Delhi District Court
State vs Lokesh Solanki And Ors on 21 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 03 (NORTH EAST DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURT : DELHI.
SC No. 122/2022
FIR No. 38/2020
PS Gokalpuri
U/s. 144/147/148/149/302/201/364/452/120B/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Lokesh Solanki,
s/o Sh. Yogender Kumar,
r/o B-18/5, Ganga Vihar, Delhi.
2. Pankaj Sharma,
s/o late Sh. Rajveer Sharma,
r/o C-162, Gali No. 3,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi.
3. Sumit Chaudhary @ Badshah,
s/o Sh. Om Prakash,
r/o A-367, Gokalpuri, Delhi.
4. Ankit Chaudhary @ Fauzi,
s/o Sh. Raj Kumar,
r/o G-14, Ganga Vihar,
Gokalpuri, Delhi.
5. Prince @ DJ Wala,
s/o Sh. Mahender Singh,
r/o C-23, Gali No. 6,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi.
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 1 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
6. Rishabh Chaudhary @ Tapas,
s/o Sh. Yogender Singh,
r/o F-53, Gali No. 1,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi.
7. Jatin Sharma @ Rohit,
s/o Sh. Gauri Shankar Sharma,
r/o B-48, Gali No. 1,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi.
8. Vivek Panchal @ Nandu,
s/o Sh. Pramod Kumar Panchal,
r/o D-106, Gali No. 3/4,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi.
9. Himanshu Thakur,
s/o Harender Singh,
r/o C-121, Gali No. 3,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi.
10. Sahil @ Babu
s/o Sh. Rakesh Sharma,
r/o D-138, Gali No. 11,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi.
11. Sandeep @ Mogli,
s/o Sh. Dalbir Singh,
r/o H. No. E-24, Bhagirathi Vihar,
Delhi.
12. Tinku Arora,
s/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
r/o H. No. E-51, Gali No. 2,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi. ...Accused
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 2 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
Date of Committal : 07.10.2020
Date of Arguments : 09.04.2026.
Date of Pronouncement : 21.04.2026.
JUDGMENT
Facts of Prosecution Case as per Charge Sheet
1.1 Brief facts of the case are that on 27.02.2020 at about
4.00 p.m, an information was received in the police station that a dead
body was lying in Ganda Nala near Johripur pulia. This information
was recorded vide DD No. 33B and this DD was assigned to ASI
Manvir. ASI Manvir, with ASI Ramdass, went at the informed place
and found a dead body lying in nala in front of H. No. C-175/2,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi. The dead body was sent to GTB Hospital
where MLC was prepared. Thereafter, the dead body was preserved in
the mortuary of GTB Hospital. On the basis of this DD, the present
FIR was registered and investigation was assigned to Insp. Bineet.
1.2 During the investigation, IO Insp. Bineet Pandey prepared
the site plan, sent WT message for identification of dead body and
recorded the statements of witnesses. On 29.02.2020, the body was
identified to be of Mushrraf by his relatives. After the post mortem,
the clothes of body and blood gauze were handed by the doctors to the
IO. During the investigation, mobile crime team visited the place of
incident and scene of crime was inspected. During the course of
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 3 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
investigation, statements of Mallika (wife of deceased), Asif and
Farheen were recorded. They stated that Ankit, Sumit, Lokesh,
Pankaj, Prince, Himanshu, Jatin, Rishabh, Monu etc. were the part of
the mob which had dragged the deceased from the room. During the
course of investigation, statement of eye witness Aman Saxena was
recorded who stated that on 25.02.2020 at about 7-7.30 p.m, he saw a
mob of Hindu community at Bhagirathi Vihar. In the said mob, he
knew Pankaj Sharma, Prince, Ankit, Sumit Choudhary, Lokesh,
Himanshu, Jatin, Vivek, Rishabh, Sahil @ Babu, Monti, Avdesh
Mishra, Monu, Shekhar, Mogli, Vinay @ Binni, Tinku and Baba.
1.3 During the course of investigation of FIR No. 35/20 and
37/20 of PS Gokalpuri, three persons namely Mohit Sharma, Shivam
Bhardwaj and Dimple were apprehended and on checking their mobile
phones, it was found that Mohit and Shivam were members of a
Whatsapp group by the name of ‘Kattar Hindu Ekta’. On further
investigation, it was found that the said group was created by a mobile
number belonging to one Babita. Lokesh was a member of that group.
Thereafter, during the investigation, accused Lokesh Solanki, Pankaj
Sharma, Sumit Chaudhary, Ankit Chaudhary, Prince, Jatin Sharma,
Rishabh Chaudhary @ Tapas, Vivek Panchal @ Nandu, Himanshu
Thakur were arrested. CDRs of accused revealed that they were
present at the spot and were continuously connecting with each other.
On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 4 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
Lokesh Solanki, Pankaj Sharma, Sumit Chaudhary, Ankit Chaudhary,
Prince, Jatin Sharma, Rishabh Chaudhary @ Tapas, Vivek Panchal @
Nandu, Himanshu Thakur.
1.4 Thereafter, during further investigation, accused Sahil @
Babu, Sandeep @ Mogli and Tinku Arora were arrested and a
supplementary charge sheet was filed against these accused.
Charges
2.1 On 04.04.2022, charges for offences punishable u/s
144/147/148 IPC r/w section 149 IPC; u/s 302/201/364/452/432/34
IPC r/w section 149 IPC; u/s 153A/505 IPC r/w section 149 IPC and
u/s 188 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
33 witnesses, brief description of their testimonies is as under :-
Prosecution Name of Witness Description
Witness No.
PW1 Nisar Ahmed He was witness to the riots of
24.02.2020, 25.02.2020 and
26.02.2020. He had identified
some person/accused as a part
of the rioting mobs on different
occasions on these dates.
However, he had not seen the
incidents in question and nor
had he deposed about seeing the
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 5 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
rioting mob at the building
where the incident had
happened and around the time it
had happened.
PW2 Shivam Bhardwaj He deposed that he was using
mobile no. 7217779080 in his
Realme mobile phone which
was seized by police wherein a
Whastapp group by the name of
‘Kattar Hindu Ekta’ was found.
PW3 Mohit Sharma He deposed that he was using a
mobile no. starting with 89… of
Jio in his Samsung Mobile
phone. This phone was seized
by police wherein a Whastapp
group by the name of ‘Kattar
Hindu Ekta’ was found.
PW4 Aman Saxena He deposed that on 24.02.2020,
at about 07.30 p.m, he left for
his home from his work place
i.e. Goverdhan Retail India Pvt.
Ltd. Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
When he reached near Jafrabad
Metro Station, he witnessed a
crowd of about 100-150
persons on the road. That
crowd was raising slogans-
'CAA/NRC nahi chahiye'. He
further deposed that at Brijpuri
Pulia, he had seen another mob
and that mob was also raising
slogans against CAA/NRC.
PW5 Malika She is wife of the deceased and
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 6 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
is a witness to the incident of
this case. She had identified
accused Tinku Arora, Pankaj
Sharma and Ankit Chaudhary
in the court. Her detailed
testimony shall be considered in
later part of the judgment.
PW6 Farhin She is also a witness to the
incident and riot of 25.02.2020.
Her detailed testimony shall be
considered in later part of the
judgment.
PW7 Asif He is also a witness to the
incident and riot of 25.02.2020.
His detailed testimony shall be
considered in later part of the
judgment.
PW8 Shifarish He was a witness to the
identification of dead body of
Musharraf. He deposed that
Musharraf was his brother in
law and on 24/25.02.2020, PW5
had called him on mobile and
told him that Musharraf was
missing.
PW9 Sarfaraz Ali He deposed that on 24.02.2020,
he, along with his father, was
going on a motorcycle no. DL
ST 4318. At about 9-9.30 p.m,
when they reached Ganga Vihar
pulia, he had seen a mob of
around 30-50 persons. That
mob stopped them and on
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 7 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
hearing his name, the mob
started assaulting him and his
father. His motorcycle was
thrown in fire. He was also
thrown in fire and when he tried
to run, he was hit on his leg.
