Delhi District Court
State vs Sagar And Others on 24 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 03 (NORTH EAST DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURT : DELHI.
SC No. 79/21
FIR No. 36/2020
PS Sonia Vihar
U/s 147/148/149/395/427/435/436 IPC & 3/4 DP Act
State
Versus
1. Sagar,
s/o Sh. Pyare Lal,
r/o G-3/200, Gali no. 16,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
2. Devender Gautam,
s/o Sh. Kamal Singh,
r/o G-4/68, Gali No. 4,
Pusta-5, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
3. Anmol,
s/o Sh. Jagbir,
r/o G-1/55, Gali No. 1, 5th Pushta,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi. ...Accused
Date of Committal : 29.01.2021.
Date of Arguments : 31.01.2026.
Date of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026
JUDGMENT
Facts of Prosecution Case as per Charge Sheet
Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
FIR No. 36/20 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
PS Sonia Vihar 1 of 60 15:56:53 +0530
1.1 Briefly stated, on 26.02.2020, the present FIR was
registered on the statement of Ct. Ajay, who stated that on 25.02.2020,
he along with HC Manoj was on patrolling duty at Beat No. 7, Milan
Garden, Sonia Vihar. In and around the streets of Milan Garden, there
was gathering of large mob, which came towards Masjid Wali Gali
from the side of Ram Raheem Chowk. Some members of aforesaid
mob were instigating the mob for arson and pelting of stones. They
were also raising slogan of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ and were saying that CAA
and NRC had been implemented and protesters would not be spared.
At around 2 PM, mob came into the streets and started vandalism and
arson in Masjid Wali Gali. Ct. Ajay and HC Manoj tried to make them
understand and to stop them, but they did not relent and became
furious. To save themselves from this mob, Ct. Ajay and HC Manoj
hid themselves in the street. On receipt of information, SHO along
with staff reached there. Seeing them, the mob scattered and situation
came under control. By this time, the mob had already set on fire one
car, one moped, one house as well as wood and scraps kept in a
nearby plot, in Masjid Wali Gali. This mob also vandalized electricity
meters and CCTV cameras in that area. Ct. Ajay further stated that
during that period he came to know from Ct. Sandeep that mob
coming from the side of Milan Garden had set on fire a motorcycle
near Madeena Masjid and one scrap shop near Lodhi Medical Store in
G block. On the basis of the statement of Ct. Ajay, rukka was prepared
Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
FIR No. 36/20 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
PS Sonia Vihar 2 of 60 15:57:14 +0530
and the present FIR was registered. After registration of FIR,
investigation was assigned to SI Jitender Kumar.
1.2 During the course of investigation of this case, IO/SI
Jitender Kumar prepared a site plan indicating the places of incident.
IO seized a burnt car bearing registration no. DL-10CA-8679 of Sh.
Abrar Hussain and a burnt moped bearing registration no.
DL-5SAH-3941 of Sh. Abdul Rahim. IO also seized CCTV camera of
model ‘HIKVISION’, which was lying on the ground in broken
condition. Thereafter, IO seized various burnt articles from the
different places of incident and prepared site plans. During further
investigation, on 06.03.2020, IO got video recordings of affected
places done. He obtained video clips in a pendrive with certificate u/s
65B of I.E. Act from videographer Sh. Nanhe Chorasiya and seized
this pen-drive. IO also prepared mirror copy of four video clips, which
were received from public domain/resources, saved them in different
pen-drives, seized them and obtained certificate u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act.
On 06.03.2020 IO had shown footage of these four videos to Ct.
Sandeep, who identified five persons including Sagar, Anmol and
Devender. On the same day, accused Sagar and Devender were
arrested from their houses. At the instance of accused Sagar, one
danda was recovered. During further investigation, Section 395 IPC
was added in the present case.
1.3 After completion of investigation, chargesheet against
Digitally signed
PARVEEN by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 SINGH
SINGH
Date: 2026.02.24
PS Sonia Vihar 3 of 60 15:57:30 +0530
accused Sagar and Devender was filed for offences u/s.
143/147/149/395/435/436/427/188/34 IPC & 3 PDPP Act.
1.4 On 21.06.2021 first supplementary chargesheet was filed
filed and name accused Anmol was added in the said charge sheet.
1.5 On 28.10.2021 second supplementary chargesheet was
filed. On 24.08.2022 third supplementary chargesheet alongwith
consolidated site plan and FSL reports, was filed. On 19.11.2022
fourth supplementary chargesheet along with one statement was filed.
On 15.02.2023 fifth supplementary chargesheet alongwith additional
statements was filed. On 18.04.2023 sixth supplementary chargesheet
alongwith some more documents and statements was filed. On
18.05.2023, seventh supplementary chargesheet alongwith two sealed
parcels from FSL, Delhi was filed .
Charges
2.1 On 28.02.2024, charge for offences punishable u/s 148
IPC r/w section 149 IPC and section 188 IPC; u/s 3 PDPP Act r/w
section 149 IPC; u/s 427 IPC r/w section 149 IPC; u/s 435 IPC r/w
section 149 IPC; u/s 436 IPC r/w section 149 IPC; u/s 380 IPC r/w
section 149 IPC and u/s 395 IPC r/w section 149 IPC was framed
against all the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
Prosecution Evidence 3.1 In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Digitally signed by PARVEEN FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date: PS Sonia Vihar 4 of 60 2026.02.24 15:57:42 +0530
27 witnesses, description of which is given as under:-
Prosecution Name of Witness Description
Witness No.
PW1 Nasibuddin He is a witness of riots. As per
his testimony, on 25.02.2020,
at about 10-11 a.m, around
40-50 persons came on the
main road in front of his
house i.e. H. No. 4, G-2, 25
Foota Road, Sonia Vihar.
They were carrying danda,
stone etc. and were raising
slogan of Jai Shri Ram. The
mob demolished a half
constructed wall of his shop
on the ground floor and also
broke the glass pane on the
front side of his house. At
about 1-2 p.m, he alongwith
his family left the house for
Khajuri Khas. At about 5-5.30
p.m, police called him and
informed him that his house
had been set afire. At the time
of incident, he had seen faces
of 10-20 persons in the mob
but he did not know them. He
further deposed that after 2-4
days, police had shown him
certain photographs but none
of the persons in the
photographs were seen by him
in the mob.
Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 5 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
15:57:58 +0530
PW2 Zahiruddin He is a witness of the riots. As
per his testimony, he had been
taking care of Madina Masjid.
On the day of riot, at about
2.00 p.m, after the prayers, he
heard the slogans of Jai Shri
Ram coming from the side of
Ram Rahim Chowk. Everyone
fled from the mosque and he
and Sohraj Hafiz were left in
the mosque. He saw that 40-
50 persons entered their gali
and they were carrying stone,
brick etc. He and Hafiz closed
the door of mosque and went
upstairs. From the terrace,
they shifted to another
property and hid themselves.
He could not see face of
anyone in the mob as they
were covered their faces.
From the small window, he
saw that the persons from the
ob had broken the
government’s camera installed
over his house. Some persons
from the mob broke the door
of his house, pout the articles
from his house and set them
on fire.
PW3 HC Sandeep He deposed that on
22.05.2020, vide RC no.
39/21/20 (Ex.PW3/A), he
collected exhibits fromDigitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 6 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
15:58:10 +0530
MHCM and deposited them in
FSL, Rohini.
PW4 Shakeela She was a witness of the riots.
She deposed that on the day of
riot, she was at her home.
When noise started taking
place, her husband came
home. The noise was coming
from the side of Ram Rahim
Chowk and persons were
coming in her gali, while
raising slogans. Those persons
reached Madina Masjid and
started vandalizing and setting
afire the things. They broke
electricity meter of her house
and pelted stones on the gate
of her house. She did not see
anyone in those rioters.
PW5 Munni She deposed that on the day of
riot, she was at parchoon
shop, which was being run
from H. no. A-19, Gali No. 1,
Milan Garden, Sabhapur,
Delhi. She deposed that at
about 2.00 p.m, she heard
noise of Jai Shri Ram coming
from the side of Ram Rahim
Chowk. She immediately
closed her shop and went
inside her house. Rioters had
attacked at her house also. She
had not seen anyone in the
mob. Police had takenFIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
PS Sonia Vihar 7 of 60 PARVEEN by PARVEEN
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.02.24
15:58:20 +0530
photographs of her house,
which were Mark 5/P1 to
Mark 5/P2. On the same day,
she saw that Madina Masjid
had been set afire.
PW6 HC Deepak Kumar He was working as dossier
operator in PS Sonia Vihar.
On the directions of IO SI
Jitender, he had produced the
photographs of accused Sagar,
Devender Gautam @ Sheru
and Anmol to IO, which were
seized vide memos Ex.PW6/A
and Ex.PW6/B.
PW7 Shabnam She deposed that on
25.02.2020, riot had taken
place in the area of Milan
Garden, Sabhapur. However,
on the day of incident, she
was not at her home. When
she returned to her home, she
found that glass panes and
cover of electricity meter were
damaged. Police had taken
photographs of the damages,
which were Mark 7/P1. She
further deposed that she see
some damages appearing on
Madina Masjid.
PW8 Abrar Hussain He had suffered loss during
the riots.
