SIX YEARS AFTER DELHI’S BLOODIEST UNREST, A FAILED INVESTIGATION UNRAVELS IN COURT: FIVE MEN ACQUITTED AS JUDGE QUESTIONS POLICE EVIDENCE

October 15, 2026

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 15: A Delhi court has acquitted five men accused of rioting and attempting to murder a man during the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots, sharply criticising shortcomings in the police investigation and holding that the prosecution failed to establish their presence at the scene of the attack.

In an order dated October 14, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish the accused persons’ involvement in the offences. The court observed that the investigating agency appeared to have attempted to fill gaps in its case through statements recorded long after the incident.

The case concerned a man named Rizwan, who sustained a bullet injury to his head near Kardampuri Puliya on February 25, 2020, amid the violence that swept through northeast Delhi.

The five men named in the case were Raj Kumar, Deepak Tomar, Gurmeet Singh, Gaurav and Vikram. Proceedings against Vikram had already been abated by the court following his death on July 15.

The acquittal highlights the importance of establishing individual criminal responsibility through reliable evidence, particularly in cases arising from large-scale communal violence in which identifying specific perpetrators can present significant investigative challenges.

THREE-DAY DELAY AND LATE STATEMENTS RAISE QUESTIONS

One of the central concerns identified by the court was the delay in registering the first information report. The FIR was registered three days after the incident, while statements from Head Constables Sonu and Rafiq were recorded considerably later.

The judge questioned the timing of these statements and observed that the sequence raised concerns about whether the investigation had attempted to fill gaps in the original case.

Such delays became particularly significant because the prosecution relied heavily on the identification of the accused through photographs and CCTV footage rather than on clear, consistent identification by witnesses who had observed the incident.

The court’s criticism was directed at the evidentiary deficiencies in this particular case. Its findings did not amount to a general conclusion about every investigation into the 2020 riots, but they underscored the consequences of failing to establish a reliable connection between accused persons and the alleged crime.

VICTIM’S TESTIMONY FAILS TO IDENTIFY THE ACCUSED

The prosecution’s case encountered serious difficulties over the identification of the five men.

Rizwan and other public witnesses did not name or identify the accused in their initial statements or in their testimony before the court. Even in a supplementary statement recorded approximately seven months after the incident, Rizwan did not name the men.

Instead, the prosecution relied on an identification exercise involving photographs of five individuals allegedly present at the scene.

When Rizwan testified in court, however, he did not support the prosecution’s claim concerning the identification of the accused through those photographs.

The court also considered the statements of Rizwan’s brother, Sartaj, and his friend, Kasim. Their evidence did not establish the involvement of the accused in the alleged attack.

The absence of reliable identification by the victim and other public witnesses substantially weakened the prosecution’s attempt to place the five men at the scene.

The judge emphasised that the evidentiary weakness was particularly serious because the victim and the other public witnesses had neither named nor identified the accused persons.

CCTV FOOTAGE FAILS TO CLOSE THE EVIDENTIARY GAP

Investigators also relied on CCTV footage and photographs to support their case. However, the court questioned the reliability and evidentiary value of this material.

The investigating officers could not clearly specify the locations of the cameras from which the footage had allegedly been obtained. The prosecution also failed to formally prove the relevant CCTV material in court.

The court further distinguished between identifying people in footage and proving that they had participated in the alleged offences. A police witness’s later identification of the accused in CCTV footage was not equivalent to direct testimony that the witness had seen them taking part in the riots.

This distinction proved crucial. The prosecution needed to establish more than the appearance of individuals in images: it had to demonstrate their connection with the specific incident and the offences charged.

The court found that the material presented did not overcome the deficiencies in the identification evidence.

PROSECUTION FAILS TO ESTABLISH THE CHARGES

The five men had faced charges including rioting, rioting with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, attempted murder and common intention under the Indian Penal Code.

To sustain the charges, the prosecution needed to establish the accused persons’ involvement in the relevant incident and demonstrate the necessary elements of the alleged offences.

The court concluded that the evidence did not prove that the men were present at the spot where Rizwan was injured, that they belonged to an unlawful assembly involved in the incident, or that they had participated in the offences alleged against them.

The acquittal followed from the prosecution’s failure to establish these essential connections through reliable evidence.

The ruling does not erase the violence that occurred in northeast Delhi in February 2020. Rather, it determines that the evidence produced in this particular prosecution was insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

A REMINDER THAT RIOT CASES REQUIRE PRECISE INVESTIGATION

The February 2020 northeast Delhi riots resulted in deaths, injuries and extensive property damage. The subsequent criminal proceedings have involved complex investigations into numerous incidents and allegations of participation in mob violence.

Cases of this nature require investigators to distinguish between people who may have been present in a wider area and those who can be reliably linked to a particular criminal act. Delayed statements, uncertain identification and inadequately authenticated electronic evidence can make that distinction difficult to establish in court.

The latest acquittal illustrates how weaknesses in the investigation of an individual incident can undermine a prosecution, even when the underlying violence is not in dispute.

The court’s observations concerning the timing of the FIR, the recording of police statements and the shortcomings in CCTV evidence raise important questions about the preparation of the case and the reliability of the material presented at trial.

Ultimately, criminal responsibility cannot rest on suspicion or an uncertain identification. The prosecution must establish the charges against each accused through evidence that satisfies the applicable legal standard.

In this case, the court found that threshold had not been met. Five men accused in connection with the attack on Rizwan have therefore been acquitted, with the judgment placing the deficiencies in the police investigation and the failure of proof at the centre of its decision.