His father was separated from
him in this incident.
PW10 ASI Mahavir He deposed that on 02.03.2020
he was posted as finger print
proficient in Mobile Crime
Team. On that day, he, along
with Ct. Javed, went to a drain
in front of C Block, Bhagirathi
Vihar. IO pointed the place
from where dead body was
recovered. Ct. Javed took
photographs of that place.
There was no scope of lifting
finger print at that place. He
prepared his report,
Ex.PW10/A.
PW11 HC Javed He deposed that on 02.03.2020,
being posted as photographer in
Mobile Crime Team, he had
taken photographs
(Ex.PW11/P-1 to
Ex.PW11/P-10) of the place
wherefrom dead body was
recovered. He also prepared a
certificate (Ex.PW11/A) in
respect of the photographs.
PW12 SI Yashpal He was the duty officer who on
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 8 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
27.02.2020 at about 11.45 p.m
registered FIR, Ex.PW12/A.
PW13 Mukesh Kumar He deposed that in February
2020, he was residing in a room
at second floor of C-177, Nala
Road, Bhagirathi Vihar. There
was third floor also in that
building. On 24.02.2020 at
about 6.30-7.00 p.m, when he
saw a number of persons raising
slogans of 'Jai Shri Ram' at nala
road. On 25.02.2020 at about 8-
9 p.m, he heard noise of a
number of persons in his
building. From the window of
his room, he could see that
some persons had gone to third
floor. On third floor, a muslim
person was residing with is
family.
PW14 Insp. Arun Sindhu He was a witness to the arrest
of accused Himanshu on
22.04.2020 from Tihar Jail. He
was also a witness to the
pointing out memos of the place
wherefrom the deceased was
taken and the place where the
dead body was thrown.
PW15 ASI Manvir He deposed that on 27.02.2020
at about 04.00 p.m, a call,
regarding a dead body lying in
the drain, was received in the
PS which was recorded vide
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 9 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
DD No. 33B and it was
assigned to him. Thereafter, he
alongwith ASI Ram Dass went
to a place in front of C Block,
Bhagirathi Vihar Nala and
found one dead body lying in
Bhagirathi Vihar drain. The
dead body was taken out from
the drain and taken to GTB
Hospital. Thereafter he
prepared rukka on the aforesaid
DD and got the FIR registered
in this case. Thereafter, at his
instance, IO prepared site plan
of the place from where the
dead body was recovered. On
28.02.2020, one lady with her
two relatives came to the PS
and on seeing the dead body,
she identified it to be of her
husband. He prepared
identification memos. On
29.02.2020, he got the post
mortem of dead body
conducted. After the post
mortem, doctor handed him the
clothes of deceased along with
blood gauze, which were seized
by him.
PW16 ASI Vikal Singh He was a witness to the arrest
of accused Lokesh Solanki,
Pankaj Sharma, Ankit
Chaudhary and Sumit
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 10 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
Chaudhary.
PW17 Pawan Singh He as a nodal officer from
Vodafone Idea Ltd. He proved
the certified copies of CDR,
CAF, certificate u/s 65B of IE
Act and cell ID Chart in
relation to mobile nos.
8750610027, 9540689734,
8010050010, 9136034019 and
8588902696. He had also
proved the CDR in respect of
IMEI numbers
911642553296480 and
358461093855960.
PW18 Ajay Kumar He was nodal officer from
Bharti Airtel Ltd. He proved the
CDR, CAF, certificate u/s 65B
of Evidence Act and Cell ID
Chart in relation to mobile no.
9871171934, 9650832647,
9212946177, 9560458268,
9205092077, 9891407613,
9821685321, 9310849006 and
7838375580.
PW19 HC Pradeep On 24.02.2020, he announced
the proclamation u/s 144 Cr.P.C
in the area of PS Gokalpuri.
PW20 SI Satender He was a witness to the arrest
of accused Prince and to the
preparation of pointing out
memos of place of incident at
the instance of accused Sumit,
Ankit and Prince.
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 11 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
PW21 ASI Om Prakash He was a witness to the arrest
of accused Rishabh Chaudhary,
Jatin, Vivek Panchal,
preparation of pointing out
memos at the instance of these
accused and recovery of dandas
at the instance of accused Jatin
and Rishabh.
PW22 L.K Gautam He was the Deputy Secretary
(Home), GNCT of Delhi. He
proved sanction u/s 196 Cr.P.C
against the accused persons.
PW23 Parveen Kumar He was a nodal officer from
Reliance Jio Infocom. he
produced CDR, CAF/ EKYC,
certificate u/s 65B of IE Act
and cell ID chart in relation to
mobile nos. 7557497409,
7557223533, 7982702731,
7217779080, 9287809349,
9873723713 and 8383847939.
PW24 Insp. Arjun Singh He was one of the IOs, who
filed fourth supplementary
charge sheet. He was also a
witness to the arrest of accused
Sahil @ Babu. He also proved
the seizure memo of mobile
phone of accused Pankaj, which
was seized in FIR No. 35/20.
PW25 Arun Kumar Sahani Witness from CERT-In. In FIR
No. 35/20 of PS Gokalpuri, he
extracted data from five mobile
phones and stored them in a pen
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 12 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
drive. His report was
Ex.PW25/A. He also issued
certificate u/s 65B of IE Act
(Ex.PW25/B) in FIR No. 35/20.
He prepared a mirror copy of
the extracted data for this FIR
and also issued certificate u/s
63 BSA (Ex.PW25/G).
PW26 Insp. Bineet Kumar He was the first IO of the case.
Pandey
PW27 Insp. Hawa Singh He deposed that on 29.12.2020,
he alongwith Insp. Dinesh, SI
Arjun Singh and Ct. Sachin
took accused Sahil @ Babu to
Bhagirathi Vihar drain where
accused Sahil pointed the place
of incident. IO Insp. Dinesh
prepared pointing out memo at
the instance of accused Sahil.
On 30.12.2020, he alongwith
IO and other police staff had
taken two accused Tinku Arora
and Sandeep @ Mogli to
Bhagirathi Vihar drain where
the pointing out memos at the
instance of both these accused
were prepared. He further
deposed that in FIR No. 35/20,
Insp. Vinay had seized three
mobile phones of witnesses
Mohit Sharma, Shivam
Bhardwaj and Dimple and of
accused Lokesh Solanki.
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 13 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
PW28 ASI Sunil Kumar He was a witness to the arrest
of accused Sandeep @ Mogli
and Tinku Arora on 29.12.2020
from Mandoli Jail.
PW29 Pankaj Sharma He was a nodal officer from
Reliance Jio. He proved the
certified copies of CDR, CAF
and Cell ID chart in respect of
mobile no. 7678210206.
PW30 Insp. Vinod Ahlawat He was the IO of case FIR No.
156/20 PS Gokalpuri. He
deposed that in his case, he had
arrested accused Himanshu
Thakur. He informed about the
arrest of accused Himanshu to
Insp. Dinesh, IO of this case.
Insp. Dinesh had collected
photocopy of arrest and
personal search memo,
disclosure statement, copy of
recovery cum seizure memo of
danda, copy of mobile phone of
deceased Mursaleen and copy
of FIR No. 156/20 from him.
PW31 ASI Ram Dass On 27.02.2020, he
accompanied ASI Manvir and
for recovery of dead body and
for the post mortem of
deceased.
PW32 Insp. Dinesh Kumar He was one of the IOs of this
case. His detailed testimony
shall be considered in later part
of the judgment.
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 14 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
PW33 Khushi She was a witness to the
incident. Her detailed testimony
shall be considered in later part
of the judgment.
3.2 Further the prosecution proved the documents as given in
the table below: -
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved/
Attested by
Ex.PW10/A Crime Team Report PW10
Ex.PW11/A Certificate in respect of photographs PW11
clicked by PW11.