As per his testimony, on
25.02.2020, riots had taken
place in the area of Milan
Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 8 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
15:58:31 +0530
Garden, Sabhapur. On that
day, at about 02.00 p.m, he
saw a mob of 40-50 persons
coming from the side of Ram
Rahim Chowk and they were
raising slogans of Jai Shri
Ram. He went to the terrace of
the house of Jahiruddin and
from there, he saw that the
said mob had damaged his car
bearing no. DL-10CA-8679
and also set on fire Madina
Masjid. Articles and cash
were also looted from his
house.
PW9 Abdul Rahim As per his testimony, on
25.02.2020, he, on his scooty,
had gone to H. No. A-12, Gali
No. 1, Milan Garden where
his brother was constructing
house. At about 02.00 p.m,
50-60 persons came there and
they were raising slogans of
Jai Shri Ram. He remained
locked inside and did not see
them. He heard noise of
cracking/ breaking of glasses
in the gali. After about one
house, he came out and saw
that his scooty / moped TVS
had been set afire.
PW10 HC Vikas He deposed that on
13.09.2021, vide RC
(Ex.PW10/A), he hadFIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 9 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
15:58:42 +0530
collected one sealed envelope
and two copies of RC from
MHCM and deposited them in
FSL, Rohini. After depositing
the exhibits, he handed over
copy of RC and
acknowledgment letter to
MHCM.
PW11 Mainuddin He deposed that on
25.02.2020, he was not at
home and at about 2.00 p.m,
he came back and found that
masjid situated in his gali was
on fire and some other
properties had been
vandalized.
PW12 Farman Haider He deposed that on
25.02.2020, riot had taken
pace in his gali i.e. gali No. 1,
Ram Rahim Chowk, Milan
Garden. At about 2.00 p.m, a
number of persons came from
the side of Ram Rahim
Chowk while raising slogans
of Jai Shri Ram. They started
vandalizing the properties in
his gali. From inside his
house, he could only see that
they were carrying danda,
bricks etc. He could not
identify anyone amongst the
rioters as many of them had
covered their faces.
PW13 Shakeela Begum She deposed that on
FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 10 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
15:58:52 +0530
25.02.2020, riots had taken
place in her area. However, he
only heard noise of damage
being caused outside and did
not see anything.
PW14 Anwar Ahmed He deposed that on
25.02.2020, riot had taken
place in his area i.e. Milan
Garden, Sabhapur. However,
he was not at his home on that
day. On 11.03.2020, when he
came to his house, he found
his house in the same
condition in which he had left
it. He had furnished copy of
electricity bill to police.
PW15 Mohd. Sohrab He was a witness to the riot.
He deposed that on
25.02.2020 at about 01.45
p.m, he was offering prayer in
a masjid. He heard noise of
slogans of Jai Shri Ram, being
raised by some persons. He
went upstairs and he kept
hearing the noise and smoke
rising up from the gali. When
the mob went back, he found
that the masjid was set afire.
His motorcycle was also
slightly damaged and the
electricity meter outside the
masjid was also damaged. He
could not see anyone in the
mob.
FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 11 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
15:59:02 +0530
PW16 Sheikh Manjoor He deposed that on
25.02.2020, riot had taken
place in his area. At about 12-
1.00 p.m, he heard noise of
some persons. He did not see
anyone in the mob. However
the electricity meter of his
house was damaged.
PW17 ASI Satbir On 24.02.2020, on the
directions of SHO, he had
announced the imposition of
section 144 Cr.P.C in the area
of B, C, D, E, G, blocks of
Sonia Vihar; Milan Garden;
Sabhapur Village; Chauhan
Patti village; Yamuna Khader
village. He further deposed
that on 26.02.2020, he
registered FIR of this case and
further investigation was
assigned to SI Jitender.
PW18 Ali Ahmed He was the Imam of Madina
Masjid. He deposed that on
25.02.2020, riot had taken
place in his area. On that day,
at about 11-11.30 a.m, he
heard noise coming from the
road. Out of fear, he went
upstairs and did not see
anyone in the mob.
PW19 HC Ajay He was an eye witness. He
was also a witness to the
seizure of articles by the IO
and of preparation of siteFIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
PS Sonia Vihar 12 of 60 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
15:59:12 +0530
plans by the IO.
PW20 Rahisuddin He deposed that he could not
tell the date but on 25th day of
second month, riot had taken
place in the area of Milan
Garden, Sabhapur. On that
day, at about 02.00 p.m, when
he was coming out of masjid,
he saw a mob of around 150-
200 persons coming from the
side of Ram Rahim Chowk.
They were carrying iron rod,
country made pistol etc and
were raising slogans of Jai
Shri Ram. They vandalized
the masjid and also burnt all
the articles lying therein. They
also broke the electricity
meter of his as well as other
houses. Due to fear, he had
gone to the terrace of his
house. The rioters had covered
their faces and could not see
and identify anyone. He
further deposed that police
had shown him a video of riot
and he identified one rioter
carrying brick in that video.
He further deposed that his
statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C
(Ex.PW20/A) was recorded.
He identified accused
Devender in the court and inFIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 13 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
15:59:22 +0530
the video played during his
testimony.
PW21 Guddu Khan He is a witness to the riot. As
per his testimony, on
25.02.2020, between 2-2.30
p.m, he saw a mob of around
30-40 persons coming from
the side of Ram Rahim
Chowk and they were
carrying bricks, stones,
dandas, rods etc and were
raising slogans of Jai Shri
Ram. They attacked over a
madrasa being run by one
Rahisuddin. They also
damaged a moped and a
Santro car. They also broke
electricity meters of 15-20
houses of that gali. He had
seen faces of two persons in
that mob. He identified two
persons in the video played in
the police station. He proved
his complaint Ex.PW21/A. He
identified accused Devender
and Anmol in the court as
well as in the video played
during his testimony.
PW22 Mohd. Javed He deposed that on
25.02.2020, riot had take
place in the area of Sonia
Vihar, where he was residing.
On that day, at about 10-11
a.m, 40-50 persons, withFIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 14 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
15:59:31 +0530
covered faces, came to his
house, broke the shutter of his
property and took away the
articles i.e. motorcycle, one
bicycle and 3 gas cylinders.
They set ablaze the
motorcycle and bicycle at the
chowk and took the cylinder
with them. They had also
looted cash of Rs.10,000/- and
gold items from his house.
PW23 ASI Narender He deposed that on
05.09.2021, on the pointing
of secret informer, he
alongwith IO SI Jitender had
arrested accused Anmol, vide
arrest memo Ex.A-8. Personal
search of accused Sagar was
conducted vide memo Ex.A-9.
At the instance of accused
Anmol, pointing out memo
(Ex.PW23/A) was prepared.
PW24 Dr. Bharti Bhardwaj FSL witness
PW25 Nanhe Chaurasia He was a photographer who
had done video recordings of
condition of properties
affected during the riots on
26.02.2020 and 27.02.2020.
PW26 HC Sandeep He is an eye witness of the
incident. He is also a witness
of the arrest of accused. His
detailed testimony shall be
discussed later as and whenDigitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN by PARVEEN
SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 15 of 60 SINGH Date: 2026.02.24
15:59:44 +0530
required.
PW27 SI Jitender IO of the case.
3.2 Further the prosecution proved the documents as given in
the table below:-
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved/
Attested
by
Ex.PW3/A RC No. 39/21/20 PW3
Ex.PW6/A Seizure memo of photos of accused PW6
Devender and Sagar
Ex.PW6/B Seizure memo of photos of accused PW6
Anmol
Ex.PW10/A RC No. 92/21/21 PW10
Ex.PW19/A Tehrir PW19
Ex.PW19/B Site plan PW19
Ex.PW19/C Seizure memo of CCTV Camera PW19
Ex.PW19/D Seizure memo of burnt materials from PW19
madrasa
Ex.PW19/E Seizure memo of burnt materials from PW19
open plot
Ex.PW19/F Seizure memo of danda PW19Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 16 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
15:59:54 +0530
Ex.PW19/G Seizure memo of bricks and stones PW19
Ex.PW19/H Seizure memo of burnt moped and car PW19
Ex.PW19/I Site plan PW19
Ex.PW19/J Common seizure memo of burnt PW19
motorcycle and bicycle
Ex.PW19/K Site plan PW19
Ex.PW19/L Site plan PW19
Ex.PW20/A Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C PW20
Ex.PW21/A Complaint PW21
Ex.PW21/B Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C PW21
Ex.PW23/A Pointing out memo PW23
Ex.PW24/A FSL report PW24
Ex.PW24/B FSL report PW24
Ex.PW24/C Copy of forwarding letter PW24
Ex.PW26/A Pointing out memo PW26
Ex.PW27/1 Endorsement PW27
Ex.PW27/2 Seizure memo of pen drive PW27
Ex.PW27/3 Seizure memo of pen drive PW27
Ex.PW27/4 Certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act PW27FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
PS Sonia Vihar 17 of 60 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:00:04 +0530
Ex.PW27/5 Disclosure Statement of Sagar PW27
Ex.PW27/6 Seizure memo of danda PW27
Ex.PW27/7 Seizure memo of hard disk PW27
Ex.PW27/8 Seizure memo of mobile phone of Sagar PW27
Ex.PW27/9 Site plan PW273.3 During the trial, all the accused, u/s 294 Cr.P.C, admitted
