradicting stands of witnesses on some other aspects. It has been contended that these are not mere variances on minor details but, if taken together they shall have cumulative effect of creating a dent in to the credibility of the police witnesses and establishing that these were in fact, planted witnesses. They have divided these contradictions under following heads:
a) Contradictions about departure from PS to spot
b) In depositions about the announcement of 144 Cr.P.C
c) Timing of apprehension and arrest and inconsistencies therein
d) Inconsistent timeline of departure from spot to JPC Hospital.
e) Irregularities in MLCs
f) Contradictions in compositions of police teams.
(a) Contradictions regarding departure from PS to the Spot and
(f) Contradictions in composition of police teams FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 69 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:54:05 +0300
7.1 Both these points are being considered together because the arguments advanced, as earlier reproduced in detail, are overlapping and in effect follow the same line. 7.2 On behalf of the accused, two departures entries, though not proved by the prosecution but filed with the charge sheet, have been brought to my notice. These are DD No. 13B and DD No. 26B both dated 24.02.2020.
7.3 In the light of these DD entries, they have challenged the credibility of witnesses because the time of departure recorded in these entries and as stated by the witnesses in their testimonies is different.
7.4 As per DD No. 13B, the witnesses who had left with PW25 that day were PW1 Ct. Kalik, PW14 HC Sandeep and PW15 HC Amit.
7.5 PW1 Ct. Kalik opens his deposition by stating that on 24.02.2020, he was the driver of SHO of PS Khajuri Khas and at around 10.00 a.m, he drove SHO and other staff to main Karawal Nagar Road.
7.6 PW14 HC Sandeep, who was a constable on 24.02.2020, had stated that on that day at around 9.30/10.00 a.m, he had accompanied SHO and others with driver Kalik to Karawal Nagar road in two official vehicles.
7.7 PW15 HC Amit, who was a constable on 24.02.2020, had FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 70 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:54:13 +0300
stated that on that day, he had come to PS at around 08.30 a.m and he alongwith other staff had accompanied SHO Insp. Pawan for law and order duty on account of protest against CAA/NRC. 7.8 However, it is to be seen that PW25, during his examination in chief had stated that on that day, first he had gone to office of DCP, NE (Beta 1 in DD No. 13B), attended the meeting and returned to the police station. On return to the Police station, he briefed the staff and left the Police Station for patrolling the area and it was at around 10.00 a.m that he reached Bhajanpura Chowk. During his cross examination, a clarification was sought from him about what was recorded in DD No. 13B and he stated that he alone had gone to attend meeting in his official vehicle. The rest of staff, whose departure had been recorded in DD No. 13B, remained at the police station awaiting his instructions after the meeting. 7.9 This part of the testimony of the witness not only clarified the entry in DD No. 13B but also remained unrebutted. At the same time, on the same day a consolidated departure entry anticipating the events of day had been lodged by PW25 and this explains why PW14 and PW15 did not state about leaving the Police Station at around 08.10 a.m with PW25.
7.10 Coming onto the testimony of PW1, I find that the witness has deposed about the significant incidents witnessed by him and that is why he stated that at around 10 a.m, he drove SHO and FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 71 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:54:21 +0300 other staff to Karawal Nagar Road. PW25 stated that it is at the same time that he reached Karawal Nagar Road. 7.11 Thus, I do not find that any of witnesses whose departure recorded in DD No. 13B had contradicted PW25 and PW25 during his cross examination had sufficiently explained these variations. 7.12 DD No. 26B which has been marked as Ex.C-1 by me today records that PW3 SI Bhisham Rana, PW4 HC Vikram, PW5 HC Avnish and PW13 HC Chander Pratap, had departed from the police station at 11.05 a.m on 24.02.2020. It is not recorded that they had accompanied the SHO or had proceeded in any official vehicle.