Ex.PW11/P-1 to Photographs of the place wherefrom PW11
Ex.PW11/P-10 dead body was recovered.
Ex.PW12/A Endorsement on tehrir PW2
Ex.PW14/A Pointing Out Memo at the instance PW14
of accused Himanshu Thakur of the
place wherefrom deceased was
taken.
Ex.PW15/A Rukka PW15
Ex.PW15/B Identification Memo of dead body PW15
by Sifarish.
Ex.PW15/C Identification Memo of dead body PW15
Ex.PW16/A & Pointing Out Memos at the instance PW16
of accused Lokesh Solanki and
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 15 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
Ex.PW16/B Pankaj Sharma of the place
wherefrom deceased was taken.
Ex.PW17/A CDR of mobile no. 8750610027 PW17
Ex.PW17/B EKYC of mobile no. 8750610027 PW17
Ex.PW17/C CDR of mobile no. 9540689734 PW17
Ex.PW17/D DKYC of mobile no. 9540689734 PW17
Ex.PW17/E CDR of mobile no. 8010050010 PW17
Ex.PW17/F EKYC of mobile no. 8010050010 PW17
Ex.PW17/G CDR of mobile no. 9136034019 PW17
Ex.PW17/H DKYC of mobile no. 9136034019 PW17
Ex.PW17/I CDR of mobile no. 8588902696 PW17
Ex.PW17/J DKYC of mobile no. 8588902696 PW17
Ex.PW17/K CDR of IMEI no. PW17
911642553296480
Ex.PW17/L CDR of IMEI no. PW17
358461093855960
Ex.PW17/M to Certificates u/s 65B of IE Act in PW17
Ex.PW17/P respect of CDRs and CAF.
Ex.PW17/Q Cell ID Chart PW17
Ex.PW18/A CDR of mobile no. 9871171934 PW18
Ex.PW18/B EKYC of mobile no. 9871171934 PW18
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 16 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
Ex.PW18/C CDR of mobile no. 9650832647 PW18
Ex.PW18/D EKYC of mobile no. 9650832647 PW18
Ex.PW18/E CDR of mobile no. 9212946177 PW18
Ex.PW18/F EKYC of mobile no. 9212946177 PW18
Ex.PW18/G CDR of mobile no. 9560458268 PW18
Ex.PW18/H EKYC of mobile no. 9560458268 PW18
Ex.PW18/I CDR of mobile no. 9821685321 PW18
Ex.PW18/J EKYC of mobile no. 9821685321 PW18
Ex.PW18/K CDR of mobile no. 783875580 PW18
Ex.PW18/L CDR of mobile no. 9205095077 PW18
Ex.PW18/M EKYC of mobile no. 9205095077 PW18
Ex.PW18/N CDR of mobile no. 9891407613 PW18
Ex.PW18/O DKYC of mobile no. 9891407613 PW18
Ex.PW18/P CDR of mobile no. 9310849006 PW18
Ex.PW18/Q CAF of mobile no. 9310849006 PW18
Ex.PW18/R & Certificates u/s 65B of IE Act in PW18
Ex.PW18/S respect of CDRs and CAF.
Ex.PW18/T Cell ID Chart PW18
Ex.PW18/U CDR of IMEI no. PW18
352930083700460
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 17 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
Ex.PW18/V CDR of IMEI no. PW18
869383048006610
Ex.PW18/W CDR of IMEI no. PW18
354636095659860
Ex.PW18/X CDR of IMEI no. PW18
355224090579800
Ex.PW18/Y CDR of IMEI no. PW18
867224043284030
Ex.PW18/Z CDR of IMEI no. PW18
866114049309330
Ex.PW18/Z1 CDR of IMEI no. PW18
863296043000830
Ex.PW18/Z2 Certificate u/s 65B of IE Act of PW18
CDRs.
Ex.PW18/Z3 Cell ID Chart PW18
Ex.PW21/A to Seizure memos of mobile phones of PW21
Ex.PW21/C accused Vivek Panchal, Jatin
Sharma and Rishabh Chaudhary.
Ex.PW21/D to Pointing Out Memos at the instance PW21
Ex.PW21/F of accused Vivek Panchal, Jatin
Sharma and Rishabh Chaudhary of
the place wherefrom deceased was
taken.
Ex.PW21/G & Seizure memos of dandas recovered PW21
Ex.PW21/H at the instance of accused Jatin
Sharma and Vivek Panchal.
Ex.PW22/A Sanction Order PW22
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 18 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
Ex.PW22/B Sanction Order PW22
Ex.PW23/A CDR of mobile no. 7557497409 PW23
Ex.PW23/B DKYC of mobile no. 7557497409 PW23
Ex.PW23/C CDR of mobile no. 7557223533 PW23
Ex.PW23/D DKYC of mobile no. 7557223533 PW23
Ex.PW23/E CDR of mobile no. 7982702731 PW23
Ex.PW23/F EKYC of mobile no. 7982702731 PW23
Ex.PW23/G CDR of mobile no. 7217779080 PW23
Ex.PW23/H DKYC of mobile no. 7217779080 PW23
Ex.PW23/I CDR of mobile no. 8287809349 PW23
Ex.PW23/J DKYC of mobile no. 8287809349 PW23
Ex.PW23/K CDR of mobile no. 9873723713 PW23
Ex.PW23/L DKYC of mobile no. 9873723713 PW23
Ex.PW23/M CDR of mobile no. 8383847939 PW23
Ex.PW23/N EKYC of mobile no. 8383847939 PW23
Ex.PW23/O IPDR of mobile no. 7557497409 PW23
Ex.PW23/P & Certificates u/s 65B of IE Act of PW23
Ex.PW23/Q CDR and CAF.
Ex.PW23/R Cell ID Chart PW23
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 19 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
Ex.PW23/S CDR of mobile no. 7678210206 PW23
Ex.PW23/T EKYC of mobile no. 7678210206 PW23
Ex.PW24/A Seizure Memo of mobile phone of PW24
accused Pankaj Sharma.
Ex.PW25/A CERT-In Report PW25
Ex.PW25/B Certificate u/s 65B of IE Act in PW25
respect of extracted data.
Ex.PW25/C Forwarding Letter PW25
Ex.PW25/D CERT-In Report PW25
Ex.PW25/E Certificate dated 22.09.2020 of FIR PW25
No. 35/20.
Ex.PW25/F Forwarding Letter PW25
Ex.PW25/G Forwarding Letter PW25
Ex.PW25/H Certificate u/s 63 BSA in respect of PW25
digital data.
Ex.PW27/A to Pointing Out memos at the instance PW27
Ex.PW27/C of accused Sahil, Sandeep and
Tinku of the place wherefrom
deceased was taken.
Ex.PW27/D to Seizure memos of mobile phones of PW27
Ex.PW27/F accused Lokesh Solanki, Mohit
Sharma and Shivam Bhardwaj.
Ex.PW29/A CDR of mobile no. 7678210206 PW29
Ex.PW29/B EKYC of mobile no. 7678210206 PW29
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 20 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
Ex.PW29/C & Certificates u/s 63 BSA in respect of PW29
Ex.PW29/D digital data.
Ex.PW29/E Clarification of Hash Value PW29
Ex.PW29/F Cell ID Chart PW29
Ex.PW30/A Seizure Memo of danda in FIR No. PW30
156/20 PS Gokalpuri.
Ex.PW30/B Seizure Memo of mobile phone in PW30
FIR No. 156/20 PS Gokalpuri.
