A Delhi court freed six men in a 2020 riots case, ruling the charges were false and the investigation unreliable. The judge warned police of “serious erosion of faith in law.”
New Delhi: A Delhi court has acquitted six men who were facing trial in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots case, while strongly criticising the prosecution for mishandling the investigation and “trampling” the rights of the accused. The court also directed that its order be sent to the Commissioner of Police for necessary action.
The case was heard by Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh, who was dealing with allegations that the six men were part of a mob involved in rioting and arson on 25 February 2020 during the northeast Delhi violence.
The accused in this case were Ishu Gupta, Prem Prakash, Raj Kumar, Manish Sharma, Rahul and Amit.
In a detailed 41-page judgment dated 25 August, the court said,
“It is apparent that merely in order to work out the case, a false case has been foisted upon the accused and prosecution witness 10, head constable Vikas, the only eyewitness of the case, is completely unreliable qua these accused persons.”
The court’s order marks another instance of acquittals in riot-related cases due to weak evidence. In July this year, the same court had acquitted another six persons in a separate 2020 northeast Delhi riots case.
At that time, the judge had observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the case. Those acquitted in the July case were Rajendar Jha, Tejveer Chaudhary, Rajesh Jha, Govind Singh Manral, Peetamber Jha and Devendar Kumar alias Monu Pandit.
In the present case, the men were charged under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including those relating to unlawful assembly, rioting, robbery, and arson. However, the judge found that the prosecution’s case was not supported by reliable evidence and appeared to be fabricated.
The court recorded that the prosecution’s version, which was mainly “built on the basis of the disclosures of the accused,” had not stood the test of law. As the judge observed, the case had in fact “fallen apart.”
Taking a strong view of the investigation, the court further said,
“I must observe that there has been an egregious padding of evidence by the investigating officer (IO) and this has resulted in serious trampling of the rights of the accused, who have probably been chargesheeted only in order to show that this case is worked out.”
The judge also pointed out that senior police officials failed to properly examine the case before approving the chargesheet.
The order stated,
“This is more saddening because, despite the glaring defects, supervising officers, i.e., the station house officer and the assistant commissioner of police had forwarded the chargesheet in a mechanical manner.”
Expressing concern about the larger impact of such lapses on the criminal justice system, the court said,
“Such instances would result in serious erosion of the faith of the people in the investigating process besides the rule of law.”
Highlighting the seriousness of the issue, the judge concluded with a direction, saying,
“I deem it appropriate that the copy of this judgment be sent to the Commissioner of Police for his perusal, with a request to take remedial action.”
The judgment not only resulted in the acquittal of six accused men but also served as a stern reminder to the Delhi Police about their duty to conduct fair and thorough investigations.
The observations underline that lapses, padding of evidence, and mechanical approvals of chargesheets not only compromise individual rights but also undermine public trust in the legal system.
Background of the Case
The case arose out of the communal violence that broke out in Northeast Delhi in February 2020, which left over 50 people dead and hundreds injured. Several FIRs were registered against individuals alleged to have participated in rioting, arson, looting, and attacks during this unrest.
In this specific matter, six men — Ishu Gupta, Prem Prakash, Raj Kumar, Manish Sharma, Rahul, and Amit — were accused of being part of a mob that allegedly indulged in rioting and arson on 25 February 2020. The police invoked serious charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:
- Unlawful Assembly (Section 143, 147, 148 IPC)
- Rioting and Armed with Deadly Weapons
- Mischief by Fire/Arson (Section 436 IPC)
- Robbery (Section 392 IPC)
- Other allied offences relating to destruction of property and disturbing public order.
The prosecution’s case was primarily built on the alleged disclosures made by the accused during interrogation and the testimony of one police official, Head Constable Vikas, who was cited as the only eyewitness.
However, the defence argued that the accused were falsely implicated without credible evidence. The trial court, after examining the evidence, found that the testimony of the sole eyewitness was unreliable and that the investigation suffered from serious lapses, including what the judge called “egregious padding of evidence.”
The court also noted that supervising police officers — the Station House Officer (SHO) and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) — forwarded the chargesheet in a “mechanical manner” despite glaring defects.
Case Title
State vs. Ishu Gupta & Ors. (2020 Delhi Riots Case
Click Here to Read More Reports On Delhi riots
