Delhi District Court
State vs Prince Kumar And Others on 16 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 03 (NORTH EAST DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURT : DELHI.
SC No. 281/2021
FIR No. 139/2020
PS Bhajanpura
U/s. 147/148/149/436/120B/188 IPC
State
Versus
1. Prince Kumar
S/o. Sh. Rakesh Kumar,
R/o. H.No. 765, Gali No.1,
Bhagtan Mohalla, Ghonda, Delhi.
2. Vikas Kumar Tanwar @ Sonu
S/o. Sh. Jagdish Tanwar @ Jaggi,
R/o. H.No. A-40/12, Gali No.01,
Bhagtan Mohalla, Ghonda, Delhi.
3. Ramesh Chand
S/o. Sh. Khem Chand,
R/o. H.No. 23, Gali No.01,
Bhagtan Mohalla, North Ghonda, Delhi
4. Anil Kumar
S/o. Sh. Gurdyal Singh,
R/o. H.No. 205, Gali No.01,
Bhagtan Mohalla, North Ghonda, Delhi.
5. Anuj
FIR No. 139/20
PS Bhajanpura 1 of 20 (Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts
S/o. Sh. Jagdish Tanwar @ Jaggi,
R/o. H.No. A-40/12, Gali No.01,
Bhagtan Mohalla, Delhi.
6. Arun @ Kohli
S/o. Sh. Anil Kumar,
R/o. H.No. 205, Gali No.01,
Bhagtan Mohalla, North Ghonda, Delhi.
7. Kishan Kumar @ Lala
S/o. Sh. Mehar Chand,
R/o. H.No. 615, Yadram Gali,
Mehalya Mohalla, Ghonda, Delhi.
8. Rahul
S/o. Sh. Ramesh Chand,
R/o. H.No. 23, Gali No.1,
Bhagtan Mohalla, North Ghonda, Delhi.
9. Sudheer Kumar @ Bunty
S/o. Sh. Kishan Lal @ Pappu,
R/o. H.No. 1158 F-5 D-100/8, Untzar Bazar,
Chaman Vihar, Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.
10. Sunder
S/o. Sh. Ramkishan,
R/o. H.No. A-40/12, Main Ghamri Road,
Bhagtan Mohalla, Delhi. ...Accused.
Date of Committal : 05.08.2021.
Date of Arguments :15.04.2026.
Date of Pronouncement :16.04.2026
FIR No. 139/20
PS Bhajanpura 2 of 20 (Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts
JUDGMENT
Facts of Prosecution Case as per Charge Sheet 1.1 The present case relates to North East Delhi riots of the year 2020.
1.2 Brief facts of the present case are, that on 29.02.2020, complainant Javed filed a written complaint in PS Bhajanpura alleging, that he was running a Saloon on Gamdi Road, Ghonda Chowk, in the house of Samay Singh, near Jaipal Pradhan Ghonda Chowk. The rioters had looted his shop and set it ablaze. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was registered in this case on 03.03.2020 u/s. 147/148/149/436 IPC. Investigation was assigned to SI Rahul. 1.3 During investigation, IO prepared the site plan of the shop of the complainant. IO seized the articles from the shop of the complainant and got the shop photographed. Thereafter, on 05.03.2020, statement of one eye witness Raju was recorded who stated that on 24.02.2020 at around 10.00 p.m, he had seen Anil Sabjiwala, Sunder Chashme Wala, Koli, Bunty, Ramesh Chand, Prince, Rajat, Lala, Shekhar, Arun, Ravi Ganja, Anuj, Vasu, Bharat, one fruit vendor, Giriya and Rahul alongwith 60-70 persons. They were standing near Ghonda Chowk and were planning to vandalize and to commit loot in the shops of Muslims. Thereafter, at around 11 p.m, they vandalized and looted the shops of one Taj Mohd, Mohd.
FIR No. 139/20PS Bhajanpura 3 of 20 (Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts
Mohsin, Mohd. Samim and a Saloon which was situated in school wali gali.