Ex.PW32/A to Pointing Out memos at the instance PW32
Ex.PW32/C of accused Prince and Sumit
Chaudhary
Ex.PW32/D Site Plan PW32
Ex.PW32/E Seizure memo of photographs and PW32
pendrive provided by ASI Manvir
3.3 During the trial, both the accused, u/s 294 Cr.P.C,
admitted the following documents: -
S. No. Description of the document Exhibit No.
1 Unscaled Site Plan Ex.A-1
2 Scaled Site Plan Ex.A-2
3 Post Mortem Report Ex.A-3
4 MLCs Ex. A-4 and
Ex.A-5
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 21 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
5 Seizure memo of clothes of Deceased Ex.A-6
6 Seizure memo of DVD - Video - Post Mortem Ex.A-7
of Deceased
7 Arrest Memo of Lokesh Solanki Ex.A-8
8 Arrest Memo of Rishabh Chaudhary Ex.A-9
9 Arrest Memo of Jatin Sharma Ex.A-10
10 PCR Form Ex.A-11
11 Acknowledgment Letter Ex.A-12
12 Road Certificate Ex.A-13
13 Entry in Register No. 19 Ex.A-14
14 Copy of FIR No. 35/20, 36/20, 37/20, 102/20, Ex.A-15 to
103/20, 104/20, 149/20 & 156/20 Ex.A-22
15 Prohibitory Order u/s 144 Cr. P.C. Ex.A-23
16 Arrest Memo of Sahil Ex.A-24
17 Complaint u/s 195 Cr. P.C. Ex.A-25
18 Arrest / Court Surrender Form of Sandeep Ex.A-26
19 Arrest / Court Surrender Form of Tinku Arora Ex.A-27
20 Arrest / Court Surrender Form of Pankaj Ex.A-28
Sharma
21 Arrest / Court Surrender Form of Sumit Ex.A-29
Chaudhary @ Badshah
22 Arrest / Court Surrender Form of Ankit Ex.A-30
Chaudhary @ Fauzi
23 Arrest / Court Surrender Form of Prince Ex.A-31
24 Arrest / Court Surrender Form of Vivek Ex.A-32
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 22 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
Panchal
25 Arrest Memo of Himanshu Ex.A-33
26 FSL Report of Dr. Shashi Bala Ex.A-34
27 Subsequent Opinion on Weapon of Offence Ex.A-35
Statement of Accused
4.1 Thereafter, on 09.12.2025 and 22.01.2026, statements u/s
313 Cr.P.C/ 351 BNSS of all the accused were recorded and none of
them chose to lead evidence in defence.
Contentions of Learned SPP and of Learned Counsels for accused
5.1 I have heard Learned SPP for State as well as Learned
counsels for accused and perused the record very carefully.
5.2 It has been contended by Sh. Saleem Ahmed, Learned
SPP that witnesses PW1 Nisar Ahmed, PW2 Shivam Bhardwaj, PW4
Aman Saxena, PW5 Malika, PW6 Farheen, PW7 Asif, PW8 Shifarish,
PW9 Sarfaraz, PW11 Mukesh and PW33 Khushi have established that
the riots had happened in the area of Bhagirathi Vihar from
24.02.2020 to 26.02.2020. He has further contended that the factum of
murder of Musharraf has been established through the testimonies of
eye witnesses PW5 Malika and PW33 Khushi. Both these witnesses
have corroborated each other’s testimony and proved the fact that a
mob of 150-200 persons had forcibly entered their residence at Chuna
Factory and had killed Musharraf. He has further contended that PW6
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 23 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
Farheen and PW7 Asif have corroborated the factum of arrival of
mob, breaking of locks and disappearance of deceased Musharraf.
Furthermore, PW13, who was residing in the same building on second
floor, also established, that the mob had entered their building and
from the third floor, a person was being dragged. He has further
contended that PW1 had identified all the accused being a part of the
mob of 24.02.2020 and 26.02.2020. He has further contended that the
CDR analysis of the accused has established that the accused were
present at the place of incident. He has further contended that mobile
phones of PW2 and PW3 were seized during the investigation and in
their mobile phones, a group titled ‘Kattar Hindu Ekta’ was found in
which accused Lokesh Solanki had posted messages to the members
of the group. He has further contended that PW5 and PW33 have
identified accused as a members of the mob and the persons who had
assaulted Musharraf. He has further contended that section 144 Cr.P.C
was in force and this fact stands proved by PW13.
5.3 On the other hand, it has been contended by Learned
counsels for accused that the prosecution in fact has not been able to
bring any credible evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. It has
further been contended that in effect, the prosecution has only two
witnesses who are PW5 Malika and PW33 Khushi and both of them
are tutored witnesses. In fact, PW33 was later on introduced on behalf
of PW5 through a counsel and her only job was to fill up the lacunae
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 24 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
in the testimony of PW5. It has further been contended that there are
stark contradictions between the testimonies of PW5 and PW33.
Furthermore, their testimonies are in contradiction with other
witnesses i.e. PW6 Farhin, PW7 Asif, PW8 Shifarish and PW9
Sarfaraz Ali. It has further been contended that on the one hand, it is
established that PW5, who claims to have seen her husband being
murdered, thrown in a burning motorcycle and then again thrown in a
nala, does not even complain about this incident till 29.02.2020. PW5
does not make any PCR call regarding the incident despite the fact
that she admitted that she had a phone with her. Neither PW5 made
any PCR call during the incident nor she made a PCR call till
29.02.2020. Furthermore, PW8 Shifarish, who was the brother-in-law
of the deceased, had categorically deposed that on 24/25.02.2020, he
had returned to Delhi from Badayun and he had received a phone call
from wife of Musharraf that Musharraf was missing. It has been
contended that PW5 did not even inform PW8 about what she had
seen. It has further been contended that when PW5 Malika was asked
about Shifarish, initially she lied and stated that she did not know him.
However, later on, PW5 admitted that Shifarish was her brother-in-law
and then she denied that she had made a call to him and told him that
her husband was missing. It has further been contended that on the one
hand, PW6 Farhin deposed that in the room where she was hiding, the
others who were hiding with her included Farah with her two children,
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 25 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
Amreen with her two children and her mother and later on she
deposed that PW5 and her children also joined them whereas, PW5
deposed, that in that room, she was all alone and with her daughter. It
is further contended that PW5 never stated about witnessing the
incident prior to coming to the court. In none of her statements, she
stated to the police that she had witnessed the incident however, when
she came to the court she became an eye witness. PW5 claims to have
witnessed the incident from the window. However, PW7 deposed that
there were no windows in both the rooms, wherein his family
members and he and Musharraf were locked. On the other hand, PW7
deposed that the room where they were hiding and the room where
Asif and Musharraf were hiding were on opposite side and on the ends
of the corridor. Therefore, they could not have witnessed the incident
from that room. It is contended that, neither PW5, nor PW33 had seen
the incident and at the time of incident, they were hidden in a room
wherefrom they saw nothing. They were not even aware that
Musharraf had been killed and that is why, PW5 called PW8 and said
he was missing and never made any PCR call till the time his dead
body was found. It has thus been contended, that in view of the
contradictions, these witnesses are not reliable and thus, accused are
entitled to an acquittal.
Findings
6.1 I have considered the rival submissions.
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 26 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
6.2 The entire case of the prosecution in effect rests on the
testimonies of PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW33. These witnesses had been
projected as eye witnesses by the prosecution. Of these, the two prime
witnesses are PW5 and PW33, who are the wife and daughter
respectively of the deceased. What makes them all the more important
to the success of the case of the prosecution is that these are the only
witnesses who have deposed about witnessing the murder of
Musharraf and have, during their testimony before the court, identified
some of the accused as assailants. These testimonies therefore, need to
be reproduced in detail.
