Two police eyewitnesses who contradicted each other and CCTV footage without a valid certificate could not carry the prosecution in the 2020 riots mosque arson case, a Delhi court has held, acquitting all five accused.
New Delhi: A Delhi court at Karkardooma has acquitted Ankit, Sourabh Sharma, Rohit, Rahul Kumar and Sachin, who were accused of vandalism and arson at Allah Wali Mosque in Karawal Nagar during the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt [State v. Ankit & Ors.].
Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh of the Karkardooma Courts gave the five accused the benefit of doubt and acquitted them of all charges.
The prosecution case
The accused faced charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 427, 435, 436 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, and Rohit additionally under Sections 109 and 114 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the mosque was set on fire on February 24, 2020, that a statue was placed on the slab outside, and that articles kept on its four floors were set ablaze.
During the investigation, police collected CCTV footage from the area and identified the five as members of the rioting mob. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses, including two police personnel, ASI Junaid and ASI Mithilesh, who claimed to have seen the incident and identified the accused from the footage.
ALSO READ: 2020 Delhi Riots Case | Fabricated Chargesheet and Tampered Records: Court Acquits Six
What the Court found
The Court noted that the prosecution’s case involved two alleged incidents at the mosque, one at about 11 PM on February 24, 2020 and another at about 11 AM on February 25, 2020. The independent witness, Ali Ahmed, who lived opposite the mosque, testified that the mob vandalised and set the mosque on fire at around 8:15 PM, but did not identify any of the accused. He also said the mosque was vandalised only once and that he stayed confined to his house for about four days afterwards.
The Court found no witness to establish the alleged incident of February 24 at 11 PM or the participation of the accused in it. On the February 25 incident, it found contradictions between the two police witnesses and inconsistent accounts of where they were and how they moved during the relevant period.
“The testimonies of PW10 and PW11 regarding the vandalism and arson at the mosque at around 11.00 a.m on 25.02.2020 are not credible.”
CCTV evidence
The Court also rejected the reliance on CCTV footage to place the accused at the scene. It held that the certificate produced did not meet the requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and that the DVDs containing the footage were inadmissible because no valid Section 65B certificate had been proved for them.
“Thus, this certificate does not fulfill the requirements of section 65B of The Indian Evidence Act.”
With the police testimony found unreliable and the electronic evidence inadmissible, the Court held that the guilt of the accused had not been established and acquitted all five.
Why the judgment matters
The verdict adds to a series of 2020 riots trials in which courts have tested identification by police witnesses closely. Where the witnesses who claim to have seen the accused are themselves police officers, contradictions about their presence and movements go to the heart of the case, especially when an independent resident who saw the attack identifies no one.
It is also a reminder that CCTV footage, however central to an investigation, is electronic evidence and must come with a valid Section 65B certificate. Without it, footage cannot be read in evidence, and a prosecution resting on it can fail on proof rather than on what the footage may show.
Case Title: State v. Ankit & Ors. (case title and FIR number to be verified)
Court: Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Date of Judgment: To be verified