1.4 During the investigation, on 11.03.2020, accused Prince was arrested. On 19.03.2020, statements of two eye witnesses namely Ravinder and Naveen were recorded. On 27.05.2020, accused Vikas @ Sonu was arrested. Other accused were absconding. Thereafter, a charge sheet for offences punishable u/s 147/148/149/436 IPC was filed against accused Prince and Vikas.
1.5 During further investigation, accused Ramesh and Anil were arrested. Section 188 IPC was added in this case. Mobile phone of one Farooq, who had recorded the video of riots, was seized. Thereafter, a supplementary charge sheet was filed. 1.6 During further investigation, accused Rahul was formally arrested. Accused Anuj, Arun and Kishan Kumar were interrogated and were bound down. Accused Sunder and Sudheer were arrested. Process u/s 82 Cr.P.C was executed against accused Harsh @ Vashu and thereafter, he was declared a proclaimed offender. Thereafter, a supplementary charge sheet u/s 147/148/149/436/120B/188 IPC was filed against the above named accused.
1.7 Thereafter, vide a supplementary charge sheet, a certificate u/s 65B of IE Act of the complainant was filed. Vide fourth supplementary charge sheet, FSL report was filed in the court.
FIR No. 139/20PS Bhajanpura 4 of 20 (Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts
Charges
2.1 On 20.09.2024, charge for offences punishable u/s 148
r/w section 149 IPC, u/s 188 IPC, u/s 436 IPC r/w section 149 IPC and u/s 380 IPC r/w section 149 IPC was framed against all the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution Evidence 3.1 In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses, brief description of their testimonies is as under:-
Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witness No. PW1 Rajiv Kumar @ Raju He deposed that in February 2020, he was working as security guard in Ganga Ram Hospital, Karol Bagh, Delhi and riots had taken place in their area and he had not seen any riot.
This witness did not support the case of the prosecution. PW2 Mohd. Javed Salmani He was the complainant of this case. His relevant testimony shall be considered at a later stage as and when required.
PW3 Ravinder Kumar He deposed that in February 2020, he was residing in North Ghonda, Delhi and was working as a helper in a factory situated at 500 meters from his house in Suhas FIR No. 139/20 PS Bhajanpura 5 of 20 (Parveen Singh) ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts Mohalla. He deposed that during that period, riots had taken place in his area and that he had not seen any riot.
This witness did not support the case of the prosecution.
PW4 Naveen He deposed that he was not
confirmed about the date,
month or year, but it might in
2020 or 2022, when riots had
taken place in his area i.e.
Mahliya Mohalla, North
Ghonda, Delhi and that he had
not seen any riot.
This witness did not support
the case of the prosecution.
PW5 SI Sanjay Bansal He was one of the IOs of this
case. He was assigned
investigation of this case on
18.05.2024. He obtained
certificate u/s 65B of Evidence
Act from complainant Javed
and filed the same in the court
with a supplementary charge
sheet.
PW6 Chitralekha FSL Witness. She examined a
DVD containing two video
files and prepared her report,
Ex.PW6/1.
PW7 SI Rahul He was the first IO of this case.
His testimony shall be
considered at a later stage as
FIR No. 139/20
PS Bhajanpura 6 of 20 (Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts
and when required.
PW8 SI Yasin Khan He was one of the IOs of this
case. His testimony shall be
considered at a later stage as
and when required.
PW9 Taj Mohammad As per his deposition, he had a
shop at main Gamri Road,
Ghonda Chowk. He deposed
that on 24.02.2020, rioters had
looted his shop. After some
days, one Farooq (PW10) had
sent him a video which was
reflecting the loot committed at
his shop. He alongwith Farooq
went to the police station and
the said video was handed over
to the IO. He further deposed
that in that video, he identified
some persons namely Ramesh,
Vasu, Rahul, Bansal, Arun,
Anil, Prince and that he had
told the IO that those persons
were involved in vandalizing
and setting at fire of the shop
of Javed. He identified accused
Arun, Prince, Anil Sabziwala
and Rahul in the court.