6.3 PW5 Mallika is the wife of deceased. She deposed that on
the day of incident, she had gone to Gokalpuri where she worked as a
maid but due to riots, she returned home. When she reached her home,
her husband, along with her children, was already at home. At about
6.30-7.00 p.m, from the balcony of her room, she saw around 100-200
people raising slogans of Jai Shri Ram. The tenants of the building had
already locked the main gate. At around 8.00 p.m, this mob again
started raising slogans, disconnected the electricity and started pelting
stones on the gate. The mob then went behind the building and broke
open the locks of the back gate. The mob reached third floor. She hid
her husband and Asif, cousin of her husband, in a bed and locked the
room from outside. Then, she hid herself and her children in the room
of her Tai . They had locked the door of the room from inside but from
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 27 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
a small window in that room, she saw that mob was breaking the lock
of her room. The members of the mob had covered their faces with
helmets and clothes. However, she had seen faces of three persons
who had not covered their faces and they were Sapna, her husband and
her brother. Sapna resided in the same building. The mob, which was
carrying weapons like danda, sword, chain etc., broke open the lock of
her room and entered it. She had covered the bed wherein her husband
and his cousin were hiding. She, along with her daughter, was
watching the entire incident from the window. She saw that the mob
was poking the bed with a long iron rod and after being hit, Asif came
out of the bed. Then he was beaten with danda two three times and
thereafter the mob left him. The mob continued poking the bed with
iron rod and after being hit, her husband cried where after, the mob
said- ‘ek mullah aur bhi hai’ and thereafter, her husband was taken out
of the bed. Her husband begged and cried before that mob for his life
saying that ‘mein bhi tumara bhai hu”, but the mob said that ‘mullaha
tu bhai bata raha hai’. Thereafter, they hit on his forehead and front
portion of her head with iron rod. Her husband died there itself.
Thereafter, four persons lifted her husband and took him downstairs
while he was being hit on the stairs. They reached main road where
the mob had already set a motorcycle on fire. The mob opened the zip
of her husband to check and thereafter, they said that he was a mullah.
Her husband was then thrown in the fire over the motorcycle and
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 28 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
thereafter, her husband was lifted and thrown in the drain. The police
officials were present but they did not help. The mob then again
reached the third floor and said that there were kids of musalman and
they should also be cut. She had 2 years old son and she wrapped him
in a cloth and hid him in a sack. A person from that mob said that
there was no mullah and thereafter, the mob went downstairs. While
the mob was going back, one boy came to her window and told her to
go away to some other place. At about 9 p.m., she along with her two
children, came out of the building and went to the house of her
relative in Seemapuri. She deposed that she could identify about 6-7
persons. She further deposed that she had not heard name of anyone in
that mob and she did not know name of anyone. She pointed towards
accused Tinku Arora and Pankaj Sharma in the court and Ankit
Chaudhary, who was appearing through VC. She further deposed that
on the next day i.e. on 26th day at around 9.00 a.m, she received a
telephone call from PS PS Gokalpuri and was informed that her
husband had been traced. She was summoned at PS Gokalpuri. Police
had taken photo of her husband in his mobile phone. She was also
carrying a photo of her husband and on seeing the photo, police said
that it was photo of same person, whose photo was in his mobile
phone. Thereafter, she also saw photo in his mobile phone and
confirmed that it was photo of her husband. She was informed that her
husband was sent to GTB hospital. She was sent to mortuary. In the
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 29 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
mortuary, on bed no.8, she found body of her husband and she
identified him. She was accompanied by her sister in law Tabasum.
She again confirmed about identity of her husband. She was asked to
come again on next day. On next day at about 9-9.30 a.m., she, along
with her relative Sharif, went to GTB hospital. On that day at about 11
a.m., body of her husband was taken for post mortem where after, the
body was given to them. She deposed that police never made enquiry
from her regarding riots.
6.4 She was cross examined by Learned SPP. During this
cross examination, she denied that she had stated before police that
when the aforesaid mob entered into their floor, some of them were
calling each other with their names such as Sumit, Lokesh, Prince,
Ankit, Himanshu, Pankaj, Jatin, Monu, Rishabh, Mogli, Vivek etc.
She denied that she had not stated this fact before the court under the
influence of the family members of these accused persons.
6.5 During her cross examination on behalf of accused, she
deposed that she had a mobile phone with keypad and volunteered,
that 1-2 months after the riots, it was broken. She deposed that she did
not know any Sifarish Khan. She deposed that she could not say that
she had made call to Sifarish Khan on 25 th day between 8-9 p.m. and
volunteered, that she had made a call to her landlord but she did not
know his name. She admitted that Sifarish was brother in law of her
husband. Since she did not know his title as Khan or his father’s name,
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 30 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
therefore, she could not identify him earlier. She further deposed that
he was husband of Tabassum. She deposed that she did not make call
to Shifarish on the day of incident. She denied that she had made call
to him on 25th day and had told him that her husband was missing and
that they should trace him. She denied that Sifarish had also
accompanied her to the mortuary. She further deposed that she did not
make call to any of her relative after the incident, and till the time she
received call from police next morning. As she was in shock because
of losing her husband, she did not make any call to any relative. She
reached Seemapuri on 25th at about 10-11 p.m. She had gone to the
house of Ruksar, nanad of her elder daughter. When she reached that
place, her elder daughter Muskan, her husband Sharif, Ruksar and her
husband were present at that house. She did not tell any of them about
incident on that night. She told them about this incident after the last
rites of her husband. That night, none of the persons had asked
whereabouts of her husband. On the next day, when she visited PS
Gokalpuri, she did not tell police about how her husband was killed.
At that time, she did not tell police because police did not ask her
about the same. She had gone to the police station with Tabassum and
her husband. It was only at PS Gokalpuri that all of them came to
know about the body of her husband being traced and that it was in
GTB hospital. Even after coming to know about dead body of her
husband being traced, Tabassum and her husband did not ask her since
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 31 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
when her husband was not traceable, or that how did her husband die.
She did not tell the police official that how her husband was killed and
the police also did not ask about it. She admitted that she had visited
PS Gokalpuri on 29th day of same month i.e. 4 days after the incident
and volunteered, that on that day, police had called her to take back
documents of her husband. It appeared to her that police official was
writing although, she did not know what did he write. She had stated
before police on that day itself, that she had seen faces of some rioters
and she could identify them. She had informed police that Sapna, her
husband and her brother were also members of the aforesaid mob. She
was confronted with her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein the details
about killing of husband were not recorded and rather, it was recorded
that on that day itself, she had come to know about dead body of her
husband being in GTB hospital. It was also recorded in the statement
that on 25.02.2020 at about 8 p.m., she was present at her home on 2 nd
floor with her husband and children and some unknown rioters had
forcibly taken away her husband and bolted the room from outside and
the witness could not find her husband till next day, though she had
been trying to trace him with her relatives. The drain was just across
the road. She had seen the mob breaking lock and entering the
building from the side of gali. That lock was put over the gate from
inside. This gate was visible from the room of my Tai where she had
taken shelter. She denied that from the room of her Tai , she could not
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 32 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
have seen what was happening inside her room. There was a window
in her room also, wherein her husband was hiding. The room of her
Tai was on the opposite side of her room. She admitted that the light
in her room as well as the room of her tai had been switched off. She
deposed that the happenings at the staircase could not be seen from
Tai’s room. She denied that due to darkness, she could not have seen
any rioter and volunteered, that the rioters were having mobile phone
and light therein. When the rioters had taken away her husband, Asif
also accompanied the rioters. After the riots, she did not meet Asif
again and she was not in talking terms with him.
6.6 PW6 is Farheen. She deposed that in the year 2020, she
was residing at the fourth floor of H. No. C-177, Bhagirathi Vihar,
Delhi. She was residing with her two sisters namely, Farah and
Amreen, and Mushraf and his family. Her husband and two children
were also residing with her. They had taken four rooms on rent on this
floor. Riots had started in that area on 23.02.2020. On 25.02.2020,
they were at their house when their landlord had informed that nothing
would happen to his building. At about 7-7.30 p.m. the building
adjacent to their building was set on fire. Musharraf made a call to
their landlord informing about arson in adjoining building. The
landlord suggested that they should leave the house. In the adjoining
rooms, Hindus were residing and they locked her in a room for safety.
In that room, she, her husband Asif, her both children, her sister Farah
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 33 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
with her two children, Amreen with her two children and her mother
were locked from outside. When her mother realized that Musharraf
with his family was not present in that room, she opened the room and
came out of it. Along with her, all of them came out of that room.
