Delhi Court Acquits Three Men in 2020 Riots Case, Citing Procedural Irregularities and Doubts in Police Probe

A Delhi Court has acquitted three men accused of vandalism and arson during the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, ruling that serious procedural irregularities and inconsistencies in the police investigation created reasonable doubt about their involvement.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Parveen Singh of Karkardooma Courts delivered the judgment on August 14, 2025, in State v. Akil Ahmed @ Papad & Ors., acquitting Akil Ahmed, Rahees Khan and Irshad of all charges. The men had faced trial for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 435, 436, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDPP Act) .

Allegations Against the Accused

The prosecution alleged that on February 25, 2020, at the peak of the Northeast Delhi riots, a mob vandalised and set fire to two automobile showrooms and vehicles in the Chand Bagh area. The accused were named as part of that mob.

The case originated from information received at Dayalpur Police Station about the burning of a Hero Honda showroom. Subsequent complaints were added, including from the manager of Skyride showroom, the landlord of Johan Automobiles, and the owner of Raj Automobiles. They reported losses from vandalism and arson committed by rioters on that day .

Court’s Assessment of Evidence

During trial, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses, including shop owners, police personnel and nodal officers who produced mobile call records. The court, however, found that the evidence did not conclusively link the accused to the violence.

1. Conflicting police witness accounts:

Several police personnel claimed to have seen the accused in the mob but gave divergent timelines. One constable testified that arson began after 7:00 p.m., while another stated riots had calmed down before that time. The court noted that this “divergence of time” undermined confidence in the identifications .

2. Case diary anomalies:

The investigating officer produced a statement purportedly recorded on March 1, 2020, but the document had no date beneath it and was entered in a different case diary book than other statements. The judge held that this pointed to “probable manipulation” of records .

3. Delayed arrests:

The accused were not apprehended at the scene or shortly after the riots. Instead, they were arrested in April 2020 only after being taken into custody in another case. The court said this raised “serious doubt” about how they were traced and connected to this FIR .

4. Uninvestigated trigger incident:

While the FIR was registered after the burning of a Hero Honda showroom, the charge sheet was silent on this event. The court observed: “Why the incident, which became the starting point of this FIR, wherein other incidents were clubbed later on, was not investigated, has nowhere been explained” .

Court’s Findings

The judge stressed that the prosecution’s case relied almost entirely on police witnesses, as public witnesses either did not identify the rioters or had witnessed events only from a distance. Although the law does not disqualify police testimony, the court said it must be credible and consistent.

In this case, contradictions among police witnesses, doubts about manipulated case diary entries, and the absence of timely investigation or immediate arrests collectively weakened the prosecution’s case.

“In view of the serious doubts about the credibility of witnesses, probable manipulation of case diary and callous manner of investigation, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts,” the court held

Accordingly, the accused were acquitted and their bail bonds cancelled.

 Case Title: State v. Akil Ahmed @ Papad & Ors.

• Judgment Date: August 14, 2025

• Bench: ASJ Parveen Singh, Karkardooma Courts