2020 Delhi Riots Case: Court Flags ‘Grave Suspicion’ In Police Story, Upholds Discharge Of Accused

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Court dismissed a revision petition filed by the Delhi Police challenging a trial court order that had discharged Ajay and Gaurav Panchal of charges including rioting, arson, vandalism and causing hurt under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

The case stemmed from FIR No. 88/2020 registered at Jyoti Nagar police station in connection with alleged mob violence during the February 2020 riots. The trial court had discharged the accused in July 2022, prompting the State to approach the sessions court.

While exercising revisional jurisdiction, the court underscored that interference with a trial court’s order is warranted only in cases of patent illegality or jurisdictional error. Finding none, it upheld the discharge, endorsing the trial court’s detailed assessment of the evidence.

The court agreed with the lower court’s conclusion that the prosecution material, when viewed cumulatively, was unreliable. “There has to be not only suspicion but a grave suspicion against the accused,” the judge noted, adding that in the present case, “the suspicion or grave suspicion is in fact not on the accused but against the story of the police.”

Among the key lapses highlighted was an unexplained delay in registration of the FIR. The alleged incident occurred on February 25, 2020, but the FIR was registered only on March 3, 2020. The court observed that no satisfactory explanation for this delay was placed on record, and the justification of law-and-order disruption during riots could not be presumed in the absence of evidence.

The court also found serious inconsistencies in the medical evidence. The Medico-Legal Case (MLC) record reflected a different name, parentage and address from those mentioned in the police complaint. Despite the complainant claiming a clerical error, no explanation was provided for the discrepancies. Further, the complainant allegedly left the hospital without completing treatment and failed to furnish subsequent medical records despite notice.

Significantly, the court noted the absence of any credible effort by the police to collect objective evidence. No CCTV footage was obtained from nearby locations, no independent witnesses were examined, and no attempt was made to identify police personnel who may have been present at the scene. The court remarked that such omissions undermined the credibility of the investigation and may have allowed the “real culprits” to escape.

The manner of identification of the accused also came under scrutiny. The complainant had initially described the assailants in vague terms as unknown young men aged 20–25. However, nearly two months later, he allegedly identified the accused at a police station when they were brought in connection with another case. The court termed this “chance identification” doubtful and observed that it appeared to be a convenient substitute for a proper Test Identification Parade.

Further contradictions in the complainant’s statements; particularly regarding whether he could identify the assailants, were noted as creating serious doubts about the prosecution’s narrative. The court remarked that such inconsistencies suggested possible manipulation.

The recovery of alleged weapons: a danda and an iron rod, was also discredited. The court observed that the recoveries were made from an open public space and did not meet the evidentiary standards under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It also noted that no police remand was sought to facilitate recovery.

Criticising the overall approach of the investigation, the court observed that the police appeared to rely heavily on disclosure statements rather than adopting objective methods of evidence collection.

Concluding that the prosecution case lacked credibility and that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, the court held that compelling the accused to face trial would be unjust and a waste of judicial resources.

Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the State was dismissed, and the discharge of the accused persons was upheld.