the following documents:-
S. No. Description of the document Exhibit No.
1 DD No. 11B dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-1
2 DD No. 12B dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-2
3 DD No. 32B dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-3
4 Arrest Memo of Devender Gautam Ex.A-4
5 Personal Search Memo of Devender Gautam Ex.A-5
6 Arrest Memo of Sagar Ex.A-6
7 Personal Search Memo of Sagar Ex.A-7
8 Arrest Memo of Anmol Ex.A-8
9 Personal Search Memo of Anmol Ex.A-9
10 Certificate u/s 65B of IE Act Ex.A-10
11 Copy of FIR Ex.A-11FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 18 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:00:14 +0530
12 Endorsement on Rukka Ex.A-12
13 Acknowledgment of case acceptance Ex.A-13
14 Copy of R/C No. 29/21/20 Ex.A-14
15 Notice u/s 160 and 175 CrPC to Jamshed Ex.A-15
dated 25.03.2020
16 BSES Bill dated 11.06.2019 Ex.A-16
17 Notice u/s 160 and 175 CrPC to Babu dated Ex.A-17
25.03.2020
18 BSES Bill dated 13.02.2020 Ex.A-18
19 Notice u/s 160 and 175 CrPC to Ashraf dated Ex.A-19
25.03.2020
20 BSES Bill dated 10.08.2020 Ex.A-20
21 Notice u/s 160 and 175 CrPC to Shakir dated Ex.A-21
25.03.2020
22 BSES Bill dated 15.01.2020 Ex.A-22
23 Notice u/s 160 and 175 CrPC to Rashid dated Ex.A-23
25.03.2020
24 BSES Bill dated 10.06.2016 Ex.A-24
25 Fire Report dated 15.03.2021 Ex.A-25
26 Letter dated 28.07.2020 issued by Sh. SK Ex.A-26Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 19 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:00:24 +0530
Tomar
27 Request Letter by IO to provide PCR Form Ex.A-27
28 Authority Letter dated 18.08.2020 Ex.A-28
29 PCR Forms Ex.A-29 to
Ex.A-41
30 Complaint us/ 195 CrPC by DCP, NE District, Ex.A-42
against Sagar and Devender
31 Complaint us/ 195 CrPC by DCP, NE District, Ex.A-43
against Anmol
32 Copy of Prohibitory Order u/s 144 CrPC dated Ex.A-44
24.02.2020
33 Vehicle Particulars issued by MLO, Rajouri Ex.A-45
Garden dated 08.06.2021 for Vehicle No.
DL10CA8679
34 Vehicle Particulars issued by MLO, Loni Ex.A-46
Road dated 08.06.2021 for Vehicle No.
DL5SAH3941
35 Vehicle Particulars issued by MLO, Loni Ex.A-47
Road dated 08.06.2021 for Vehicle No.
DL5SAS8666
36 Wireless Log and Diary dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-48FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
PS Sonia Vihar 20 of 60
by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:00:37 +0530
with Sheet No. 140
37 Wireless Log and Diary dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-49
with Sheet No. 79
38 Wireless Log and Diary dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-50
with Sheet No. 72
39 Wireless Log and Diary dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-51
with Sheet No. 69
40 Wireless Log and Diary dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-52
with Sheet No. 67
41 Wireless Log and Diary dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-53
with Sheet No. 60
42 Wireless Log and Diary dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-54
with Sheet No. 48
43 Notice u/s 91 CrPC to SDM Karawal Nagar Ex.A-55
dated 06.09.2021
44 Compensation Claim Form claimed by Ex.A-56
Nasiruddin
45 Sanction Order issued by SDM Karawal Ex.A-57
Nagar dated 13.03.2020
46 List of Victims dated 13.03.2020 who Ex.A-58
obtained CompensationDigitally signed
by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 21 of 60 SINGH
Date:
2026.02.24
16:00:47
+0530
47 List of Victims dated 12.03.2020 who Ex.A-59
obtained Compensation
48 Claim Form applied by Javed Ex.A-60
49 Sanction Order issued by SDM Karawal Ex.A-61
Nagar dated 21.03.2020
50 Compensation Claim Form claimed by Ex.A-62
Rahisuddin
51 Grant of Ex-gratia Relief dated 16.03.2020 Ex.A-63
52 Sanction Order issued by SDM Karawal Ex.A-64
Nagar dated 18.03.2020
53 Seizure Memo of Exhibits (Debris) dated Ex.A-65
01.09.2021
54 Request Letter by IO, dated 01.09.2021 for Ex.A-66
conducting inspection of Burnt Vehicle
55 Request Letter by IO, dated 01.09.2021 for Ex.A-67
conducting inspection of Burnt Vehicle
56 Request Letter by IO, dated 01.09.2021 for Ex.A-68
conducting inspection of Burnt Vehicle
57 Request Letter by IO, dated 01.09.2021 for Ex.A-69
conducting inspection of Burnt Vehicle
58 Crime Scene Report dated 13.09.2021 vide Ex.A-70Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 22 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:00:56 +0530
FSL No. SFSLDLH/8680/21
59 Crime Scene Report dated 13.09.2021 vide Ex.A-71
FSL No. SFSLDLH/8678/21
60 Crime Scene Report dated 13.09.2021 vide Ex.A-72
FSL No. SFSLDLH/8677/21
61 Crime Scene Report dated 13.09.2021 vide Ex.A-73
FSL No. SFSLDLH/8679/21
62 Forwarding Letter dated 27.09.2021 vide FSL Ex.A-74
No. SFSLDLH/8677/2021/18768
63 Forwarding Letter dated 27.09.2021 vide FSL Ex.A-75
No. SFSLDLH/8678/2021/18770
64 Forwarding Letter dated 27.09.2021 vide FSL Ex.A-76
No. SFSLDLH/8679/2021/8742
65 Forwarding Letter dated 27.09.2021 vide FSL Ex.A-77
No. SFSLDLH/8780/2021/18774
66 Record of Statement of Victim Rashid u/s 164 Ex.A-78
CrPC dated 20.09.2021
67 Fitness Report of Rashid for statement u/s 164 Ex.A-79
CrPC
68 Statement of Rashid Ali u/s 164 CrPC Ex.A-80
69 Certificate issued by Ld. Reliever MM dated Ex.A-81Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 23 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:01:07 +0530
20.09.2021
70 Record of Statement of Witness / Victim Ex.A-82
Rahisuddin u/s 164 CrPC dated 20.09.2021
71 Fitness Report of Rahisuddin for statement u/s Ex.A-83
164 CrPC
72 Certificate issued by Ld. Reliever MM dated Ex.A-84
20.09.2021
73 Record of Statement of Witness / Victim Ex.A-85
Guddu Khan u/s 164 CrPC dated 20.09.2021
74 Fitness Report of Rahisuddin for statement u/s Ex.A-86
164 CrPC
75 Certificate issued by Ld. Reliever MM dated Ex.A-87
20.09.2021
76 Notice to Commissioner, EDMC Delhi, u/s 91 Ex.A-88
CrPC dated 27.09.2021
77 Notice to Chief Engineer, PWD (HQ) u/s 91 Ex.A-89
CrPC dated 27.09.2021
78 Notice to Incharge, DFC (HQ), u/s 91 CrPC Ex.A-90
dated 27.09.2021
79 Notice to Incharge, Division Head, BSES, Ex.A-91
Karawal Nagar, Delhi u/s 91 CrPC datedDigitally signed
by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
PS Sonia Vihar 24 of 60 2026.02.24
16:01:18 +0530
28.09.2021
80 Notice to SDM Karawal Nagar, u/s 91 CrPC Ex.A-92
dated 27.09.2021
81 Notice to Javed u/s 91 CrPC dated 03.09.2021 Ex.A-93
82 Notice to Abdul Rahim u/s 91 CrPC dated Ex.A-94
03.09.2021
83 Notice to Abrar Hussain u/s 91 CrPC dated Ex.A-95
03.09.2021
84 Notice to Incharge, Division Head, BSES, Ex.A-96
Karawal Nagar, Delhi u/s 91 CrPC dated
11.04.2023
85 Reply by BSES dated 17 April 2023 Ex.A-97
86 Meter Installation Reports Ex.A-98 to
Ex.A-116
87 Reply by BSES Business Manager, Division Ex.A-117
Karawal Nagar, dated 15 May 2023
88 Certificate u/s 65B of IE Act Ex.A-118
89 Customer Application Form Ex.A-119
90 OTP Verification Ex.A-120 &
Ex.A-121
91 CDR Ex.A-122FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
PS Sonia Vihar 25 of 60 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:01:32 +0530
92 Acknowledgment of Case Acceptance dated Ex.A-123
22.05.2020
93 Relevant entries in register No. 19 Ex.A-124 &
Ex.A-125
94 Copies of R/C Ex.A-126 &
Ex.A-128
95 Copy of Duty Roster dated 25.02.2020 Ex.A-127
96 Acknowledgment of Case Acceptance dated Ex.A-129
06.09.2021
97 Further Material receiving of FSL dated Ex.A-130
13.09.2021
98 Copy of R/C Ex.A-131
99 Acknowledgment of Case Acceptance dated Ex.A-132 &
07.10.2021 and 17.11.2022 Ex.A-133
100 Request letters to PWD Ex.A-134 to
Ex.A-136
101 Four memos dated 12.03.2020 pertaining to Ex.A-137 to
Hard Disk retrieval from CCTV sites in riots Ex.A-141
affected areas
102 Letter dated 08.05.2020 issued from PWD Ex.A-142
department to SHO, PS Sonia Vihar,Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 26 of 60 SINGH
SINGH
Date: 2026.02.24
16:01:41 +0530
regarding CCTV footage along with certificate
u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act
103 CCTV footage certificate issued from BEL Ex.A-143
104 Letter confirming for receiving of footage Ex.A-144Statement of Accused
4.1 Thereafter, on 26.09.2025, statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C/ 351
BNSS of accused Devender and Sagar was recorded and they
preferred not to lead evidence in their defence. On 09.10.2025,
statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C/ 351 BNSS of accused Anmol was recorded
and he preferred not to lead evidence in his defence.