However, while testifying in the court, they had deposed about leaving the police station at about 9.00 a.m in official vehicle. 7.13 Thus, the time of departure from the police station, as stated by them, is belied from the official record, and it can be accepted that they have been found to be untruthful on this account. However, the question is, can on the account of them being untruthful about the time of departure from the police station, a conclusion be drawn that they are not credible in every aspect of their testimony and their testimonies are to be discarded as whole? 7.14 The answer to this question, in my opinion, has to be negative. I say so for two reasons. The first is, that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an acceptable principal of law of evidence in India. On the contrary, again, Hon'ble Apex court has held that the FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 72 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:54:29 +0300 testimony of a witness has to be evaluated as a whole, and even if a witness has been found to be lying on one aspect of his testimony, conviction can still be based on the remaining testimony of such witness if the remaining part is found to be reliable and sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Reliance is placed upon the judgment upon Supreme Court in Sucha Singh (supra) and Naresh (supra). 7.15 Secondly, following the above said legal preposition, it has to be kept in mind that as per the prosecution, the riot had started at 12.00 p.m, and the accused were apprehended at around 6.00 p.m. 7.16 That being the case, even if the departure of these witnesses from the police station is accepted to be of 11.00 a.m, it does not completely erode the credibility of their testimony because it could have only happened and probability of them being planted witnesses could only have arisen, if their departure to DD No. 26B or otherwise would have been proved to be of a time that would make their presence at the spot, impossible or at the least highly improbable.
The departure of these witnesses, even if it is accepted to be of 11:05 a.m, certainly would not make their presence at the spot at 12.00 p.m or 6.00 p.m, either impossible or improbable.
(b) Contradiction in depositions regarding announcement of Section 144 Cr.P.C 8.1 The fact that section 144 Cr.P.C had been imposed in the area of District North East stands proved from the order of DCP, FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 73 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:54:36 +0300 North East dated 24.02.2020, which is Ex.A-12. However, ld. Counsels for accused have contended that order imposing section 144 Cr.P.C was not announced and that is why, witnesses have given different version about it and PW25, who claimed to have announced u/s 144 Cr.P.C, had himself not stated that he had announced that section 144 Cr.P.C had been imposed.
8.2 If the testimonies of the witnesses as reproduced above are seen, it is clear that most of them have consistently stated about an announcement being made through the loud speaker installed in the gypsy of PW25. They are also consistent that this announcement was made when the vehicle was at a very slow pace. They are also consistent that wherever there was larger public gathering, halts were made and announcements were again made. With regard to what announcement was made, all the witnesses have deposed about one fact that it was announced that assembly of these people was unlawful and people who had assembled there should go back to their homes. It is however correct, that only some of the witnesses have stated that in the announcement, PW25 had specifically stated that section 144 Cr.P.C had been imposed. At the same time testimonies of PW1, PW4, PW14 and PW15, who stated that PW25 had specifically announced that section 144 Cr.P.C had been imposed, remained unrebutted during their cross examinations of. On the contrary, PW1 was cross examined about the manner in which imposition of section FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 74 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:54:52 +0300 144 Cr.P.C. was announced, and he deposed that at the time announcement, he was driving his vehicle at a speed of 10-15 km/hr.
On this aspect, he was corroborated by PW14 when, during his cross- examination, he deposed that when this announcement was being made the vehicle was moving at slow pace. Similarly, during the cross examination of PW15 he deposed, that it was from the announcement being made by the SHO that he came to know of imposition of section 144 Cr.P.C. He was also not controverted on this point. Thus on this issue, not only do we have unrebutted examination in chief of these witnesses of these witness, but we also have their uncontroverted reiteration during their cross-examination. It is correct that PW25, during his deposition, had not specifically stated about imposition of section 144 Cr.P.C had been imposed. However, he had deposed, that he had repeatedly made announcements that the gatherings were unlawful and that the public persons should return to their houses, and this part of his testimony has also been unrebutted. Therefore, in effect, he deposed that he had announced that the gatherings were unlawful and asked the public to return to its homes. Hence, a mere omission by PW25 to state that he had used words 'section 144 Cr.P.C has been imposed', it has to be considered as a mere inadvertent omission while testifying in the court. 8.3 The cumulative effect of these testimonies is that these witnesses have established that on 24.02.2020, from around 10.00 a.m, FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 75 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:54:59 +0300 PW25 had consistently announced through his official vehicles that section 144 Cr.P.C had been imposed, and that the public who had assembled should go back to their houses. I accordingly find that by virtue of the admitted document Ex.A-12, it stands proved that on 24.02.2020, section 144 Cr.P.C had been imposed in the area of Distt.
North East and from 10.00 a.m onwards, PW25, while moving on main Karawal Nagar Road in his official vehicle at a very slow speed, had repeatedly announced about this order and had asked the public at large to return to their houses.