PW10 Mohd. Farooq He deposed that on 24.02.2020
at around 08.30 p.m, he had
gone to Gamri Road to meet
his friend Adnan. There, he
saw around 100-150 rioters
vandalizing shops. He saw that
FIR No. 139/20
PS Bhajanpura 7 of 20 (Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts
the rioters had vandalized and
looted the shops of Taj,
Shamim Ahmed and looted
one Salon. He hid himself in a
factory and from that factory,
he recorded a video. After few
months, he met Taj and
informed him about the video.
After some days, he and Taj
went to PS Jafrabad and IO
seized his mobile phone.
PW11 Dr. V. Laxmi FSL Witness. He examined a
Narasimhan DVD containing two video
files and prepared his report,
Ex.PW11/A.
3.2 Further the prosecution proved the documents as given in
the table below:-
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved/
Attested by
Ex.PW2/A Complaint of Javed PW2
Ex.PW2/B Certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act PW2
Ex.PW2/C Site Plan PW2
Ex.PW2/P1 to Photographs PW2
Ex.PW2/P8
Ex.PW6/1 FSL Report PW6
FIR No. 139/20
PS Bhajanpura 8 of 20 (Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts
Ex.PW6/2 Certificate u/s 63 of BSA PW6
Ex.PW7/1 Site plan PW7
Ex.PW7/2 Arrest Memo of Prince PW7
Ex.PW11/1 FSL Report PW11
3.3 During the trial, all the accused, u/s 294 Cr.P.C, admitted
the following documents:-
S. No. Description of the document Exhibit No.
1 DD No. 91-B Ex.A-1
2 FIR Ex.A-2
3 Certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act Ex.A-3
4 Arrest memo of Vikas @ Sonu Ex.A-4
5 Personal search memo of Prince Ex.A-5
6 Personal search memo of Vikas @ Sonu Ex.A-6
7 Arrest memo of Ramesh Ex.A-7
8 Arrest memo of Anil Kumar Ex.A-8
9 Personal search memo of Anil Kumar Ex.A-9
10 Personal search memo of Ramesh Ex.A-10
11 Prohibitory order u/s 144 Cr.P.C Ex.A-11
12 Complaints u/s 195 Cr.P.C Ex.A-12 &
FIR No. 139/20
PS Bhajanpura 9 of 20 (Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts
Ex.A-13
13 GD nos. 0109A and 0002A Ex.A-14 &
Ex.A-15
14 Arrest memo of Rahul Ex.A-16
15 Arrest memo of Sunder Ex.A-17
16 Arrest memo of Sudhir Kumar Ex.A-18
17 Personal search memo of Sunder Ex.A-19
18 Personal search memo of Sudhir Kumar Ex.A-20
19 Copy of RC Ex.A-21
20 Copy of acknowledgment Ex.A-22
Statement of Accused
4.1 Thereafter, on 14.03.2026, statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C/ 351
BNSS of all the accused were recorded and accused Rahul, Sudhir and Sunder preferred to lead evidence in their defence. However on 25.03.2026, accused Rahul, Sudhir and Sunder, without leading any evidence, closed their 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 Sh. Naresh Kumar Gaur, ld. SPP has contended that the
FIR No. 139/20
PS Bhajanpura 10 of 20 (Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts
prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
There was videos of the incident which had been recorded by PW10 Mohd. Farooq. The said videos have been proved as Ex.PW10/V-1 and Ex.PW10/V-2 respectively and the original mobile phone in which the videos were recorded was produced before the court and was proved as Ex.PW10/Article-1. PW10 had further deposed that those videos had been recorded while the rioters were looting and vandalizing the shop of Taj Mohd. Taj Mohd. appeared as PW9 and deposed that a few months after his shop was burnt, he was contacted by Mohd. Farooq and he had seen the videos. In the videos, he had recognized Dhammu, Ankit, Ramesh, Kohli, Prince and Manish. PW10 had correctly identified Arun, Prince, Anil Sabjiwala and Rahul in the court and deposed that these persons were also involved in the looting and arson of the shop of Javed, who is the victim in this case. He has further contended that PW10 had also deposed that he had informed the IO that these rioters had also vandalized and looted one salon. He has therefore, contended that through the testimonies of these witnesses and the videos, the prosecution has, beyond all reasonable doubts, established that on 24.02.2020, accused had committed riot, loot, vandalism and committed arson in the shop of Javed. Furthermore, as these accused are clearly visible in the video, they had violated section 144 Cr.P.C and had formed an unlawful assembly with the object of looting, arson and rioting and thus, they FIR No. 139/20 PS Bhajanpura 11 of 20 (Parveen Singh) ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts had committed offence punishable u/s 148/149 IPC and section 188 IPC.