Contentions of ld. SPP and of ld. counsels for accused
5.1 I have heard ld. SPP for State as well as ld. counsels for
accused and perused the record very carefully.
5.2 It has been contended by ld. SPP that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. He has contended that
three of the prosecution witnesses have identified the accused. These
witnesses are PW20 Rahisuddin, PW21 Guddu Khan and PW26 HC
Sandeep. PW20 and PW21 are the victims of the riots and PW26 was
on duty on the day of riots at the place where the riots had happened.
The fact that PW26 was on duty on that day at that place is not
disputed. The duty roster of that day has been placed on record and is
Ex. A-127. He has further contended that apart from testimonies of
Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN by PARVEEN
SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 27 of 60 SINGH Date: 2026.02.24
16:01:50 +0530
these witnesses, electronic evidence in the form of CCTV footage has
also proved the involvement of these accused. The said CCTV footage
was collected by the IO through Ct. Satpal from PWD. It was
collected on 21.03.2020 and was seized vide seizure memo dated
01.05.2020, which is Ex.PW27/7. He has further contended that the
certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act with regard to this CCTV footage
was later on sent by PWD to the IO through forwarding letter dated
08.05.2020, which has been admitted by the accused and the said
letter is Ex.A-142. The certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act has also
been admitted by accused and is Ex.A-143. He has further contended
that this hard disk containing the CCTV footage was sent to FSL for
examination. PW24 Dr. Bharti, Sr. Scientific Officer from FSL
deposed that she had received this hard disk, which was duly sealed
with the seal of JK and the seal tallied with the sample seal. She
marked the hard disk as Ex.1 and examined it. She further deposed
that she had examined Ex.1 and on frame by frame analysis, using
Video Analyst System, she did not find any indication of alteration or
tampering in the same. She prepared her report Ex.PW24/A. During
the testimony of PW24, the hard disk was exhibited as
Ex.PW24/Article-1. He has further contended that the accused are
clearly visible in this video footage and have been identified by the
witnesses before the court as well as in the video footage. Thus, the
prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 28 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:02:00 +0530
5.3 Countering it, ld. counsels for accused have contended
that the prosecution has no evidence against the accused at all. They
have contended that two of the public witnesses have been tutored by
the IO to depose against the accused. They further contended that
PW20 Rahisuddin deposed that on the day of incident, out of fear,
everyone had gone inside and he had gone to the terrace of his house
and had seen such things while hiding there. PW20 further deposed
that the rioters had covered their faces and he could not see anyone.
They were taking each other’s name but he could not remember the
same and that he could not identify anyone from the rioters. He then
went on to state that he had identified some rioters in the footage.
Therefore, the testimony of PW20 is based on what he had seen in the
video footage. They have contended that PW21 Guddu Khan deposed
that he had seen faces of two persons in that mob but the identification
of those to persons by this witness came very late and in order to
explain why he identified them late, he deposed that initially because
of fear, he did not identify anyone. However, on being made
understand by the residents of the locality as well as the committee
members, he identified two persons in the footage, which was played
by the police before him. PW21 further deposed that he had seen those
two persons indulging into vandalism, pelting stones etc. and those
two persons were accused Devender and Anmol. He had also
identified those two persons in the court as well as in video footage.
Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 29 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:02:11 +0530
Ld. counsels for accused have contended that it is to be noticed that
PW21 took an excuse that it was out of fear that he initially stated
before the IO that he did not recognize anyone but, during his cross
examination, he deposed that when he had gone to the police for the
first time to give his statement in March 2020, he was not under any
kind of fear and his correct statement was recorded by the police.
PW21 admitted that on that day, he had mentioned before the police
that he did not identify anyone from the rioters. On that day, police
had shown him photographs and he identified no one from those
photographs. Therefore, admittedly PW21 was not under any fear
when his first statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded and in that
statement, he clearly stated that he could not identify anyone. Thus, it
was only after he had been shown video and tutored by the police that
he stated before ld. MM in his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C that he had
seen two persons.
5.4 With regard to accused Sagar, ld. counsels have
contended that there is no evidence at all against this accused. They
have further contended that the electronic evidence in the form of
copy of CCTV footage, as collected by the IO, is not admissible. They
have contended that IO had got the CCTV footage in hard disk on
21.03.2020. However, the IO did not seize or seal the hard disk on that
day. The hard disk was never deposited in malkhana on that day.
Therefore admittedly, till the date of its seizure i.e. on 01.05.2020, the
Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 30 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2026.02.24
16:02:21
+0530
hard disk remained with the IO in open condition. Therefore, the
sanctity of the CCTV footage and the chain of custody is completely
broken. They have further contended that the alleged certificate u/s
65B of Evidence Act is not a certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act
because firstly, it does not fulfill the requirements of section 65B of
Evidence Act. Secondly it does not even state the medium upon which
the CCTV footage was copied. The forwarding letter, Ex.A-142,
stated that what was being sent to the SHO was the CCTV footage,
CD and the certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act with regard to the said
CCTV footage. It also stated that the CD was enclosed. That means
that the alleged certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act, which was
Ex.A-143, was not the certificate in respect of the hard disk, which
had been exhibited during the testimony of PW24 as
Ex.PW24/Article-1. They have further contended that as PW24 had
merely scientifically examined the hard disk, the marking of exhibit
on hard disk in her testimony was only for the purpose of
identification and this hard disk could only have been proved by the
maker of the article who never stepped into the witness box.
Therefore, in absence of any certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act, the
video footage is inadmissible and cannot be looked into by the court.
5.5 Countering it, ld. SPP has relied upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana, Crl.
Appeal No. 1418/2013 and in the light of this judgment, he has
Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 31 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:02:31 +0530
contended that at the time of exhibition of hard disk as
Ex.PW24/Article-1, no objection was taken and as the certificate u/s
65B of Evidence Act was admitted by the accused; at this stage,
accused do not have any right to challenge the admissibility of this
document because, the defect was curable and had the accused taken
any objection regarding the mode of proof of the hard disk containing
the CCTV footage, the defect could have been cured. Furthermore, he
has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka v. T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @
Umarhazi @ Hazi & Ors., 2023 INSC 988 and has contended that in
the light of this judgment, the electronic evidence is admissible.
5.6 Countering it, ld. counsels for accused have contended
that the question is not of taking objections by the accused but of the
admissibility of the electronic evidence and law in this regard has been
laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v.
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 571 which
categorically held, that secondary evidence is not admissible unless
there is a valid certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act. Once the
document is not admissible, the marking of exhibit on the hard disk
and accused not taking objection to it is of no value because, the court
cannot look into that evidence.
Findings
6.1 I have considered the rival submissions and gone through
Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 32 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:02:41 +0530
the record very carefully.
6.2 The case of the prosecution primarily rests on three
witnesses. The first one being PW20 Rahisuddin.
6.3 He deposed that since 2004, he had been residing at H.
No. A-33, Gali No. 1, Milan Garden, Sabhapur, Delhi. On 25.02.2000,
in his presence, a riot had taken place in that area. He further deposed
that he was deposing in the year 2025 and riot had taken place around
4-5 years prior to that day. On that day at about 2.00 p.m, he was
coming out of a masjid/Madarsa situated in same gali. A mob of
around 150-200 persons, while carrying iron rod, country made pistol
etc., came from the side of Ram Rahim Chowk. The mob was raising
slogan of ‘Jai Shri Ram’. It burnt a vikky belonging to a labour. The
mob vandalized the masjid and also burnt the articles lying therein.
The mob broke the electricity meter of his house as well as other
houses in that gali. Out of fear, everyone had gone inside. He had gone
to the terrace of his house and had seen such things while hiding there.
The rioters had covered their faces also and he could not see and
identify anyone amongst the rioters. The rioters were taking each
other’s name, but he did not remember the same. He could not identify
anyone from the rioters. Police had shown him a video of riots and he
identified one rioter in that video who was carrying brick in his hand.
Police had told him the name of that rioter but he did not remember
the name of that boy on the day of his testimony. He further deposed
Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 33 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:02:52 +0530
that he had seen that boy indulging into riot in his gali on that day. He
further deposed that his statement was recorded before a judge and he
identified his signatures on his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C at point X.