They were thinking to move away through terrace of that house, by
that time around 100 rioters reached on the 4 th floor. Then, Musharraf
and Asif were locked in a room and rest of them locked were locked
in her room. They had locked their room from inside. The rioters were
shouting “kahan gaye kahan gaye”. She then heard noise of breaking
of the locks and thereafter heard, Asif crying ( chillane ki awaj). On
hearing his voice, she fainted. She regained consciousness when
rioters were shouting at the window of their room and asking to
unlock the door. The rioters threatened that if the room was not
opened, they would set that room on fire. She responded that there
was no one else in the room but the kids. The mob then responded that
if there were kids only then they should show them to mob and the
mob would not do anything to them. Then, she opened the door and
one of members of the mob came inside the room. On being satisfied
that there was no male, he went out, asking them to bolt the door from
inside. After around 5-10 minutes, a boy came and asked them to
come out. On coming out, she asked that boy about her husband Asif
and he told her, that Asif was left on the terrace of that building by
that boy. Asif came down from terrace and they asked him about
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 34 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
Musharraf. Asif informed that the rioters had killed Musharraf,
dragged him downstairs and thereafter, thrown him in the drain. On
being advised by a Hindu lady, who was their neighbour, all of them,
except Asif, left that building and reached Seelampur. She did not see
face of any of the rioters because they were wearing helmet. They had
switched on light of mobile, but she could not see face of anyone.
They were raising slogan of ‘Jai Shri Ram’. She heard them taking
each other’s name, but she did not remember what names were taken
by them.
6.7 She was cross examined by Learned SPP. During her
cross examination, she deposed that there was window in both the
rooms i.e. the room wherein they had hidden themselves and the room
where Musharraf was locked. When she heard sound of breaking of
the locks, she tried to look outside through window of their room.
However, their rooms were at some distance and she could only see
the mob and nothing else. The other room would be at a distance of at
least 20 steps from her room. Malika, wife of Musharraf was with her.
She did not see the mob entering or exiting from the room wherein
Musharraf was locked. She talked to the mob which was asking them
to open the door of their room, through window of their room. The
person, who talked to her through window of her room, was known to
her. The person, who had come inside their room to check the
presence of any male, was not known to her. Police had recorded her
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 35 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
statement. She had mentioned before police about the names heard by
her. She could not recollect if she had heard the names of Lokesh,
Pankaj, Jatin, Rishabh, Ankit, Sumit, Prince, Himanshu, Babu, Vivek.
She remembered about hearing name of Nitin and Monu. She could
identify brother of Sapna, but she could not identify the person who
came inside her room. Brother of Sapna was not present in the court.
She denied that her under pressure from the accused, she had
deliberately not mentioned the names heard by her.
6.8 PW7 Asif deposed that in February 2020, he was residing
in gali no.1, Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi. They were residing on the 2 nd
floor of the building. On the lower floor, there was factory of lime
stone. He was residing with her family consisting of his wife, his two
sisters-in-law Farana and Amreen, brother in law Musharraf, his wife
Malika and kids. They had taken four rooms on rent on this floor. Riot
had started in that area on 25.02.2020. At about 6.30 p.m., around
2000-4000 persons had come in the gali and were raising slogan of ‘Jai
Shri Ram’. They took out the vehicles from the property adjacent to
their property and set them on fire. He had seen these incidents from
the terrace of his building. Thereafter, he and his brother in law
Musharraf were locked in a room by family members. They were
hiding inside a bed in that room. At about 8.30 p.m., door of their
room was opened after breaking the locks. Around 200-250 persons
were there, they were taken out of the bed and mob started assaulting
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 36 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
them. First, he was taken out from the bed and he was assaulted.
Thereafter, his brother in law was taken out from the bed and that mob
started assaulting his brother in law. In the meantime, he was taken in
the other room by his family members, where they were hiding. That
other room was locked from inside. At that time, there was electricity
failure. The mob started asking them to open the door of their room.
The mob left that place after 10 minutes but they had not opened the
door of their room. Thereafter, they came out of the room and then,
they realized that Musharraf was not there. He asked his family
members to go to Seelampur. Thereafter, he went to the place of his
brother in law Kasim. Next day, he and his brother in law went to
Mustafabad. After three days, he came to know that dead body of
Mushraf was found in the drain. When he was being assaulted by the
mob, there was no light at that time. The persons in the mob had
switched on the torch in their mobiles. He could not see face of
anyone in that mob, as they had covered their faces with helmet and
cloth. He did not hear that mob taking name of each other.
6.9 He was cross examined by Learned SPP. During his cross
examination, he deposed that there were eight rooms on the floor
where he was residing. Facing each other, there were four rooms on
each floor. He and Musharraf were locked in a room which was in
front of the room where his family members were hiding. There was
no window in any of these 2 rooms. They were locked in separate
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 37 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
room probably for the reason that they would be saved. There were
two parts in the bed. He was hiding in the front part, therefore, first of
all he was taken out from that part. The gallery in that floor was
having width of about 4.5 feet. He did not know how much time after
him being assaulted, Musharraf was taken out. He was assaulted in the
gallery for about 10-15 minutes. He could not tell the reason why he
was left by that mob, but Musharraf was taken away. His family
members did not allow him to come out of the room hence, he did not
make any attempt to find out the status of Musharraf. He denied that
he had stated before police that during the aforesaid incident, he heard
the persons in the mob taking name of each other, which were Lokesh,
Pankaj, Jatin, Rishabh, Ankit, Sumit, Prince, Himanshu, Avdhesh,
Vivek and Monu or that the rioters had asked him and Mushraf to
raise slogan of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ or that the rioters left him at that place
after giving beatings but took away Mushraf, while assaulting him in
his presence. He was confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr.PC where
these facts were recorded. He denied that he had deliberately changed
his statement under influence of accused persons.
6.10 The next witness is PW8 Shifarish. He deposed that
deceased Musharraf was his brother in law. It was either on 24 or
25.02.2020 he came to Delhi from Badayun. He received a call from
wife of Musharraf informing him that Musharraf was missing. He,
along with some persons, first of all went to PS Gokalpuri in search of
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 38 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
Musharraf. His wife and wife of Mushraf were also accompanying
them. Police had shown some photographs of dead bodies in the
mobile phone. His wife identified photo of dead body of Musharraf in
mobile phone. Thereafter, they went to GTB hospital and had seen
dead body of Musharraf. He informed police that it was dead body of
Musharraf. Police had obtained his signatures on some documents.
The name of his wife was Tabassum. He was shown the request for
post mortem as well as document of identification of dead body and
he identified his signatures at point X on these documents.
6.11 During his cross examination, he deposed that on the
aforesaid day, wife of Musharraf had also accompanied them to GTB
hospital. On same day, they had received the dead body and at that
time, his wife was shown his face (probably referring to Malika). He
was not confirmed about date of visit to GTB hospital. However, it
was on the same day when they had gone to PS Gokalpuri. At that
time, Malika did not tell them how did Mushraf died and volunteered,
that he did not know about it till that date. On that day, Malika would
have remained with them for about 4-5 hours.