5.3 On the other hand, Sh. Rahul Gupta, ld. counsel for accused Rahul, Ramesh Chand and Arun @ Koli has contended that these accused have been falsely implicated in this case. These accused were arrested 1½ years after the incident and this was despite the fact that IO had the alleged video available and had statements of witnesses on the basis of the said video. However, it is only at a very late stage that these accused were arrested only to falsely implicate them. He has further contended that none of the witnesses are the eye witnesses to the burning of the shop of Javed. He has further contended that the video is completely blurred and identification on the basis of that video is not an identification. 5.4 Sh. Shailendra Singh, ld. counsel for accused Prince, Anuj and Vikas has contended that the video should be seen by the court and it is completely blurred video. No faces are visible or recognizable in that video. Therefore, the identification of the accused by PW9, on the basis of the video, which had been recorded by PW10, is no identification and PW9 has been tutored by the police to identify these persons as accused. He has further contended that IO, in fact, had no evidence against these accused and had merely arrested them on the basis of alleged secret information. However, as none of the witnesses, on whose information IO claims to have arrested these FIR No. 139/20 PS Bhajanpura 12 of 20 (Parveen Singh) ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts accused, have supported the case of the prosecution; this shows that knowing fully well, that these were false witnesses who had been cited in this case, IO deliberately introduced a video which is completely blurred. Even otherwise, the video recorded by PW10 is not of the shop, which is the subject matter of this case.
5.5 Sh. Gulzar Ali, ld. counsel for accused Kishan Kumar @ Lala has contended that there is no evidence against this accused and none of the witnesses have identified the accused as a part of the rioting mob. He has, therefore, contended that accused is entitled to an acquittal.
5.6 Ms. Sunita, ld. counsel for accused Anil has contended that accused Anil is not visible in the video and merely because he was having a shop in the neighbourhood of Taj Mohammad, he has been falsely implicated by Taj Mohammad.
5.7 Sh. Amit Sheoran, ld. counsel for accused Sunder and Sudhir @ Bunty has contended that these accused have not been identified by any of the witnesses. There is no case which the prosecution has against these accused.
Findings 6.1 I have considered the rival submissions.
6.2 The prosecution had cited three eye witnesses i.e. Rajiv Kumar who appeared as PW1, Ravinder Kumar who appeared as PW3 and Naveen who appeared as PW4. However, when these witnesses FIR No. 139/20 PS Bhajanpura 13 of 20 (Parveen Singh) ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts appeared before the court for their testimony, they completely turned hostile and stated that they had not seen any riot. 6.3 As per PW1, he had not seen any incidents in the riots. He was cross examined at length by ld. SPP but nothing could be brought out in his cross examination which could support the case of the prosecution.
6.4 As per PW3, during the riots, he had left Delhi, had gone to the house of his in-laws at Hapur and only returned in the month of March. He was cross examined at length by ld. SPP but nothing could be brought out in his cross examination which could support the case of the prosecution.