The statement was exhibited as Ex.PW20/A. During his testimony, he
pointed towards accused Devender and stated that he appeared like the
rioter, whom he had identified in the video before the police. It was
observed by ld. Predecessor that when the witness heard the name of
Devender, he reiterated that his name was Devender. During his
testimony, three video files were played and he identified accused
Devender in all the three videos.
6.4 He was cross examined by ld. SPP. During his cross
examination by ld. SPP, he denied that he had informed name of
Devender to Police and volunteered, that he had only identified him.
He denied that he had also informed police that Devender was resident
of the area towards G-Block.
6.5 During his cross examination on behalf of accused, he
deposed that on the day he had gone to see video in the police station,
he had been called in the police station by one Ajay. The videos
pertained to his gali. In those videos, rioters were seen indulging in
vandalism. In his gali, there were CCTV cameras installed by PWD.
He admitted that at the time line when he pointed out accused
Devender in the videos, no vandalism was seen in the video. It was
observed by the court that the witness had seen only limited part of
Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 34 of 60 PARVEEN Date:
SINGH 2026.02.24
16:03:20
+0530
videos only for the purpose to point out the person identified by him
as Devender.
6.6 He denied that he had deposed falsely about seeing and
identifying Devender amongst the rioters on the day of riot and
volunteered, that he had seen Devender while passing in front of his
house on that day. He admitted that when Devender was passing by in
front of his house, he was not indulged into any act of vandalism and
volunteered, that Devender was in the mob.
6.7 The second witness is PW21 Guddu Khan. He deposed
that for about 20 years, he had been residing at A-20, gali no.1, Khasra
no.557, Milan Garden, Sabhapur, Delhi. In his area, on 25.02.2020
between 2-3.00 p.m, riot had taken place. He saw that a mob of around
30-40 persons came from the side of Ram Raheem chowk. They were
carrying bricks, stones, dandas, rods etc. and were raising slogans of
‘Jai Shree Ram’. First, they attacked a madarsa being run by one
Rahisuddin. They also badly damaged a moped and threw it in an
open plot. They also damaged one Santro car belonging to Gulfam and
thereafter set it on fire. They also broke the electricity meter installed
in about 15-20 houses of that gali. Someone from that mob had also
broke rear window pane of his car bearing no.DL-1Z 7872. They also
broke electricity meter installed in his house. He had seen faces of two
persons in that mob. Initially, out of fear, he declined to identify any
rioter before police because, a threat had been given of a similar
Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 35 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:03:29 +0530
incident being repeated. Subsequently, he was made to understand by
residents of that locality as well as committee members of Masjid and
then, he identified those two persons in a video, which was played
before him by the police in police station. He had seen that video in
the 9th month of 2021 but he did not remember the exact date. At that
time, some other persons from his locality were also present. Name of
those two persons were found out from other residents of locality and
he had informed police about their names on the next day of seeing the
video. Those persons were Devender and Anmol. He further deposed
that on 25.02.2020, he had seen those two persons indulging in
vandalism, pelting stones and using danda. He further deposed that a
common complaint with regard to incident was given to the police by
several residents of his gali. He had also signed that complaint. The
complaint was exhibited as Ex.PW21/A.
6.8 He further deposed that he had also gone before a lady
judge and he had given his statement regarding the incident. During
his testimony, he was shown a statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C and he
identified his signatures at points X on the statement. The statement
was exhibited as Ex.PW21/B. He deposed that he had stated correct
facts before that judge.
6.9 During his testimony, he correctly identified accused
Devender and Anmol in the court. During his testimony, three videos
were played and he identified accused Devender and Anmol in thoseFIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
PS Sonia Vihar 36 of 60 PARVEEN by PARVEEN
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.02.24
16:03:41 +0530
videos.
6.10 He was cross examined by ld. SPP. During his cross
examination by ld. SPP, he admitted that he had seen videos in the
police station on 16.09.2021. He did not remember the date, month or
year when he had given his statement before lady judge and that it
might be on 20.09.2021, when he had given the statement before the
lady judge.
6.11 During his cross examination on behalf of accused, he
deposed that apart from Guddu Khan, he was also known as Mobin
Khan. He further deposed that the police had called him and others for
inquiry on 28.02.2020 and on that day, their statement was not
recorded by the police and volunteered, that out of fear, they had gone
back to their house without giving any statement. He deposed that he
was not under any kind of fear when in March 2020, he had gone to
give his statement to the police for the first time. The police had read
over his statement to him and it was correctly recorded by the police.
He had mentioned before the police that at that time, he had not
identified anyone from the rioters. On that day, police had shown
photographs of some persons and he denied identifying anyone from
those photographs. During the period from 25.02.2020 to 16.09.2021,
he had not seen Devender and Anmol. He had seen both these persons
together around three days prior to the riots near Ghuiya Mandir, Vijay
Vihar, which was at a distance of about 400 meters from his gali. He
Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 37 of 60 SINGH
Date:
2026.02.24
16:03:52
+0530
further deposed that while giving his statement in March 2020, he had
stated before the police that when rioters were vandalizing the vehicle
etc. in their gali, he alongwith his family had gone inside his house
and hidden themselves. He further deposed that either prior to seeing
the videos, or after seeing the videos, police did not give any
information regarding Devender and Anmol. When he had gone to
give his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C before a lady Judge, police had told
him that his statement would be recorded. Police had not told him
what was to be stated by him before the lady Judge, rather police told
him that he had to tell the Judge about what had happened with him.
He denied that he had given statement before lady Judge on the basis
of tutoring by police or that he had identified both the accused persons
at the instance of police.
6.12 The next witness is PW26 HC Sandeep. He deposed that
on 25.02.2020 since about 10.00 a.m, he was deputed in his beat in
Sonia Vihar. At about 11.00 a.m, a mob was present at Madina Masjid
and this mob was raising slogan of ‘Jai Shri Ram’. This mob was
pelting stones at Madina Masjid. Additional staff from the police
station arrived and the mob fled. At around 02.30 p.m, one mob
gathered at Lodhi Medical Store and set ablaze a furniture shop near
Lodhi Medical Store. He informed about this incident to Ct.Ajay. On
26.02.2020, he informed IO that he had seen the incident and he could
identify some of the rioters. On 06.03.2020, IO SI Jitender called himDigitally signed
by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 38 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:04:01 +0530
to police station and showed him footage of riots wherein he identified
five persons namely Anmol, Devender, Sagar, Ritik and Ajay. These
persons were residents of his beat area and the footage pertained to
Mangal Bazar, G Block, Sonia Vihar. Thereafter, he and IO went to
Mangal Bazar at a shop of electrical items of Mahesh Gupta, situated
at G-5/158. There were CCTV cameras installed in that shop. Mahesh
Gupta informed them that the CCTV footage used to be erased after 3-
4 days. He again deposed that they had gone to Mangal Bazar on
15.07.2020 and not on 06.03.2020. On 06.03.2020, he and IO went to
G-1 Block, Sonia Vihar. They had gone there in search of Anmol.
Anmol was not found in the area. Thereafter, they went to the house of
Sagar at G-3/200, Sonia Vihar. Sagar was found at his house and was
arrested by IO vide arrest memo and personal search memo, which
were Ex.A-6 and Ex.A-7. Sagar made a disclosure and pursuant to the
disclosure, he led them to a field in G-5 Block where at his instance, a
danda was recovered. IO prepared a pullanda of that danda and sealed
it with the seal of JD. IO also prepared pointing out memo of that
place. Pointing out memo was Ex.PW26/A. On 07.03.2020, accsued
Sagar was produced before the court and one day police remand was
granted. They alongwith accused Sagar searched for Anmol, Bobby,
Ritik and Ajay but they could not be found. Thereafter, they reached
H. No. G-4/68, Sonia Vihar. Accsued Devender was found at his home
and he was arrested vide arrest memo, Ex.A-4. Personal search of
Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 39 of 60 SINGH
Date:
2026.02.24
16:04:10
+0530
Devender was conducted vide memo Ex.A-5. On 15.07.2020 at about
12-1.00 p.m, IO called him to the police station and IO again showed
him the video footages, which were shown to him on 06.03.2020. He
again identified 05 accused in those videos. IO sealed pen drive with
the seal of JK in a cloth pullanda. He informed IO that the video
footage pertained to Mangal Bazar Road, G Block, Sonia Vihar
whereafter he alongwith IO reached a shop at G-5/158. CCTV
cameras were installed at that shop. IO checked the same but no
footage was found therein. On return to police station, IO again
showed him the video, which was shown to him on 21.03.2020. That
video footage pertained to PWD. There were five videos and he
identified Devender, Sagar, Anmol, Ritik and Ajay in those videos.
Thereafter IO recorded his statement. He identifed accused Devender,
Sagar and Anmol in the court.
6.13 During his testimony, five videos were played and he
identified accused Devender, Sagar and Anmol in three of the videos
and Devender and Anmol in other two videos.