6.12 Next witness is PW33 Khushi. She is the daughter of
deceased. She deposed that from January 2020 till February 2020, she
along with her family, was residing at Chuna Factory. On 25.02.2020,
she and her friend were returning from a mosque and at around 8 p.m.,
riots had started. On the way to home, 3-4 persons, on seeing them,
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 39 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
had uttered that they were Muslim girls, that qurans should be
snatched from them and torn, and that they should be grabbed and sold
at whatever price they could fetch. They ran from that place and met
one uncle. On being asked by him what the matter was, they informed
him everything. He asked about the location of their house and they
reached her house at around 8.30 p.m. At around 9 p.m. a mob of
around 200-250 persons chanting ‘Jai Shree Ram’ slogans, had
gathered around their house. Being scared, they hid her father and her
phufa Asif in a bed, locked the room from outside and she, her
mother, her phoofu, her children and her brother, went to a room,
which was in front of the room where her father and her phufa had
been locked, and they locked that room from inside. Thereafter, the
mob reached their floor. It was chanting ‘Jai Shree Ram’ slogans. The
electricity of the building had been disconnected. Rioters broke open
the lock of the room where her father and phufa were hiding. They
started searching the room and discovered her phufa. They started
beating him, but a few of them recognized him and spared him stating
that he was their brother. He joined them and the mob went
downstairs. After sometime, the mob came up again and one woman
Sapna, who was residing in the room adjacent to their room, informed
the mob that there was another man, who was hiding in the room. The
mob returned to their room and with TMT bars started poking the
clothes under which they had hidden her father. Her father, on being
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 40 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
hit by TMT bars, disclosed himself and the mob immediately started
beating him. Her father pleaded them that they should not hurt him as
he was their brother. The mob retorted- ” mulla tu ab hamara bhai ban
raha hai” and pulled him out of the room where in the gallery, they hit
him on his head with a TMT iron bar. Her father had died there and
then. Thereafter his body he was dragged downstairs. In response to a
court query, she stated that she could say that he died immediately,
because she had seen his body being dragged out and there were no
signs of life in that listless body. She further deposed that she had seen
all this from the window of the room, in front of their room, where
they were hiding. After around 10-15 minutes, her phufa came
upstairs and informed them that after being taken downstairs, her
father was burnt along with a bike and thereafter, thrown in a nala.
Through the window, she had seen the faces of the rioters and she
could recognize few of them, if they were shown to her. The accused
were shown to her on TV screen and on seeing accused Sumit, she
stated that she had not seen him as part of that mob. On seeing
accused Himanshu Thakur, she stated that he was part of that mob.
She identified Tinku Arora as part of that mob. On seeing accused
Ankit Chaudhary, she stated that he was not part of that mob. On
seeing accused Lokesh Solanki, she stated that he was not part of that
mob. On seeing accused Vivek Panchal, she stated that he was not part
of that mob. On seeing accused Prince, she stated that he was not part
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 41 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
of that mob. On seeing accused Sandeep, she stated that he was not
part of that mob. On seeing accused Jatin, she stated that he was not
part of that mob. On seeing accused Rishabh Chaudhary, she stated
that he was not part of that mob. On seeing accused Pankaj, she states
that he was not part of that mob. She identified Sahil stating that he
was part of that mob.
6.13 During her cross examination, she deposed that in the
same building, apart from her family, her phufa had also taken a room
on rent and that room was in front of her room. Her dadi and chacha
had also taken a room on rent in the same building, which was besides
their room and their room was the last in the corridor. She, along with
others, was hiding in Asif’s room. Her phufa and her father were
hidden in the bed by her and her mother. Only the room, where she
was hiding, had a window. The rest of the two rooms, which were
occupied by her extended family and her family, did not have a
window. The staircase was not visible from the window of the room
where she was hiding. The window was at a height of around 4 feet
from the ground. She did not know what was her height at the time of
incident, but it was little less than her height on the day of her
deposition. She did not know her height and the court observed that
witness seemed to be around 5 to 5 feet 2/3 inches. At the time of
incident, she was aged about 12 years. The corridor in front of their
room was around 4 feet wide. She admitted that inside the room where
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 42 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
they were hiding and outside the room, there was pitch dark and
volunteered, that the rioters had switched on the lights of their
mobiles. She admitted that from the window of the room, where she
was hiding she could not see what was happening inside the room
where her father was hiding and volunteered, that because of large
crowd, she could not see inside the room. She informed her mother
about the incident which had happened with her and her friend on her
way home. She had given this information immediately on returning
home. There was a time difference of around one hour between her
returning home and the time when after hiding her father and phufa,
they had gone to the room in front of their room and locked it from
inside. Her mother had returned home after she had reached home.
Her mother returned 15-20 minutes after her arrival. She neither
shouted for help at the time of incident nor called the PCR and
volunteered, that she did not have the mobile. She deposed that she
had not met my lawyer and she had never met any lawyer. She
admitted that she did not know the names of the persons, who had
been identified by her. She could not see colour of their clothes,
because it was very dark. She denied that she could not have identified
any of the persons whom she had identified on that day because, it
was pitch dark and volunteered, that the mobile phone lights of the
rioters were on. Some of the rioters had lights of their own mobile
phones pointing towards their faces and some of the faces were visible
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 43 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
in the light of the mobile phone of other rioters, which was pointed
towards them. It was around 5-7 faces which she could see. Police, her
family or her neighbours had never shown her the photos of the
persons, who had been identified by her. The rioters, who present in
the corridor, would have been around 50-60 in number. Sapna’s
husband and her brother had tried to break open the room, where she
was hiding. At that time, they had moved back from the window. Her
phufu had a mobile phone with her but she did not call the PCR. Her
phufu could not have recorded the video because her phone did not
have such facility. The efforts to break down the door of their room
were made after her father had been dragged out of the room. They
only came out of the building, when her phufa returned. She denied
that being a small child of 12 years, she could not have been able to
see anything from the said window because, it was higher than her
height. She denied that she had been tutored by her mother and lawyer
through whom she had moved an application for her examination
before the court. She denied that she had not seen any of the incidents
about which she had deposed or that she had identified accused
Himanshu, Tinku Arora and Sahil, as their photographs had been
shown to her and she had been asked to identify them.
7.1 I have considered the rival submissions and have
carefully evaluated the testimonies reproduced above.
7.2 All the witnesses have consistently deposed that the
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 44 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
incident occurred on 25.02.2020 at around 8:30-9:00 p.m. They are
also, to a large extent, consistent about the initial sequence of events
and the manner in which the events of that night unfolded. However,
when it comes to the crucial aspect of the murder of the deceased,
there are material and irreconcilable discrepancies in their testimonies.
7.3 The first significant aspect is that only two witnesses-
PW5 Malika and her daughter PW33 (who was examined as an
additional witness on the application of PW5)- have deposed about
having seen the events leading to the death of Musharraf. This is
despite the fact that the room from which the incident was claimed to
have been witnessed was also occupied by PW6 Farhin and others.
However, their versions regarding the place where they had concealed
themselves are inconsistent. As per PW5, Musharraf and Asif were
hidden in one room, while she and her children hid in her Tai’s room.
In contrast, PW6 deposed that after Musharraf and Asif were hidden;
she, her mother, other family members and PW5 with her children, hid
in her own room. PW33, on this aspect, supported PW5 when she
stated, that she and others, including PW5, were hiding in the room of
Asif (husband of PW6), thereby suggesting that they were hiding in
PW6’s room.
7.4 Although it may be argued that the room referred to as the
Tai’s room and PW6’s room could be the same, but PW33 clarified
during cross-examination that her grandmother (dadi) and uncle had a
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 45 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
separate room on rent in the same building. It was located adjacent to
their own room, whereas the room in which they hid was in front of
their room. Thus, the three witnesses have effectively indicated two
different locations, creating uncertainty about the very vantage point
from which the incident was allegedly seen.
7.5 This confusion is further compounded by contradictions
regarding the existence of windows which would have allowed the
witnesses to watch the incident. PW5 and PW33 both stated that they
witnessed the incident through a window in the room where they were
hiding. PW5 also stated that the room where the deceased was hiding
had a window. PW33 contradicted this by asserting that only the room
where she was hiding had a window and that the room where the
deceased was concealed had none. PW7 Asif, however, contradicted
both of them by stating that neither of those rooms had any window.
Despite this witness, through this statement, making it doubtful that
PW5 and PW33 could not have seen the incident, no clarification was
sought by the Learned SPP from him.
7.6 Be that as it may, PW33 and PW5, both have claimed that
they saw the incident from the window of the room where they were
hiding. However, their versions about how the events unfolded are
materially different.
7.7 According to PW5 after Asif was discovered, beaten and
let off, the mob immediately resumed search, poked the bed and
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 46 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
discovered the deceased; making it a single event in continuous
sequence. However, PW33 has a completely different version. She
stated that after discovering and beating Asif, the mob went
downstairs, it returned after sometime and upon information given by
one Sapna, it again stated poking the bed, leading to the discovery of
her father, the deceased. Thus, what is described by PW5 as a single
continuous occurrence is described by PW33 as two distinct events.