6.5 As per PW4, during the riots, he remained in his house and was not aware of any meeting related to riots and had not seen any meeting taking place for the purpose of planning to vandalize or damage the properties, He had not seen any incidents of riots. He was cross examined at length by ld. SPP but nothing could be brought out in his cross examination which could support the case of the prosecution.
6.6 This leaves us with the testimonies of PW9 and PW10. PW10 Mohd. Farooq is a person who by chance was present in the area around the shop of Javed i.e. the victim in this case. According to his testimony, on 24.02.2020 at around 08.30 p.m, when he reached Gamri Road, Ghonda Chowk, he saw 100-150 rioters vandalizing the FIR No. 139/20 PS Bhajanpura 14 of 20 (Parveen Singh) ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts shops in that area. They were vandalizing and looting an electronic shop of Taj Mohd. He hid himself in a factory and recorded video. He further saw that after vandalizing the shop of Taj Mohammad, rioters entered into a high stroey building adjoining to the shop of Taj Mohammad. That building belonged to a doctor. The rioters looted that house and shop and after some time, he saw smoke coming out of that shop. Thereafter, he managed to return to his house. After a few months, he met Taj Mohammad and informed him that he had recorded a video. A few days thereafter, Taj Mohammad told him that the said video was required for the purpose of investigation. He alongwith Taj Mohammad went to the IO of that case of PS Jafrabad and he handed his phone to the IO. IO connected his phone to a laptop and played those videos. Thereafter, IO seized his phone. Sometimes later, he was called by the IO of this case who made inquiries about the video shot by him. He informed that his mobile had been seized by the IO of PS Jafrabad. He further deposed that he had not informed the IO about any barber shop.
6.7 He was cross examined by ld. SPP and he admitted that he had informed the IO that the same rioters, who had vandalized and looted the shop of Taj Mohammad and shop of Shamim Ahmed, had vandalized and looted one Salon. He further deposed that he did not know anybody in that video.
6.8 During his testimony, his mobile phone was produced and
FIR No. 139/20
PS Bhajanpura 15 of 20 (Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts
it was proved as Ex.PW10/Article-1. The videos recorded by him were also played and proved as Ex.PW10/V-1 and Ex.PW10/V-2. 6.9 Taj Mohammad, appearing as PW9, deposed about Farooq informing him about the video which was recorded regarding the looting and vandalism of his shop on 24.02.2020. He further deposed that the persons, who committed the loot in his shop, were all from the neighbouring area. Some of the persons, visible in the video, were known to him by names and addresses. Thereafter, he kept deposing about the incident of his shop. Thereafter, on being specifically questioned by ld. SPP that whether he knew Javed, he answered in affirmative. He was then asked whether, he was called by the police in relation to the investigation of the rioting incident at the shop of Javed and he again answered in affirmative. Thereafter, he was asked to narrate about what had he done during the investigation and he deposed, that he had gone to PS Bhajanpura where IO had shown him a video wherein, the act of looting of his shop had been recorded and in that video, he had identified some persons namely Dhammu, Ankit, Ramesh, Kohli, Prince and Manish. He had provided the addresses of some of those persons, but he did not recall whose addresses had been provided by him on that day. He further deposed that he had informed the IO that these persons were involved in looting of nearby shops.
6.10 During his cross examination by ld. SPP, he admitted that
FIR No. 139/20
PS Bhajanpura 16 of 20 (Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts
after seeing the video, as had been shown to him by the IO, he had identified Ramesh, Vasu, Rahul, Bansal, Arun, Anil and Prince. He had told the IO that these persons were involved in vandalizing and setting afire the shop belonging to Javed which was at around 50 meters from his shop. Thereafter, he identified accused Arun, Prince, Anil Sabziwala and Rahul.
6.11 During his cross examination, he deposed that had not seen the incident as had happened at the shop of Javed. He further deposed that the video, which was shown to him, was not pertaining to the shop of Javed.