6.14 During his cross examination, he deposed that in the
beginning of the year 2020, he had come to know that accused Sagar
was having a barber shop in G Block, Sonia Vihar. He had visited that
shop many times. On 25.02.2020, he was at Madina Masjid and at
around 11-11.30 a.m and then returned Madina Masjid at 2.00 p.m and
remained there till 2.15 p.m. He reached Lodhi Medical at aroundDigitally signed
by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 40 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:04:19 +0530
11.40-11.45 a.m and remained there till 12.30 p.m. He returned Lodhi
Medical at around 02.30 p.m and remained there till 4-4.30 p.m. When
he was at Madina Masjid, crowd had started gathering, however, on
seeing him and the team, crowd dispersed. He could not tell the
distance till which the mob retreated because there were many streets
and mob had dispersed in different streets. During his first visit at
Madina Masjid, after it had dispersed, the mob did not return. The
distance between Madina Masjid and Lodhi Medical was around 500-
700 meters. The crowd at Lodhi medical had some old faces and had
some new faces also. When he reached Madina Masjid, the mob was
in the process of gathering and on his reaching there, the mob
dispersed. He denied that during his stay at Lodhi medical, crowd did
not engage in any unlawful activity and volunteered, that after
dispersing, crowd returned and started rioting. The crowd returned at
around 2.30 p.m and started rioting. During the incident, he called
duty officer and asked him to send staff. Prior to the riots, he had not
visited the house of Devender for official or unofficial purposes. He
could not tell the exact date on which he had seen Devender for the
first time. Devender resided in G Block and he had seen Devender a
lot of times in the market etc. It was as a part of his job that he had to
try and find out maximum people and identify them and that is how,
he might have come to know the name of Devender. He could not tell
the names of people residing in the neighbourhood of Devender. PriorDigitally signed
by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 41 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:04:39 +0530
to the riots, he had not visited the house of Anmol for official or
unofficial purposes. He could not tell the exact date on which he had
seen Anmol for the first time. Anmol resided in G Block and he had
seen Anmol a lot of times in the market etc. It was as a part of his job
that he had to try and find out maximum people and identify them and
that is how, he might have come to know the name of Anmol. He
could not tell the names of people residing in the neighbourhood of
Anmol. At the time of riots, the crowd was so large that he could not
have identified the individuals at that time and that is why, before
seeing the videos, he did not inform the authorities or the IO that
accused Sagar, Devender and Anmol were involved in rioting at
Madina Masjid and Lodhi Medicals. He denid that he had not seen any
rioting on 25.02.2020 or that he had never been a part of investigation
or that IO had introduced him as a witness because he was the beat
constable of the area or that he had deposed on being tutored by the
IO.
6.15 I have carefully weighed the testimonies reproduced
above.
6.16 From the testimony of PW20 Rahisuddin and PW26 HC
Sandeep, it is apparent that the identification of the accused by these
witnesses is based upon the CCTV footage. I say so because PW20, in
his examination in chief, had stated that when the riot had started, due
to fear, he had gone into his house and was watching the riot from theDigitally signed
by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
FIR No. 36/20 SINGH Date:
PS Sonia Vihar 42 of 60
2026.02.24
16:04:49 +0530
terrace of his house. He further deposed that the rioters had covered
their faces and he could not see or identify anyone amongst the rioters.
He further deposed that the rioters were taking each other’s name, but
he did not remember those names and then, he again deposed that he
could not identify anyone from the rioters. Thereafter, during his
testimony, when the videos were played, he identified accused
Devender on the basis of that video.
6.17 Similarly, PW26 had identified the accused only on the
basis of the videos because, in his cross examination, he deposed that
at the time of the riots, crowd was so large that he could not have
identified the individuals at that time and that is why; before seeing
the videos, he did not inform the authorities or the IO that accused
Sagar, Devender and Anmol were involved in rioting at Madina
Masjid and Lodhi Medicals. Hence, it is only after seeing the videos
that this witness had identified accused. Meaning thereby, that though
as per the testimonies of PW20 and PW26, they were present during
the riots but during the riots they did not identify anyone, or see any
particular face, which they could have otherwise remembered and it
was only during the process of watching the videos, that they had
identified the accused.
6.18 Coming on the testimony of PW21 Guddu Khan. PW21 is
a witness, who during the riots, claimed to have seen the faces of two
persons in the mob.
Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH FIR No. 36/20 SINGH Date: PS Sonia Vihar 43 of 60 2026.02.24 16:04:58 +0530 6.19 PW21 deposed that he had seen the faces of two persons
in that mob. Initially before the police, he declined to identify any of
the rioters as he was afraid that similar situation might develop again
but when he was counseled by the residents of the locality and the
committee members of Masjid, he identified two persons in the
videos, which were shown to him in September 2021. He had found
out the names of these two persons from other residents of the locality
and he informed police about their names on the day next to the day
he had seen the videos. Those persons were Anmol and Devender. He
also deposed that on 25.02.2020, during the riots, he had seen those
two persons indulging in vandalism, pelting stones and using danda.
He identified accused Devender and Anmol in the court. He also
proved his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C vide Ex.PW21/B.
6.20 Thereafter, during his testimony, videos were played and
he identified accused Devender and Anmol in those videos.
6.21 During his cross examination, he deposed that he was
called for an inquiry by the police on 28.02.2020. On that day, police
did not record his statement. He then volunteered, that out of fear, they
had gone (returned) to their house. He further deposed that when his
first statement in March 2020 was recorded, he was not under any
kind of fear and the police had recorded his correct statement which
had been read over to him. Thereafter, he admitted that on the day
when his statement was recorded in March 2020, police had shown
FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 44 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2026.02.24
16:05:06
+0530
him certain photographs but he could not identify anyone from those
photographs at that time. He then deposed, that during the period from
25.02.2020 to 16.09.2020, he had not seen Devender and Anmol and
stated, that he had seen them together around 03 days prior to the riots
near Guhiya Mandir, Vijay Vihar. He also admitted that in March
2020, he had stated to the police that when the rioters were
vandalizing the vehicle in their gali, he along-with his family had gone
inside their house and had hidden himself.
6.22 Now, if this testimony of PW21 is seen, it is apparent that
he admits that in March 2020, when his first statement by the police
was recorded, he was not afraid or scared. That being the case, the
explanation that initially he did not identify accused before police
could only be valid till 13.03.2020 when his first statement u/s 161
Cr.P.C was recorded because on 13.03.2020, as per his own testimony,
he was not under fear. On that day, he was shown photographs of
some persons and he stated that he could not identify anyone. He had
further stated, that he could not see any of the boys who were a part of
that mob and was unable to identify them. Therefore, he states in his
first statement to the IO, when admittedly he was not under any threat
or fear, that he had not seen anyone and he could not identify anyone.
However, on 16.09.2021, when he was again examined by the IO, he
went on to state in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that after seeing the
mob, he went to the terrace of his house, hid himself there and from
Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN by PARVEEN
SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 45 of 60 SINGH Date: 2026.02.24
16:05:15 +0530
his roof, he saw that one boy who was wearing black T-shirt was
Devender and one boy who was wearing green T-shirt was Anmol and
that those persons resided in G Block to who he had usually seen at
Ram Rahim Chowk. This part of his statement comes after the video
footage were shown to him on the laptop.
6.23 It is also to be noticed that as per his testimony on the day
when he was shown the videos i.e. on 16.09.2021, he was not aware
about the names of two boys who were identified by him and he found
out the names of those boys from the persons of the locality and
informed about their names to the police on the next day.
6.24 If his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C is looked at, he states that
when he was hiding at the second floor terrace of his house and
watching the riot from there, mask of some of the rioters slipped off
and he saw Anmol wearing gree T shirt and Devender wearing black
T-shirt as a part of that mob.
6.25 If his testimony is analyzed, it is evident that before he
had seen the video, he had not identified anyone before the IO and
claimed that he could not identify anyone, as he and his family had
hidden themselves. He was confronted with this statement during his
cross examination and he did not put forward any explanation. It is
also to be seen that even after seeing the videos, as per his
examination in chief, he was not aware about the names of Devender
and Anmol and he found out about their names from the members of
Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 46 of 60 SINGH
SINGH
Date: 2026.02.24
16:05:35 +0530
his locality and informed the IO about these names on the next day.
6.26 That being the case, his identification apparently was not
on the basis of what he had seen, or the persons he had seen on the day
of riot, but on the basis of what he had seen in the video footages. In
his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C also, he identified the accused by the
colour of their dress etc but this statement was also recorded after the
videos had been seen by him.
6.27 Hence considering these facts and circumstances, it is
more probable that the testimony of this person, whereby he identified
accused Devender and Anmol to be a part of the rioting mob, is not
based upon the fact that he had seen them on that day, but is based
upon the subsequent knowledge about those two persons which he
gained after seeing the videos. This probability is further strengthened
by the fact that as per him during period from 25.02.2020 to
16.09.2020, he had not seen Devender and Anmol and that he had seen
them together around 03 days prior to the riots near Guhiya Mandir,
Vijay Vihar.
6.28 In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the
entire case of the prosecution is dependent upon the CCTV footage
which were obtained by the IO from PWD. Hence, the question that
needs to be decided whether, these CCTV footage have been proved as
per Indian Evidence Act and can be looked into by the court?