7.8 There is also a significant difference in their versions
about where the deceased was beaten and how they observed the
incident.
7.9 As per PW5, after her husband had been discovered, he
begged for his life and then he was hit on the head with an iron rod.
On being hit, he died there itself. During her cross examination, she
denied that from the room of her Tai, she could not have seen what
was happening inside her room i.e. the room where the deceased was
hiding. However, according to PW33, after being discovered, her
father was dragged out in the gallery and it is there, that he was hit on
his head by a TMT bar, and he died there and then. She then, during
her cross examination, went on to admit that from the window of the
room where she was hiding, she could not see what was happening
inside the room where her father was hiding. She also gave a reason
for it and stated that it was because of a large crowd, that she could
not see inside the room.
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 47 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
7.10 Thus, while PW5 claims to have seen the fatal assault
inside the room, PW33’s testimony suggests that such an observation
would not have been possible, thereby directly undermining PW5’s
version.
7.11 Their testimonies also diverge on what happened
thereafter. PW5 stated that the deceased was carried downstairs by
four persons, assaulted on the stairs (which she admitted were not
visible from her room), his clothes were opened to check his religion,
he was thrown into the fire of a burning motorcycle, and thereafter his
body was thrown into a nala. In contrast, PW33 does not speak about
the body being lifted, but stated that the body was dragged downstairs.
She however, did not claim seeing him thrown in fire, or in the nala
stating instead, that the information was provided to them by Asif (her
phufa). PW6 has also deposed that it was Asif, who informed them
that deceased was killed, dragged downstairs and thrown in the drain.
7.12 Further doubt is cast by the testimony of PW6, who stated
during cross-examination by the learned SPP, that when she tried to
look outside, due to the distance between the rooms, which she
estimated to be about 20 steps, she could not see anything except the
mob. She also deposed that the other room could be at a distance of
20 steps from her room. Here also, no clarification was sought by the
Learned SPP, despite the fact that this witness was shaking the
credibility of other witnesses and that too, under his cross
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 48 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
examination. If this be correct, it would have been highly improbable
for PW5 and PW33 to witness the incident and in such detail as
claimed. Although PW7 later contradicted PW6 by stating that the
rooms were opposite each other, he however, undermined the entire
prosecution version by stating that none of the rooms had windows,
thereby rendering it impossible for any of the witnesses to have seen
the incident from inside the room where they had hidden themselves.
7.13 Therefore, while the witnesses are broadly consistent on
the initial facts i.e. that rioters entered the building, Musharraf and
Asif were hidden in a room, the remaining family members concealed
themselves elsewhere, and that the rioters eventually discovered Asif
and Musharraf; there are serious departures regarding the subsequent
events leading to the death of the deceased. Individually, these
discrepancies might be treated as minor variations; however, their
cumulative effect is that the testimonies are mutually destructive and
unreliable on the most material aspect of the case.
7.14 This brings me to another aspect of this case, which is the
conduct of PW5, subsequent to watching her husband being killed.
She testified that after her husband had been killed and thrown in a
nala, she had gone to the house of her relative in Seemapuri. The
following morning, she was contacted by PS Gokalpuri, informed
about her husband being traced and, upon seeing a photo, she
identified it as her husband. On identity of her husband being
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 49 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
confirmed, she was sent to the mortuary where she found body of her
husband and after post-mortem, the body was handed to them.
7.15 On the day of the incident, she had reached Seemapuri at
around 10/11 p.m on 25.02.2020. It was the house of Rukhsar, the
nanad of her elder daughter where she found her elder daughter
Muskan along with her husband Sharif, and Rukhsar with her
husband. On that night, neither did she tell any of them about the
incident with her husband, nor did any of those persons asked her of
the whereabouts of her husband. Her testimony reveals that till the
dead body of her husband was recovered, she did not disclose to
anyone that her husband had died. As per the testimony of PW15, the
dead body of Musharraf was recovered somewhere around 4 PM on
27.02.2020, as is visible from Ex.PW15/A i.e. the rukka on the basis
of which FIR of this case was registered. It was recorded that this was
an unknown dead body. The fact, that the dead body was of an
unknown person was discovered, is visible form MLC which is
Ex.A-4. As per testimony of PW15, this dead body was identified by
PW5 on 28.02.2020. Although, PW5 claims to have identified the
dead body on 26.02.2020, it is an impossibility considering the fact
that the dead body was recovered on 27.02.2020. Hence, testimony of
PW15 has to be believed that dead body was identified by PW5 on
28.02.2020.
7.16 Therefore, it is evident that for two days neither did she
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 50 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
call the PCR, nor informed anyone that her husband had been killed.
This is highly improbable that in such scenario she would not disclose,
even to her daughter (Muskan), that Musharraf had been murdered. It
is even more improbable, that the daughter would not ask of the
whereabouts of her father.
7.17 In these circumstances, the conduct of PW5 in remaining
silent for nearly two days after allegedly witnessing the murder of her
husband appears wholly unnatural. While it is true that there is no
fixed standard of human reaction, and individuals may respond
differently to trauma, her prolonged silence, particularly when
opportunities to disclose the incident were not only readily available
but the situation was, that she would have been probed about her
husband, cannot be accepted as natural conduct.
7.18 Her afore discussed conduct makes it necessary to take
note that she had admitted having a keypad phone but denied making
any call to PW8 (whom she admitted to brother in law of her husband)
on the day of incident or that on 25.02.2020, and telling him, that her
husband was missing and they should trace him. However, PW8
Shifarish stated that not only had she made such a call to him, but had
informed him, that Musharraf was missing.
7.19 In this backdrop, the alternative theory suggested by the
defence, that the witnesses had hidden themselves during the riot, later
on emerged to find Musharraf missing, that PW5 informed of it to
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 51 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
PW8 and, as she was not even aware of his death, she did not disclose
this fact to anyone, cannot be said to be an impossibility and could be
a plausible version.
7.20 As regards the CDR evidence, I have considered the
submissions of the learned SPP and perused the records. The locations
of the accused, as reflected in their respective CDRs, place them
broadly within areas where they ordinarily reside or in close proximity
thereto. It is settled law that CDRs are only corroborative in nature,
they do not provide precise location data, but merely indicate
approximate locations. Presence of an accused in or around his
residential area, without more, does not establish his involvement in
the crime. Consequently, no substantial weight can be attached to the
CDR evidence for establishing guilt.
7.21 In view of the forgoing discussion, I am of the considered
opinion, it will be unsafe to rely upon the testimonies of PW5 and
PW33 to arrive at a finding that on 25.02.2020 at around 8.00 p.m, the
accused were members the unlawful assembly which had common
object was to cause damage to person and property of the members of
muslim community and of the unlawful assembly had murdered
deceased Musharraf.
7.22 There is also the question of the WhatsApp chats of
accused Lokesh Solanki which were recovered during investigation
and the charge against him u/s 153A of IPC and section 505 IPC.
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 52 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026
These chats are clearly having an intent of spreading hatred and
animosity between two communities and the effect of this successful
intent is also visible from these chats. However, it has been candidly
admitted by Learned SPP that for the same chats, accused Lokesh has
already been convicted and sentenced for offence u/s 153A and 505
IPC in FIR No.149/20 of PS Gokal puri. Therefore, in my considered
opinion, in view of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, the accused
cannot be convicted for the same offence again.
7.23 I therefore find, that prosecution has failed to prove its
case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused
are entitled to benefit of doubt. All the accused are accordingly
acquitted of the charges framed against them. Their bail bonds stand
cancelled. Sureties stand discharged. File be consigned to record
room.
Pronounced in open court (Parveen Singh)
on 21.04.2026. ASJ-03, North East Distt.,
(This judgment contains 53 pages Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
and each page bears my signatures)
FIR No. 38/20
PS Gokalpuri 53 of 53
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ-03(NE)/KKD Courts/21.04.2026