Home > Recent Judgements > DELHI RIOTS: Court Acquits Three in Jannati Masjid Arson Case, Slams Police for Making Arrest Based On ‘Inadmissible Evidence’
Dec 31- 2025
DELHI RIOTS: Court Acquits Three in Jannati Masjid Arson Case, Slams Police for Making Arrest Based On ‘Inadmissible Evidence’
Legal Update
In a significant judgment underscoring the primacy of due process and evidentiary safeguards, a Delhi court has acquitted three men accused in connection with the vandalism, arson and alleged looting of Jannati Masjid, Gokalpuri, during the 2020 North East Delhi riots.
Background of the Case
The case arose out of FIR No. 50 of 2020, registered at Gokalpuri Police Station, wherein it was alleged that a mob armed with sticks and inflammable material attacked Jannati Masjid, set it on fire, looted cash and articles, and caused damage to nearby properties during the riots.
The prosecution charged the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 380, 427, 436 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging unlawful assembly, rioting, theft, mischief by fire and disobedience of lawful orders.
Court’s Findings
The judgment was delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh of the Karkardooma Courts, who acquitted the three accused – Deepak, Prince and Shiv of all charges, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A key aspect of the ruling was the Court’s strong criticism of the investigation conducted by the Delhi Police.
Arrest Based on Inadmissible Evidence
The Court observed that the arrests were made primarily on the basis of CDs allegedly containing video footage, purportedly supplied by a “secret informer.” However, the prosecution failed to legally prove or authenticate these electronic records in accordance with law.
The Judge noted with concern that:
The accused were arrested on the basis of inadmissible evidence, which also became the foundation of the chargesheet.
From the date of arrest until the filing of the first chargesheet, the Court found no concrete or legally sustainable evidence against the accused.
Doubtful Eyewitness Testimony
The Court also expressed serious reservations regarding the credibility of eyewitnesses relied upon by the prosecution. It noted that:
- The so-called “chance witnesses” were examined nearly 1½ years after the incident, in September 2021.
- There were inconsistencies regarding the place of their examination, with the Court observing that the location mentioned in the Investigating Officer’s case diary did not even exist on the date of examination.
This delay and lack of reliability further weakened the prosecution’s case.
Judicial Concern Over Personal Liberty
In a strongly worded observation, the Court stated that it was “pained” by the manner in which the investigation was conducted and emphasised the constitutional importance of protecting personal liberty.
The Judge remarked that the observations were made with the hope that:
The investigating agency takes corrective measures to ensure that personal liberties of citizens are not undermined unless there is sufficient and admissible evidence to implicate them in a crime.
Legal Significance
This judgment reiterates several foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence:
- Arrests cannot be sustained on the basis of inadmissible or unproven electronic evidence.
- Delayed and unreliable witness testimony must be viewed with caution.
- The burden squarely lies on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Investigative lapses can directly result in acquittals, especially in serious riot-related cases.
Conclusion
The acquittal in the Jannati Masjid arson case serves as a critical reminder that even in cases arising out of large-scale communal violence, procedural fairness and evidentiary standards cannot be compromised. The ruling is likely to have broader implications for riot-related prosecutions, particularly those heavily reliant on electronic evidence and belated witness statements without proper legal corroboration.