6.29 Admittedly, these CCTV footage are a secondary piece of
Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 47 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:05:46 +0530
evidence because, the primary source of CCTV footage were the
DVRs or the hard drives in those DVRs which had recorded these
CCTV footage and it is from those DVRs, that a copy was obtained
which the prosecution seeks to prove. Therefore as per the settled law,
these CCTV footage are required to be proved u/s 65B of Indian
Evidence Act (as was applicable at the relevant time). The law in this
regard has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anvar PV
(Supra) which was later on re-affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Arjun Panditrao (supra).
6.30 It has been contended by ld. SPP that the requirements of
law have been met as there is a certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act
which was admitted by the accused and was exhibited as Ex.A-143.
Therefore, the electronic evidence has become admissible and is to be
read.
6.31 On the other hand, ld. counsels for accused have
contended that the certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act (Ex.A-143) is
no certificate in the eyes of law.
6.32 I have considered the rival submissions on this certificate
being a proper certificate as required u/s 65B of Evidence Act.
6.33 Before proceeding upon this issue, it is to be observed
that has been a serious lapse on the part of the IO, who as per his
testimony, had received the CCTV footage in a hard drive on
21.03.2020. However, till 01.05.2020, he neither sealed it nor seized it
Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 48 of 60 PARVEEN Date:
SINGH 2026.02.24
16:05:56
+0530
through a seizure memo. As per the law, chain of custody of evidence
is required to be maintained properly so that the sanctity of the
evidence is maintained. However, the IO failed to do so and kept the
hard drive in open condition and only sealed and seized it on
01.05.2020. The reason given by the IO for not sealing and seizing the
hard drive immediately on its receipt was, that he did not do so
because, there was no certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act
accompanying the hard drive. However, even on 01.05.2020, when the
IO had sealed this hard drive, seized it and deposited in the malkhana,
he did not have any certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act as according
to the prosecution’s own case, it was received subsequently.
6.34 That being the case, the explanation given by the IO for
not sealing, seizing and depositing the hard drive in malkhana is not
inspiring confidence.
6.35 Coming on the certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act, which
is Ex.A-143.
6.36 It is correct that the accused had admitted this certificate
and therefore, the formal proof of issuance of this certificate was
dispensed with. However, this admission of this certificate by the
accused is only to the extent that such a certificate was issued by the
person who is purported to have issued this certificate and therefore
that person was not required to step in to the witness box to prove it.
However, the admission of the accused only dispenses with the need
Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 49 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:06:43 +0530
of proving this document, but whether, this document fulfills the
requirement of law can still be contested by the accused. I so observe
because, this admission can only have the effect that the court can now
read this document in evidence, however, whether this document and
its contents fulfill the requirements of Sec. 65B of the evidence act or
not remains an open question.
6.37 If this certificate (Ex.A-143) is seen, it does not state the
medium in which the footage was stored and sent or the particulars/
details of the electronic evidence for which this certificate was issued.
Therefore, the certificate does not state whether it is a certificate for
the hard drive given to HC Satpal on 21.03.2020 or some other
electronic device. Therefore, the court has to fall back upon the
covering letter of this certificate which was Ex.A-142. The covering
letter states as under:-
Sir,
With reference to your letter no. FIR no. 36/20 dt.
26.02.2020 please find enclosed herewith the
required CCTV footage and certificate in original
duly signed by the authorize signatories BEL
(Bharat Electronics Limited) who have been
entrusted the job of installing commissioning of
CCTV as well as their annual maintenance. It is also
clarified that BEL (Bharat Electronics Limited) are
the custodians of CCTV system all round Delhi who
have been installed recently.
Encl: Footage CD with certificate
Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
FIR No. 36/20 PARVEEN SINGH
PS Sonia Vihar 50 of 60 SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:06:54 +0530
6.38 Hence, this certificate is not pertaining to the hard drive
given to HC Satpal on 21.03.2020 or any hard drive, but it pertained to
a CD, which was sent with the forwarding letter along-with this
certificate and which, according to this letter, was containing CCTV
footage.
6.39 That being the case, this certificate cannot be read in
evidence as the certificate for the hard drive in which the CCTV
footage were collected by HC Satpal on 21.03.2020 and which was
handed over by HC Satpal to IO.
6.40 It is this hard drive that was played in the court and in the
videos contained in the hard drive, the witnesses had identified
accused. However, in absence of any certificate u/s 65B of Evidence
Act, this electronic evidence becomes inadmissible.
6.41 Faced with this situation, ld. SPP has pressed into service
the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonu @ Amar (supra) and
has contended, that at the time when these videos were played and
hard drive was exhibited as Ex.PW24/Article-1, no objection was
taken by accused to the exhibition of hard drive and thus, at this stage,
this objection cannot be raised and the electronic evidence has become
admissible.
6.42 I have considered this judgment. With all due respect, I
must say that this judgment was passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court
before pronouncement of judgment of larger bench in Arjun PanditraoDigitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 51 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:07:10 +0530
(supra) and also after the passing of judgment of Anvar PV (supra). In
Arjun Panditrao (supra), it has been held as under:-
33. The non-obstante clause in sub-section (1)
makes it clear that when it comes to information contained in
an electronic record, admissibility and proof thereof must
follow the drill of Section 65B, which is a special provision in
this behalf – Sections 62 to 65 being irrelevant for this
purpose. However, Section 65B(1) clearly differentiates
between the “original” document – which would be the
original “electronic record” contained in the “computer” in
which the original information is first stored – and the
computer output containing such information, which then may
be treated as evidence of the contents of the “original”
document. All this necessarily shows that Section 65B
differentiates between the original information contained in
the “computer” itself and copies made therefrom – the former
being primary evidence, and the latter being secondary
evidence.
34. Quite obviously, the requisite certificate in sub-
section (4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is
produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, a
computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the
witness box and proving that the concerned device, on which the
original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by
him. In cases where “the computer”, as defined, happens to be a
part of a “computer system” or “computer network” (as defined in
the Information Technology Act, 2000) and it becomes impossible
to physically bring such network or system to the Court, then the
only means of proving information contained in such electronic
record can be in accordance with Section 65B(1), together with the
requisite certificate under Section 65B(4). This being the case, it is
necessary to clarify what is contained in the last sentence in
paragraph 24 of Anvar P.V. (supra) which reads as “…if an
electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section
62 of the Evidence Act…”. This may more appropriately be read
without the words “under Section 62 of the Evidence Act,…”. With
this minor clarification, the law stated in paragraph 24 of Anvar
P.V. (supra) does not need to be revisited……
FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
PS Sonia Vihar 52 of 60 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:07:20 +0530
52. We may hasten to add that Section 65-B does not
speak of the stage at which such certificate must be furnished to the
Court. In Anvar P.V.2, this Court did observe that such certificate
must accompany the electronic record when the same is produced
in evidence. We may only add that this is so in cases where such
certificate could be procured by the person seeking to rely upon an
electronic record. However, in cases where either a defective
certificate is given, or in cases where such certificate has been
demanded and is not given by the person concerned, the Judge
conducting the trial must summon the person/persons referred to in
Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, and require that such
certificate be given by such person/persons. This, the trial Judge
ought to do when the electronic record is produced in evidence
before him without the requisite certificate in the circumstances
aforementioned. This is, of course, subject to discretion being
exercised in civil cases in accordance with law, and in accordance
with the requirements of justice on the facts of each case. When it
comes to criminal trials, it is important to keep in mind the general
principle that the accused must be supplied all documents that the
prosecution seeks to rely upon before commencement of the trial,
under the relevant sections of the CrPC.
53. In a recent judgment, a Division Bench of this Court
in State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath 33, after referring to Anvar
P.V.2 held: (M.R. Hiremath case 33, SCC p. 523, paras 16-17)
“16. The same view has been reiterated by a two-Judge
Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Ravindra V. Desai 34. The
Court emphasised that non-production of a certificate under Section
65-B on an earlier occasion is a curable defect. The Court relied
upon the earlier decision in Sonu v. State of Haryana 35, in which it
was held: (Sonu case 35, SCC p. 584, para 32)
“32…. The crucial test, as affirmed by this Court, is
whether the defect could have been cured at the stage of marking
the document. Applying this test to the present case, if an objection
was taken to the CDRs being marked without a certificate, the court
could have given the prosecution an opportunity to rectify the
FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
PS Sonia Vihar 53 of 60 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:07:30 +0530
deficiency.”
54. It is pertinent to recollect that the stage of admitting
documentary evidence in a criminal trial is the filing of the charge-
sheet. When a criminal court summons the accused to stand trial,
copies of all documents which are entered in the charge-sheet/final
report have to be given to the accused. Section 207 CrPC, which
reads 37 as follows, is mandatory. Therefore, the electronic
evidence i.e. the computer output, has to be furnished at the latest
before the trial begins. The reason is not far to seek; this gives the
accused a fair chance to prepare and defend the charges levelled
against him during the trial. The general principle in criminal
proceedings therefore, is to supply to the accused all documents
that the prosecution seeks to rely upon before the commencement
of the trial. The requirement of such full disclosure is an extremely
valuable right and an essential feature of the right to a fair trial as it
enables the accused to prepare for the trial before its
commencement.