6.12 From the testimonies of these two witnesses, it is very clear that none of these witnesses had seen the incident of rioting, looting or arson at the shop of Javed i.e. the incident regarding which the charges u/s 436 IPC and 380 r/w section 149 IPC had been framed against the accused.
6.13 PW9, during his cross examination by ld. SPP, goes on to state that he had informed the IO that the persons who were identified by him in the video, were involved in setting fire to the shop of Javed. 6.14 First of all, PW9 was not present at the time of incident and was deposing on the basis of the video recorded by PW10 and in the said video, the incident of looting and arson at the shop of Javed is not recorded. Thus, the testimony of PW9 is not based on eye witness account. Secondly, this part of his testimony was completely FIR No. 139/20 PS Bhajanpura 17 of 20 (Parveen Singh) ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts demolished when he admitted, that he had not seen the incident as had happened at the shop of Javed and that the video did not pertain to the shop of Javed. Thus, on the basis of testimony of PW9, no charges for offences punishable u/s 436 IPC and u/s 380 r/w section 149 IPC are proved against the accused.
6.15 Furthermore, PW10 Mohd. Farooq had only recorded the video and he had not identified any of the accused in the court. PW10 also deposed that he had stated to the IO that the same persons, who had vandalized and looted the shop of PW9, had also vandalized and looted one salon. First of all, even if this statement of PW10 is taken to be correct, then it is not established that it was the same salon which was the subject matter of this case. Secondly, if the examination of this witness is seen, he has categorically stated that after witnessing the incident at the shop of Taj Mohammad and incident of the shop of doctor, he had left that place. Therefore admittedly, PW10 had not seen any other incident. Thus, his statement, even if given to the IO about these persons being involved in the incident at the shop of Javed, cannot be relied upon by the court.
6.16 As regards the contention of ld. SPP that these persons were in violation of section 144 Cr.P.C and thus, had committed offence u/s 188 IPC, I find that firstly none of the witnesses have identified these accused as a part of an unlawful assembly or an assembly of five or more than five persons in disobeyance of section FIR No. 139/20 PS Bhajanpura 18 of 20 (Parveen Singh) ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts 144 Cr.P.C. I say so because, PW10 had not identified anyone in court and though PW9 identified Arun, Prince, Anil and Rahul but despite his testimony being based on video identification, the video, surprisingly, was not played during his testimony for him to identify the accused in that video.
6.17 It had been contended by ld. SPP that the court can itself see the videos to find that accused are a part of an unlawful assembly i.e. the assembly of five or more persons, which is indulged in looting shop of Taj Mohammad and thus, they are also in violation of order imposing section 144 Cr.P.C and are liable to be convicted for offence punishable u/s 148 r/w section 149 IPC and section 188 IPC. 6.18 I have considered this submission. In view of the same, I had called the mobile phone from malkhana of PS Jafrabad. I have myself carefully seen both the videos for at least three time while asking the accused to stand in line in front of me. 6.19 As far as the persons involved at the shop of Taj Mohammad are concerned, it is difficult to see whether the faces are recognizable or not but whenever the videos are zoomed in, the picture got pixlated. However, some of the looters are clearly visible at some places. One such example is at around 05 minutes 07 seconds in the first video and at around 02.10 minutes, 02.27 minutes and 2.32 to 2.41 minutes in the second video where some looters are clearly visible. However, despite my best efforts, I could not connect the FIR No. 139/20 PS Bhajanpura 19 of 20 (Parveen Singh) ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts faces of those rioters with any of the accused present before me today. In these circumstances, I am unable to accept the contention of ld. SPP.
6.20 In view of the my aforesaid discussion, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. All the accused are accordingly acquitted of all the charges framed against him. Bail bonds of the accused are cancelled. Their sureties stand discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open court (Parveen Singh) on 16.04.2026. ASJ-03, North East Distt., (This judgment contains 20 pages Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
and each page bears my signatures)
FIR No. 139/20
PS Bhajanpura 20 of 20 (Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts