Delhi court acquits 5 men in Karawal Nagar mosque burning case related to 2020 riots

The Karkardooma court acquitted Ankit, Sourabh Sharma, Rohit, Rahul Kumar and Sachin of all charges. These included rioting, unlawful assembly, property damage and setting Allah Wali Mosque on fire during the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. The acquittal matters because the prosecution’s evidence did not reliably connect the men to the alleged attack.

The court identified major conflicts between two police witnesses and Ali Ahmad, a resident living opposite the mosque. Ahmad described one attack around 8pm to 8.15pm, but did not support the prosecution’s claim of a second attack at about 11am on February 25. The judge also found inconsistencies in the police officers’ movements that morning.

The court separately rejected the CCTV footage. The DVDs prepared from the footage lacked the required Section 65B certificate from the person who prepared them. The judge therefore extended the men the benefit of the doubt and acquitted them of every charge.

The five acquitted men were Ankit, Sourabh Sharma, Rohit, Rahul Kumar and Sachin. They faced charges including rioting, being members of an unlawful assembly, damaging property and setting Allah Wali Mosque on fire. The court cleared them of all charges after finding that the evidence did not prove their involvement beyond the required legal standard.

The article describes two police personnel, ASI Junaid and ASI Mithilesh, as eyewitnesses. It also identifies Ali Ahmad, a resident who lived opposite the mosque, as an independent eyewitness. These are three key witnesses discussed in the judgment, but the article does not state how many prosecution witnesses testified at trial in total.

That missing figure is important because the question asks for the trial-wide witness count. Based only on the supplied article, the precise total cannot be given. The reported decision instead focuses on contradictions among the three witnesses and the court’s rejection of the CCTV evidence.

The court found that the eyewitness accounts could not reliably place the five men in the mob that attacked Allah Wali Mosque. Ali Ahmad, who lived opposite the mosque, said he saw the mosque vandalised and burned only once, around 8pm to 8.15pm. He did not remember the date and did not support the prosecution’s claim that another attack occurred around 11am on February 25.

Ahmad also said he stayed inside his house for about four days after the incident. The judge said this was difficult to reconcile with the police witnesses’ claim that the mosque was attacked again during the day. The two police personnel also gave inconsistent accounts of their movements that morning.

Earlier statements placed the officers at a school after a call between 10am and 11am, where they rescued people. The court said they could not be at the school and simultaneously witness vandalism near the mosque. Their testimony therefore did not reliably establish the accused men’s participation.

In criminal law, giving an accused person the benefit of the doubt means the prosecution has not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court must acquit when credible uncertainty remains about whether the accused committed the offence. This protects the principle that a person is presumed innocent unless the prosecution proves the case.

In this case, the judge found serious contradictions between the police witnesses and Ali Ahmad. Their accounts differed about the timing of the mosque attack, while the officers’ movements raised doubts about whether they could have seen the alleged vandalism. The CCTV footage also could not be admitted because its certification was legally defective.

The acquittal therefore reflects the weakness of the prosecution’s proof, not a factual finding that the mosque was never burned. The judgment held that the evidence could not reliably establish these five men’s participation. As a result, the court extended them the benefit of the doubt and cleared them of all charges.

The court ruled that the CCTV footage could not be admitted because the DVDs prepared by the forensic science laboratory lacked a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The certificate had to come from the person who prepared the copies. Without that required document, the prosecution could not use the DVDs as evidence in the case.

A Section 65B certificate generally supports the authenticity of electronic evidence. It identifies how a computer-generated record was produced and confirms that the relevant computer system was operating properly, subject to the law’s requirements. This helps a court assess whether a digital copy is reliable and has not been improperly introduced.

The ruling meant the footage could not fill the gaps in the eyewitness testimony. The police had obtained recordings from Public Works Department cameras and officers allegedly identified the five men in them. But because the certification requirement was not met, the court excluded that important part of the prosecution’s case.

The article refers to the Northeast Delhi riots in 2020 as the setting for the mosque-burning case. It states that Allah Wali Mosque, in Gali No. 12 of Shahid Bhagat Singh Colony, Karawal Nagar, was allegedly set on fire on February 24. The case arose from a complaint filed by Imran on March 1, 2020.

The complaint alleged that a statue had been placed on the slab outside the mosque entrance and that articles across its four floors had been burned. Police initially registered an FIR under IPC sections concerning rioting, unlawful assembly and mischief by fire. Later, the investigation expanded after police obtained CCTV footage from Public Works Department cameras.

The article does not explain the wider causes, scale or chronology of the 2020 riots. It reports only that the alleged mosque attack occurred during them and led to charges against five men. Police witnesses later identified those men in the footage, but the court found their testimony contradictory and rejected the footage as evidence.

Criminal courts test whether the prosecution’s evidence is consistent, credible and strong enough to prove every required part of an offence beyond reasonable doubt. Conflicting testimony does not automatically end a case. The court examines whether the differences are minor or whether they affect identity, timing, location and the alleged act itself.

Here, the contradictions went to the heart of the case. Ali Ahmad described one evening attack, while the prosecution alleged another attack around 11am on February 25. The police witnesses also gave inconsistent accounts of their movements, including whether they were at a school or near the mosque. The CCTV copies had a separate legal defect.

Together, these problems prevented the judge from reliably linking the five men to the mob, vandalism or arson. The court also considered that one police witness did not clearly describe the mosque being attacked. With no dependable combination of testimony and electronic evidence, the prosecution failed to meet the criminal standard, so the men were acquitted.

The immediate legal consequence is that Ankit, Sourabh Sharma, Rohit, Rahul Kumar and Sachin were acquitted of every charge in this case. The charges included rioting, unlawful assembly, damaging property and setting Allah Wali Mosque on fire. An acquittal means the court did not find the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to establish their criminal guilt.

The judgment specifically rejected the police witnesses as unreliable for proving participation in the alleged riot, vandalism and arson. It also ruled that the CCTV DVDs were inadmissible because they lacked the required Section 65B certificate from the person who prepared them. Those defects removed both major parts of the prosecution’s identification case.

For the Allah Wali Mosque case, the verdict means the prosecution did not prove that these five men took part in the burning or related damage. The article does not state whether an appeal will be filed or whether any other investigation or proceeding will continue. It reports only the acquittal and the court’s reasons.