(d) Contradictions regarding timing of departure from the spot to JPC Hospital 9.1 The next credibility of the witnesses has been challenged by the accused on account of the fact that the witnesses have given different time of their departure from the place of incident in order to go to JPC Hospital.
9.2 The challenge is mainly based through the testimony of PW1 Ct. Kalik who had stated that the four persons, were apprehended at around 4/4:30 p.m and were immediately taken for medical examination. However, PW3 stated that before going to JPC Hospital, the police party remained at Bhajanpura Chowk till about 7/7:30 p.m. Further, it is contended that PW4 had stated that they had reached JPC Hospital at about 8.00 p.m and therefore both the testimony of PW4 as well as PW3 contradict the stand of PW1 that the FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 76 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:55:08 +0300 accused were apprehended at around 4/4:30 p.m and were immediately taken to the hospital.
9.3 I have considered this argument, and I find that even if the statement of PW1 that the four rioters were apprehended at 4/4:30 p.m and were immediately taken to JPC Hospital is accepted to be correct; it is a minor variation which does not go to the root of his testimony. It is also to be noticed that the witness had admitted that throughout the time, he had remained in his vehicle. Therefore, the witness would not have been sure about the time when the accused were in fact apprehended because it is not the claim that immediately on their apprehension, the knowledge of this fact was gained by PW1.
Therefore, his testimony has to be read to state that immediately on these persons being brought to his vehicle, they departed for hospital.
(e) Irregularities in MLCs:
10.1 The MLCs in the present case have been proved by Dr. Shalabh Dass (PW8). The same are Ex. PW8/A to Ex. PW8/L. Ld. counsels for accused have contended that PW8 admitted during his cross-examination that it was mandatory to obtain the signatures or thumb impressions of the persons being medically examined. However, admittedly no such signatures or thumb impressions were obtained in the present case. It has therefore been argued that this circumstance raises serious doubts regarding the actual physical FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 77 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:55:15 +0300 examination or even the presence of the three accused in the hospital at the relevant time. It has further been contended that the escorting policemen were not even aware whether, the accused had sustained any injuries, thereby strengthening the defence version that no such medical examination ever took place.
10.2 It is correct that none of the MLCs proved on record bear the signatures or thumb impressions of the patients to whom they pertain. It is also correct that the examining doctor admitted during his cross-examination, that obtaining such signatures or thumb impressions was mandatory. However, PW8 also clarified that though it was his duty to obtain the same, he had shifted that responsibility to the IO.
10.3 In my considered opinion, the mere failure of the doctor to obtain the signatures or thumb impressions cannot by itself, automatically lead to the conclusion, as suggested to PW8 during his cross-examination, that the patients were never examined or that they were not present in the hospital at the relevant time, or that the MLCs were manipulated subsequently. Had manipulation been the object, nothing prevented the police from obtaining the signatures or thumb impressions of the accused at a later stage as well. Similarly, at least the escorting policemen could also have been made to sign the documents. Therefore, the absence of all such signatures indicates negligence or oversight rather than fabrication.FIR No. 98/20
PS Khajuri Khas 78 of 97 Digitally
signed by
PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.05.18
10:55:23
+0300
10.4 Another relevant circumstance which cannot be ignored is
that the incident pertains to the very day on which riots had erupted and the hospitals were admittedly under considerable pressure. In such chaotic circumstances, certain procedural lapses or omissions, particularly of an administrative nature, are neither wholly unnatural nor sufficient by themselves to discard the entire medical record. Mere irregularity in compliance of procedure, in the absence of any material suggesting fabrication or manipulation, cannot be elevated to a circumstance demolishing the prosecution case altogether.
(c) Timing of apprehension and arrest and inconsistencies therein 11.1 Regarding the arrest and apprehension of the accused persons, no major contradictions have emerged in the testimonies of the eye witnesses, as reproduced hereinabove. 11.2 What has been contended by learned counsels for the accused is, that there exists a possibility that the accused persons were apprehended subsequently and thereafter falsely implicated in the present case. The ground on which they have based this contention is, that no apprehension memo or any other document regarding the apprehension of these accused was prepared at the place of incident; that no such document was prepared even at the hospital; that when the accused were allegedly brought back to the police station, no DD entry regarding their arrival or placement in the lock-up was recorded, FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 79 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:55:31 +0300 despite the fact that lodging of such DD entry is a mandatory requirement whenever a person is placed in police custody. On this basis, it has been argued that the accused persons had in fact come to the police station on the following day to lodge complaints regarding vandalism and arson in their respective properties and were thereafter falsely implicated in the present case. 11.3 In my considered opinion, the aforesaid arguments are required to be appreciated in the backdrop of the peculiar circumstances prevailing on the relevant day. It stands established on record that at Karawal Nagar Road, i.e., the alleged place of apprehension of the accused persons, there was extensive stone pelting and arson by a large and violent mob of rioters. The police machinery had come under tremendous pressure and it took several hours for the police to regain even partial control over the situation. It is only thereafter, as per the prosecution case, that four persons, including the three accused facing trial, were apprehended. 11.4 Thereafter, the injured police officials as well as the apprehended persons were taken to the hospital, where again, as per the unrebutted testimonies of the witnesses, there was a heavy rush in the emergency ward of the hospital. The witnesses have consistently deposed that after returning from the hospital to the police station, the apprehended persons were handed over to the staff present there, following which the police officials again proceeded towards FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 80 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:55:39 +0300 Bhajanpura Chowk to resume their duties amidst the continuing riots. 11.5 Accordingly, I am of the opinion that in the extraordinary situation prevailing on that particular day, when the entire law and order machinery of the district was under severe strain and injured police officials, after obtaining primary medical treatment, were required to immediately return to their places of deployment, the absence of contemporaneous documentation regarding apprehension of the accused persons would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the accused were apprehended subsequently and falsely implicated. 11.6 This conclusion is further fortified by the MLCs of the accused persons, which, as already discussed above, have been found to be reliable by the Court, and which reflect the presence of the accused persons in police custody during the evening of 24.02.2020. 11.7 At the same time, this Court must also take note of the defence sought to be raised by accused Sarfaraz, namely, that on 24.02.2020, his shop by the name of Brand Hub had been burnt by rioters and when he had gone to lodge a complaint in this regard, he was falsely implicated in the present case. 11.8 Though a suggestion was put to PW25 that when the accused had gone to the police station to lodge a complaint regarding the burning of his shop, he was falsely implicated in the present case, the witness categorically denied the same. Further, during the cross-
examination of PW3, who had remained the Duty Officer at PS FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 81 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:55:48 +0300 Khajuri Khas after the riots, he had stated that he did not know whether any complaint regarding the burning of a shop by the name of Brand Hub had been received.
11.9 It is also pertinent to note that the accused had chosen to lead defence evidence. Therefore, if such a defence was indeed genuine, the accused could easily have produced some material in support thereof, such as documents showing ownership or possession of the alleged shop, photographs of the damaged premises, or any complaint allegedly made to PS Khajuri Khas regarding the incident.
However, no such evidence whatsoever was led by the accused. In these circumstances, the said plea remains a bald assertion devoid of any substantiation and does not inspire confidence. 11.10 Similarly, accused Ikram, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 BNSS, claimed that he had gone to the police station to lodge a complaint, and was thereafter falsely implicated in the present case. However, significantly, the accused did not even disclose the nature or subject matter of the alleged complaint which he had purportedly gone to lodge at PS Khajuri Khas. Despite having the opportunity to do so, he also failed to lead any evidence whatsoever to show, that he had any grievance for which he had approached the police station on 24.02.2020. In the absence of any supporting material, this plea also remains wholly unsubstantiated.
11.11 Accused Mustaqueem, in his statement under Section 313
FIR No. 98/20
PS Khajuri Khas 82 of 97
Digitally
signed by
PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.05.18
10:55:54
+0300
Cr.P.C., claimed that he had been lifted from his house and thereafter falsely implicated in the present case. However, the accused did not disclose even the date or time when he was allegedly picked up from his house. Not only is the plea vague and bereft of particulars, but it is also noteworthy that such a stand has been taken by the accused for the first time during his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No suggestion to this effect was put to the prosecution witnesses, nor was any evidence led in support thereof. Consequently, this plea also does not merit acceptance.