55. In a criminal trial, it is assumed that the
investigation is completed and the prosecution has, as such,
concretised its case against an accused before commencement of
the trial. It is further settled law that the prosecution ought not to be
allowed to fill up any lacunae during a trial. As recognised by this
Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai (2002) 5 SCC
82, the only exception to this general rule is if the prosecution had
‘mistakenly’ not filed a document, the said document can be
allowed to be placed on record. The Court held as follows:
“7. From the aforesaid sub-sections, it is apparent that
normally, the investigating officer is required to produce all the
relevant documents at the time of submitting the charge-sheet. At
the same time, as there is no specific prohibition, it cannot be held
that the additional documents cannot be produced subsequently. If
some mistake is committed in not producing the relevant
documents at the time of submitting the report or the charge-sheet,
it is always open to the investigating officer to produce the same
with the permission of the court.”
56. Therefore, in terms of general procedure, the
Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 54 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2026.02.24
16:07:39
+0530
prosecution is obligated to supply all documents upon which
reliance may be placed to an accused before commencement of the
trial. Thus, the exercise of power by the courts in criminal trials in
permitting evidence to be filed at a later stage should not result in
serious or irreversible prejudice to the accused. A balancing
exercise in respect of the rights of parties has to be carried out by
the court, in examining any application by the prosecution under
Sections 91 or 311 of the CrPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act.
Depending on the facts of each case, and the Court exercising
discretion after seeing that the accused is not prejudiced by want of
a fair trial, the Court may in appropriate cases allow the
prosecution to produce such certificate at a later point in time. If it
is the accused who desires to produce the requisite certificate as
part of his defence, this again will depend upon the justice of the
case – discretion to be exercised by the Court in accordance with
law……
61. We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate
required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the
admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly
held in Anvar P.V. (supra), and incorrectly “clarified” in Shafhi
Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the place of such certificate
cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory
requirement of the law. Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v.
Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D 426, which has been followed in a number of
the judgments of this Court, can also be applied. Section 65B(4) of
the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is
admissible only if lead in the manner stated and not otherwise. To
hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose…..
73. The reference is thus answered by stating that:
73.1.Anvar P.V. (supra), as clarified by us hereinabove,
is the law declared by this Court on Section 65B of the Evidence
Act. The judgment in Tomaso Bruno (supra), being per incuriam,
does not lay down the law correctly. Also, the judgment in SLP
(Crl.) No. 9431 of 2011 reported as Shafhi Mohammad (supra) and
the judgment dated 03.04.2018 reported as (2018) 5 SCC 311, do
not lay down the law correctly and are therefore overruled.
73.2. The clarification referred to above is that the
FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
PS Sonia Vihar 55 of 60 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:07:49 +0530
required certificate under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary if the
original document itself is produced. This can be done by the
owner of a laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile
phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the
concerned device, on which the original information is first stored,
is owned and/or operated by him. In cases where the “computer”
happens to be a part of a “computer system” or “computer
network” and it becomes impossible to physically bring such
system or network to the Court, then the only means of providing
information contained in such electronic record can be in
accordance with Section 65B(1), together with the requisite
certificate under Section 65B(4). The last sentence in Anvar P.V.
(supra) which reads as “…if an electronic record as such is used as
primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act…” is thus
clarified; it is to be read without the words “under Section 62 of the
Evidence Act,…” With this clarification, the law stated in
paragraph 24 of Anvar P.V. (supra) does not need to be revisited.
6.43 Therefore, in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Anvar PV (supra) and Arjun Panditrao (supra), secondary
electronic evidence, in absence of any certificate u/s 65B of Evidence
Act, is inherently inadmissible because, the admissibility of such
evidence is completely dependent upon a valid certificate u/s 65B of
Evidence Act.
6.44 Even in Sonu @ Amar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court
had held as under:-
27. It is nobody”s case that CDRs which are a form
of electronic record are not inherently admissible in
evidence. The objection is that they were marked
before the Trial Court without a certificate as
required by Section 65B (4). It is clear from the
judgments referred to supra that an objection
relating to the mode or method of proof has to beFIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
PS Sonia Vihar 56 of 60 by PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:07:59 +0530
raised at the time of marking of the document as an
exhibit and not later. The crucial test, as affirmed by
this Court, is whether the defect could have been
cured at the stage of marking the document.
Applying this test to the present case, if an objection
was taken to the CDRs being marked without a
certificate, the Court could have given the
prosecution an opportunity to rectify the deficiency.
It is also clear from the above judgments that
objections regarding admissibility of documents
which are per se inadmissible can be taken even at
the appellate stage. Admissibility of a document
which is inherently inadmissible is an issue which
can be taken up at the appellate stage because it is a
fundamental issue (emphasis supplied). The mode
or method of proof is procedural and objections, if
not taken at the trial, cannot be permitted at the
appellate stage. If the objections to the mode of
proof are permitted to be taken at the appellate stage
by a party, the other side does not have an
opportunity of rectifying the deficiencies. The
learned Senior Counsel for the State referred to
statements under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 as
an example of documents falling under the said
category of inherently inadmissible evidence. CDRs
do not fall in the said category of documents. We are
satisfied that an objection that CDRs are unreliable
due to violation of the procedure prescribed in
Section 65 B (4) cannot be permitted to be raised at
this stage as the objection relates to the mode or
method of proof.
6.45 Therefore, even as per the judgment of Sonu(supra) this
document being inherently inadmissible, the mere fact that anFIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
PS Sonia Vihar 57 of 60 PARVEEN by PARVEEN
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.02.24
16:08:09 +0530
objection was not taken by the accused at the time of its exhibition,
will not make it admissible. Therefore, if the document is inherently
inadmissible, the mere exhibition of that document would not make
the document admissible in evidence unless the bar, which made the
document inherently admissible, was removed. Hence, the judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonu @ Amar (Supra) cannot help the
prosecution in this case.
6.46 Ld. SPP has also argued that in view of the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in Arjun Panditrao(supra), the certificate u/s 65B
of the evidence act can be filed at any stage. He has contended that it
is not the case where no certificate was filed but in this case, the
certificate filed was defective and therefore, the court should summon
the relevant witness to produce a valid certificate.
6.47 I have considered this submission. On this issue Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao(supra) has carved a clear
distinction between civil and criminal cases. In criminal cases the
court, while allowing the filing of a certificate u/s 65B of the at a later
stage, has to be extra careful. The court has to be mindful of the fact
that its order allowing the certificate to be filed, does not violate the
right of the accused to a fair trial. Para 54 of the judgment of Arjun
Panditrao (supra) lays down the guiding principal. Para 54 is as under:
54. It is pertinent to recollect that the stage of admitting
documentary evidence in a criminal trial is the filing of the charge-
sheet. When a criminal court summons the accused to stand trial,
FIR No. 36/20 Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 58 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.02.24
16:08:23 +0530
copies of all documents which are entered in the charge-sheet/final
report have to be given to the accused. Section 207 CrPC, which
reads 37 as follows, is mandatory. Therefore, the electronic
evidence i.e. the computer output, has to be furnished at the latest
before the trial begins. The reason is not far to seek; this gives the
accused a fair chance to prepare and defend the charges levelled
against him during the trial. The general principle in criminal
proceedings therefore, is to supply to the accused all documents
that the prosecution seeks to rely upon before the commencement
of the trial. The requirement of such full disclosure is an extremely
valuable right and an essential feature of the right to a fair trial as it
enables the accused to prepare for the trial before its
commencement.
6.48 In this case it is not the case, that the certificate filed by
the prosecution is defective and hence the defect can be allowed to be
cured. In the present case, as discussed above, there is in fact no
certificate in support of the electronic evidence sought to be proved
by the prosecution. Therefore, allowing the filing of a certificate u/s
65B at this stge will amount to allowing a new evidence to be brought
on record, which is impermissible. Faced with this situation I am left
with no option but to eschew the electronic evidence in the hard drive
and resultantly, the videos in it. Hence, this court cannot look into or
watch the video Ex.PW24/Article 1.
6.49 As discussed earlier, the testimonies of PW-20
Rahisuddin, PW-21 Guddu Khan and PW-26 HC Sandeep, where
they had identified the accused as a part of the rioting mob, are not
the eye witness account of what they had seen during the riots on
25.02.2020. Their testimonies are based upon the video footage,Digitally signed
FIR No. 36/20 by PARVEEN
PS Sonia Vihar 59 of 60 PARVEEN SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2026.02.24
16:08:36
+0530
wherein they had recognized these accused persons and hence, the
case of the prosecution against the accused solely rests upon the video
footage. However, the court as discussed above, cannot consider the
video footage as evidence and accordingly, I find that there is no
evidence by which the court can arrive at a finding of guilt against the
accused persons. Accused are accordingly, found entitled to benefit of
doubt. All the accused are acquitted of all the charges framed against
them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Sureties stand discharged.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed
by PARVEEN
SINGH
PARVEEN Date:
SINGH 2026.02.24
16:08:53
+0530
Pronounced in open court (Parveen Singh)
on 24.02.2026 ASJ-03, North East Distt.,
(This judgment contains 60 pages Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
and each page bears my signatures)
FIR No. 36/20
PS Sonia Vihar 60 of 60
