A court acquitted a man accused of rioting and arson during the 2020 Delhi riots after finding major inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. It held that relying on the testimony of the lone identifying witness would be unreliable.
A court acquitted a man accused of rioting and arson during the 2020 Delhi riots, citing significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
The court concluded it would be unreliable to depend on the testimony of the single identifying witness.
Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh was considering the case against Faizan, also known as Aryan, who faced allegations of setting fire to the Arun Modern Public Senior Secondary School on Brijpuri Road during the riots.
The judge granted Faizan the benefit of the doubt, stating in an order dated January 28,
“Considering these facts and circumstances, I find that it will be highly unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of the prosecution witness (PW2 Constable Piyush). I accordingly find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.”
Faizan was accused of participating in a riotous mob that allegedly vandalized the school and set it ablaze on February 25, 2020, resulting in damages exceeding Rs 1 crore.
The prosecution claimed that around 200 individuals forcibly entered the premises, destroyed property and vehicles, and ignited the building. Faizan was arrested alongside two co-accused, who were acquitted in February 2025.
Faizan, who was declared a proclaimed offender in 2022 after going into hiding, was apprehended in August 2025 and underwent a separate trial.
Also Read: [Delhi Riots 2020 Case] Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Accused Shahrukh Pathan
The court observed that the case against him relied solely on the testimony of a single police witness, who claimed to have identified Faizan as part of the rioting mob.
The judge remarked,
“It is also to be noticed that this witness has taken contradictory stands in his two testimonies, which were recorded before the court.”
Additionally, the court highlighted an unexplained delay in the filing of the FIR and the investigating agency’s failure to interrogate other police personnel who were supposedly present at the scene.
Concluding that the prosecution had not met the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the court stated,
“No explanation has been provided for these contradictions,”
As a result, the court acquitted Faizan of all charges.