11.12 In view of my above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that what had been claimed by the defence as major contradictions are in fact minor variations which, with passage of time, are bound to come in the testimonies of witnesses especially, if they are not tutored. I am, therefore, of the opinion that even the combined effect of these variations will not elevate them to the level of material contradictions thereby eroding the credibility of these witnesses. On the contrary, as discussed earlier, not only have the witnesses been consistent on the material aspects of how the events unfolded on the given day, they have also corroborated each other. Furthermore, their testimonies to some extent have been corroborated by PW2, who is an independent witness. At the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the presence of these witnesses at the place of incident, in view of the prevailing circumstances and the fact that FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 83 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:56:03 +0300 the area was within the jurisdiction of their Police Station, is absolutely natural. Therefore, I have no reasons to doubt the testimonies of these stamped witnesses. 11.13 This brings me to the case of the prosecution against accused Firoz, Gulfam and Saddam @ Ikrar, who were apprehended and arrested subsequent to the day of incident. 11.14 Accused Firoz and Gulfam were arrested by SI Vipin Teotia who appeared as PW20. He deposed that on 05.03.2020, he had examined HC Rahul who informed him that he had seen a boy namely Firoz s/o Babuddin in the mob of stone pelters. Thereafter, he alongwith Rahul and Ct. Sachin went to F Block Khajuri Khas where near the police booth on the identification of HC Rahul, Firoz was apprehended.
11.15 HC Rahul, on whose information Firoz was arrested, appeared as PW22. On this issue, he deposed that on 05.03.2020, SI Vipin had made inquiries from him and showed him some video footage and in that video footage, he had identified Firoz s/o Babuddin as the person who was involved in rioting at Bhajanpura Chowk whereafter at his instance, accused Firoz was apprehended from his house. Prior to that, this witness had stated that one of the four persons who had been apprehended on 24.02.2020 was Firoz s/o Babuddin but again said that he was not amongst the four who were apprehended from the spot and in response to court question, he stated that he had FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 84 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:56:08 +0300 deposed about Firoz because he had seen Firoz as a part of rioting mob at Bhajanpura Chowk and immediately identified him but Firoz could not be apprehended on that day.
11.16 During his cross examination, he deposed that before 05.03.2020, he had informed SHO that one of the rioters was Firoz who had been identified by him.
11.17 The arrest and apprehension of accused Gulfam @ Zubair and Saddam was done by SI Sandeep. SI Sandeep appeared as PW23 and deposed that on 29.06.2020, HC Rahul produced Gulfam @ Zubiar before him and informed him that Zubair was involved in stone pelting on police party on 24.02.2020. Thereafter he played a CCTV footage in his laptop and Rahul identified Zubair in that footage and then he arrested Gulfam @ Zubair.
11.18 Contrary to this HC Rahul, appearing as PW22, deposed that on 29.06.2020, he had been shown a video footage by SI Sandeep.
In that video footage, he identified Gulfam @ Zubair as one of the rioters at Bhajanpura Chowk. They then went to the house of Gulfam, apprehended him and brought him to the police station where he was arrested.
11.19 With regard to accused Saddam, PW23 deposed that on 19.02.2021, Ct. Rahul had produced one person by the name of Saddam @ Ikrar and informed him that Saddam was involved in rioting at Bhajanpura Chowk on 24.02.2020. Ct. Rahul further FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 85 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:56:14 +0300 informed him that he had seen Saddam on that day and had identified him through screen shot/ video footage that was provided to the staff. In the meantime, HC Rahul and Ct. Vikram arrived there and identified Saddam as one of the rioters at Bhajanpura Chowk. Thereafter, he showed them video footage and they identified Saddam in that footage also.
11.20 On the other hand, PW22 HC Rahul deposed that on 19.02.2021, SI Sandeep had shown him a screen shot of a video footage and from the said screen shot, he had identified Saddam @ Ikrar as one of the rioters at Bhajanpura Chowk. Thereafter, then they went to the house of Saddam, apprehended him and brought him to the police station where he was arrested.
11.21 Saddam has also been identified as one of the rioters on 24.02.2020 by PW4 Vikram who deposed that on 19.02.2021, SI Sandeep was interrogating a boy and on seeing that boy, he identified him and informed him that the said boy was a part of the rioting mob on 24.02.2020. Saddam was one of the persons who was throwing back tear gas shells fired upon the rioters by the police team and then went to depose that Saddam was wearing black helmet at that time, but when he removed helmet for sometime, he had seen the face of Saddam.
11.22 During his cross examination, he denied that he had not seen Saddam in the PS or in the mob, or that he had falsely identified FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 86 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:56:21 +0300 him at the instance of the IO. He further deposed that he had stated before SI Sandeep that Saddam had removed helmet for sometime when he had seen face of Saddam. He was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C where these facts were not recorded. 11.23 I have considered these testimonies and the contentions raised on behalf of prosecution and defence. 11.24 With regard to accused Gulfam @ Zubair and Saddam @ Ikrar, I find that there are serious and material contradictions in the prosecution's case regarding the manner in which these two accused were identified and apprehended. These contradictions go to the root of the matter and render the prosecution version doubtful insofar as these accused are concerned.
11.25 Insofar as accused Gulfam @ Zubair is concerned, PW23 deposed that it was PW22 who had produced Gulfam before him and informed him that the said person was involved in the rioting which had taken place on 24.02.2020 at Bhajanpura Chowk. According to PW23, it was only thereafter, that he had shown the video footage to PW22. However, PW22 gave an entirely different version. He deposed that he was first shown the video footage, whereafter he identified accused Zubair, and it was thereafter, that both, he and PW23, had gone to the house of the accused and apprehended him.
Thus, according to one witness, it was the other witness who had apprehended and produced this accused before him. However, the FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 87 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:56:27 +0300 other witness claims that on being shown the video footage, he recognized the accused and thereafter, he and the first witness had together gone to the house of accused, apprehended him, brought him to the police station and then arrested him. These two versions are fundamentally inconsistent and the identification of this accused is based upon the video footage, which, during the trial, was never shown either to PW23 or PW22. However, the electronic evidence shall be discussed in detail at a later stage. 11.26 Similarly, with regard to accused Saddam @ Ikrar, PW23 deposed that the accused had been produced before him by one Ct. Rahul, who had apprehended Saddam after identifying him from screenshots of the video footage. However, the said Ct. Rahul was never examined by the prosecution. On the other hand, PW22 claimed that it was he who had apprehended Saddam from his house and that PW23 was accompanying him at that time. Thus, even with regard to the apprehension of accused Saddam, the prosecution witnesses have given mutually destructive versions which cannot be reconciled. 11.27 As far as the testimony of PW4 Vikram qua accused Saddam is concerned, he claimed before the Court that he had identified Saddam at the place of incident itself because, though Saddam was initially wearing a helmet, he had removed the same for some time during the incident and PW4 had seen his face. However, when confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., this FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 88 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:56:38 +0300 fact was found missing therein. Rather, it was recorded in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that Saddam was wearing a helmet and that PW4 had merely memorized his physique and later identified him on that basis at the time of apprehension. PW4 was unable to furnish any explanation for this material improvement. In these circumstances, his claim regarding identification of accused Saddam at the spot itself does not inspire confidence and is not found reliable. 11.28 However, insofar as accused Firoz is concerned, his identity does stand established from the testimony of PW22 HC Rahul, who had specifically stated in his very first statement dated 05.03.2020 that amongst the rioters there was one Firoz s/o Babuddin.
Further, no material contradiction has emerged regarding the apprehension of accused Firoz. Nevertheless, it is also a matter of record that no other witness has identified accused Firoz. More importantly, despite allegedly knowing Firoz well, including his address and profession, PW22 admittedly did not approach the IO for almost ten days to have him apprehended. This unexplained conduct assumes significance and creates a doubt regarding the certainty of identification. In these circumstances, I find that it would be unsafe to base conviction of accused Firoz solely upon the testimony of a single witness.
11.29 The prosecution has also sought to rely upon electronic evidence in the form of two video footage. One of these videos was FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 89 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:56:44 +0300 stated to have been recorded by PW19 Amit Shaky and the other by PW25 on his mobile phone. However, before these video footage can be read in evidence, they are required to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It now stands settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 571 that secondary electronic evidence is inadmissible unless, it is accompanied by a certificate satisfying the requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
11.30 Admittedly, the video footage placed on record in the form of DVD Ex.PW17/Article-1, and the pen drive containing the video recorded by PW25, constitute secondary electronic evidence.
The certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act in respect of the DVD was issued by PW18 and is Ex.PW18/2, while the certificate in respect of the pen drive was issued by PW25 and is Ex.PW25/1. However, a bare perusal of both these certificates reveals that they are wholly deficient and merely formal in nature. They do not contain the necessary particulars and foundational facts as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, such as the manner of production of the electronic record, particulars of the device used, or other conditions contemplated under the said provision. Consequently, the mandatory requirements of Section 65B remain unfulfilled and both the video footage are therefore inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, this piece of FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 90 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:56:53 +0300 evidence cannot come to aid of prosecution to connect accused Gulfam @ Zubair, Saddam @ Ikrar and Firoz to the offences subject matter of the trial.
11.31 In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused Gulfam @ Zubair, Saddam @ Ikrar and Firoz were members of the rioting mob.
11.32 However, as discussed herein above, it stands established against accused Ikram, Sarfaraz and Mustaqueem that on 24.02.2020 they were present at the place of incident as members of the unlawful assembly and were apprehended from the spot itself. 11.33 However, it has been argued by the learned counsels for the accused that even if it is assumed that these accused were apprehended from the place of incident, no specific overt act has been attributed to any of them. It is contended that the rioting had commenced around 12:00 p.m., whereas the accused were allegedly apprehended only after 05:00 p.m., and during this intervening period different acts of vandalism, arson and violence may have been committed by different persons forming part of this assembly at different points of time. It is thus argued, that unless it is either shown, that these accused remained members of the unlawful assembly throughout the period during which the offences were committed, or that they had individually participated in specific acts, they cannot be FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 91 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.18 10:57:02 +0300 held liable for all the acts committed by that assembly. It is further argued that no witness has attributed any specific overt act to any of these accused and therefore, the possibility that they were merely passersby or bystanders cannot be ruled out. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Musa Khan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0147/1976 and placed specific reliance on para 5 which is as under:-
5. The appellants pleaded innocence and averred that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity and had not participated in the riot. Both the Courts below have accepted the main facts leading to the occurrence as also participation of the appellants in the rioting. The Additional Sessions Judge as also the High Court, however, do not appear to have made a correct approach in examining the individual case of the accused, particularly with reference to their actual presence or participation in the incident in question. It is true that having regard to the background against which the events took place all the incidents starting from the National Hotel and ending with the chawl of Jogendra Singh were parts of the same transaction, nevertheless they were separate incidents in which different members of the mob had participated, in these circumstances, therefore, without there being any direct evidence about the actual participation of the appellants in all the incidents it could not be inferred as a matter of law that once the appellants were members of the mob at the National Hotel they must be deemed to have participated in all the other incidents at the Engineering College Hostel. Bharat Lodge and the chawl of Jogendra Singh. It is well settled that a mere innocent presence in an assembly of persons, as for example a bystander, does not make the accused a member of an unlawful assembly, unless it is shown by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused shared the common object of the assembly. Thus a court is not entitled to presume FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 92 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:57:10 +0300 that any and every person who is proved to have been present near a riotous mob at any time or to have joined or left it at any stage during its activities is in law guilty of every act committed by it from the beginning to the end, or that each member of such a crowd must from the beginning have anticipated and contemplated the nature of the illegal activities in which the assembly would subsequently indulge.
In other words, it must be proved in each case that the person concerned was not only a member of the unlawful assembly at some stage, but at all the crucial stages and shared the common object of the assembly at all these stages. Such an evidence is wholly lacking in this case where the evidence merely shows that some of the accused were members of the unlawful assembly at one particular stage but not at another. In these circumstances, therefore, the accused, who were not present or who did not share the common object of the unlawful assembly at other stages cannot be convicted for the activities of the assembly at those stages. In view of this error committed by the High Court it has become necessary for us to examine the evidence on the limited question as to which of the accused had actually participated in the incident at the Engineering College, Bharat Lodge and the chawl of Jogendra Singh where acts of incendiarism had taken place. It is also common ground that the occurrence had taken place at night and the evidence of the witnesses identifying the accused had to be examined with great caution. (emphasis supplied) 11.34 On the other hand, learned SPP has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Masalti v. State of U.P., 1964 SCC OnLine SC 30 wherein it has been held that where a large unlawful assembly acts in prosecution of its common object, it may not always be possible for witnesses to attribute specific overt acts to each individual member of the assembly. He has further contended that this judgment is of a larger bench.
