A Delhi court has refused to interfere with the discharge of two men accused in a 2020 riots case, holding that the trial court’s findings were legally sound and based on serious gaps in the prosecution’s case.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from FIR No. 88/2020 registered at Jyoti Nagar Police Station following the 2020 Delhi riots. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Ajay and Gaurav Panchal, were part of a violent mob involved in rioting, arson, and assault.
A magistrate court had earlier discharged both accused, finding insufficient material to proceed to trial. The State challenged this order through a criminal revision petition.
Hearing the revision, the court closely examined the investigation and the trial court’s reasoning. It noted several inconsistencies and lapses in the prosecution’s case.
The court pointed out unexplained delay in registering the FIR and inconsistencies in the complainant’s identity and medical records. It also observed that the police failed to collect crucial evidence such as CCTV footage or statements of independent witnesses.
On the issue of identification, the court found the prosecution’s version doubtful. The accused were allegedly identified at a police station by chance after nearly two months.
“The manner in which the accused persons were identified… makes the story of the police doubtful,” the court observed.
The court further noted contradictions in the complainant’s statements and absence of clear details about the alleged attackers. It also questioned the recovery of weapons, observing that it did not meet legal standards under the Evidence Act.
Importantly, the court emphasized that while considering charges, there must be a “grave suspicion” against the accused. In this case, it found that suspicion arose instead against the prosecution’s version.
Concluding that the trial court’s view was a “possible and reasonable view,” the court held there was no legal error warranting interference.
“The findings of the trial court are absolutely perfect… and cannot be reversed,” the judge stated.
Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the State was dismissed, and the discharge of the accused was upheld.
Case Details:
Case Title: State (NCT of Delhi) vs Ajay & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 118/22
Judge: Shri Sameer Bajpai (ASJ-03, Shahdara)
Decision Date: 25 March 2026