FIR No. 98/20PS Khajuri Khas 93 of 97
Digitally
signed by
PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.05.18
10:57:18
+0300
11.35 I have considered the rival submissions.
11.36 It is true that no specific overt act has been attributed to
any of the accused and some of the witnesses have even stated that they had not specifically seen these accused indulging in stone pelting. It is also correct that the riot had commenced around noon and had continued till evening, when these accused were apprehended.
11.37 However, insofar as the third charge under Sections 427/436 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of the PDPP Act and Section 149 IPC are concerned, I find merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsels for the accused. This charge pertains to acts of mischief and vandalism, namely the burning of the police booth at Khajuri Khas at Bhajanpura red light, and the burning of the motorcycle of PW2. The evidence on record shows that the motorcycle of PW2 had been burnt around 12:30 p.m., whereas the exact timing of the burning of the police booth has not been established, though it certainly appears to have occurred before the apprehension of the accused. In these circumstances, and in the absence of evidence showing continuous participation of these accused in the unlawful assembly from the inception of the riot till the commission of these acts, it would not be safe to hold them vicariously liable for the offences punishable under Sections 427/436 IPC read with Sections 3/4 PDPP Act and Section 149 IPC. To this extent, the judgment in Musa Khan (supra) would indeed come to the FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 94 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:57:25 +0300 aid of the accused.
11.38 Similarly, insofar as the charge under Section 148 IPC is concerned, no deadly weapon was recovered from any of the accused at the time of their apprehension. Though some witnesses have deposed before the Court that the accused persons were armed with lathis, dandas etc., these assertions are improvements over their earlier statements and no such weapons were either recovered or proved to have been in possession of the accused at the relevant time. In these circumstances, I find that the charge under Section 148 IPC is also not proved.
11.39 However, the position is materially different insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 147 IPC, 188 IPC and Sections 186/332/353 IPC read with Section 149 IPC are concerned. The evidence on record clearly establishes that throughout the relevant period, the unlawful assembly was continuously indulging in stone pelting upon the police force, thereby obstructing public servants in discharge of their duties and causing injuries to several police personnel. These offences were continuing in nature and were being committed by the assembly in prosecution of its common object. Therefore, any person who was found to be a member of that unlawful assembly while it continued to pursue its unlawful object would attract liability under Section 149 IPC.
Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH FIR No. 98/20 SINGH Date: PS Khajuri Khas 95 of 97 2026.05.18 10:57:32 +0300 11.40 As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Masalti
(supra), where a large mob is acting collectively, it may not be possible for witnesses to attribute specific overt acts to every individual member of the assembly, and in such circumstances, proof of membership of the unlawful assembly itself is sufficient to attract vicarious liability.
11.41 In the present case, the accused persons have nowhere claimed, either during the prosecution evidence, or in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., or by leading defence evidence, that they were merely passersby or innocent bystanders. On the contrary, their consistent stand has been one of complete denial, namely that they were neither present at the spot nor apprehended from there. Therefore, the plea raised during final arguments that they may have been innocent bystanders appears to be a belated and unsubstantiated contention, raised only as an afterthought, and deserves to be rejected.
12.1 In view of the aforesaid discussion, accused Gulfam @ Zubair, Firoz and Saddam @ Ikrar are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties stand discharged.
12.2 However, I find that it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts that accused Ikram, Sarfaraz and Mustaqueem, on 24.02.2020, were members of an unlawful assembly which had FIR No. 98/20 PS Khajuri Khas 96 of 97 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.05.18 10:57:39 +0300 gathered in violation of the prohibitory orders promulgated under Section 144 Cr.P.C. The evidence further establishes that the said assembly, in pursuance of its common object, was indulging in continuous stone pelting upon the police force and was thereby obstructing public servants in discharge of their official duties and causing injuries to them. Accordingly, accused Ikram, Sarfaraz and Mustaqueem are held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 188 IPC, Section 147 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 186/332/353 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.
12.3 Be heard separately on the point of sentence.Digitally signed by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.05.18 10:57:46 +0300 Pronounced in open court (Parveen Singh) on 18.05.2026 ASJ-03, North East Distt., (This judgment contains 97 pages Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
and each page bears my signatures)
FIR No. 98/20
PS Khajuri Khas 97 of 97