Delhi District Court
State vs Lokesh Solanki @ Rajpoot And Others on 5 June, 2025
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
DLNE010027302020
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
INDEX
Sl. HEADINGS Page Nos.
No.
1 Description of Case & Memo of Parties 2-3
2 Case set up by the Prosecution 4-9
3 Charges 9-11
4 Description of Prosecution Evidence 11-34
5 Plea of accused under Section 351 BNSS 34
6 Arguments on behalf of Defence and 34-35
Prosecution on the point of incriminating
evidence
7 Section 255 BNSS and 351 BNSS 35-41
8 Plea of accused Lokesh Solanki 41
9 Plea of accused Tinku 41
10 Final arguments of Defence and Prosecution 41-43
APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE
11 Unlawful Assembly & Riot 43-45
12 Identification of accused persons 45-56
13 Section 153-A IPC and 505 IPC 56-61
14 Conclusion and Decision 61-62
Digitally signed
by PULASTYA
PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
PRAMACHALA Date: 2025.06.05
11:04:50 +0530
Page 1 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sessions Case No. : 136/2020
Under Section : 144/147/148/149/188/302/153A/
505/201/120B/ 34 IPC
Police Station : Gokalpuri
FIR No. : 149/2020
CNR No. : DLNE01-002730-2020
In the matter of: -
STATE
VERSUS
1. Lokesh Kumar Solanki @ Rajput
S/o. Sh. Yogender Kumar,
R/o. H.No. C-5/47, 4th Floor,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-53.
2. Pankaj Sharma
S/o. Late Sh. Rajveer Sharma,
R/o. H.No. C-162, Gali No.3,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi-94.
3. Sumit Chaudhary @ Badshah
S/o. Late. Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o. H.No. A-367, Gokalpuri, Delhi.
4. Ankit Chaudhary @ Fouzi
S/o. Sh. Rajkumar,
R/o. H.No. G-14, Gali No. 2, G-Block,
Ganga Vihar, Gokalpuri, Delhi-94.
5. Prince @ D.J. Wala
S/o. Sh. Mahender Singh,
R/o. H.No. C-33, Gali No.2,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi-94.
6. Rishabh Chaudhary @ Tapas
S/o. Sh. Yogender Singh,
R/o. H.No. F-53, Gali No.1,
Ganga Vihar, Gokalpuri, Delhi-94.
7. Jatin Sharma @ Rohit
S/o. Sh. Gouri Shankar Sharma,
R/o. H.No. C-101, DLF,
Dilshad Extension-II, Ghaziabad,
Sahibabad, U.P.-201005.
Page 2 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
8. Vivek Panchal @ Nandu
S/o. Sh. Pramod Kumar Panchal,
R/o. H.No. D-106, Gali No.4, Ganga Vihar, Delhi-94.
9. Himanshu Thakur
S/o. Sh. Harender,
R/o. H.No. F-19, 1st Floor, Flat No.1,
Ekta Society, DLF-Ankur Vihar,
Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.
10. Tinku Arora
S/o. Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o. H.No. E-51, Gali No.2,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi-94.
11. Sandeep Kumar @ Mogli
S/o. Late Sh. Dalveer Singh,
R/o. H.No. E-24, Gali No.3,
Bhagirati Vihar, Delhi-94.
12. Sahil @ Babu
S/o. Late Sh. Rakesh Sharma,
R/o. H.No. D-138, Gali No.11,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi-94. ...Accused persons
Complainant: ASI Manvir Singh
Date of Institution : 19.08.2020
Date of reserving Judgment : 29.05.2025
Date of pronouncement : 05.06.2025
Decisions: -
1. Accused Lokesh Kumar Solanki is convicted of offences
punishable u/s. 153-A/505 IPC. He is acquitted of remaining
charges levelled against him in the present case.
2. Remaining accused persons are acquitted of all the charges
levelled against them in the present case.
(Section 481 BNSS complied with by all the accused persons)
Page 3 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
JUDGMENT
CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION: –
1. The above-named accused persons have been chargesheeted by
the police for offences punishable under Section
144/147/148/149/153-A/188/505/302/201/120-B/34 IPC.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 01.03.2020 at about 14:34
hrs., a PCR call regarding a dead body lying in the Nala near
Ganga Public School, was received at PS Gokalpuri. This call
was recorded in Daily Diary vide DD No.26A. This call was
entrusted to ASI Manveer Singh for necessary action.
3. ASI Manveer Singh along with PSI Ashish Garg reached the spot
i.e. drain (Nala) near Ganga Public School, where the water of
the drain was found flowing towards Gokalpuri Metro Station.
One male dead body was found moving towards Gokalpuri
Metro Station with the flow of drain. The dead body was stopped
in the drain near Gokalpuri Metro Station and same was taken
out of drain with the help of other police staff. During personal
search of the dead body, one small glass bottle with AVIL written
on its lid and a needle, was recovered from pocket of pant worn
by the deceased. IO seized the same and deposited it in
malkhana. IO took photographs of the dead body with his mobile
phone. The dead body could not be identified and it was sent to
RML Hospital, where it was declared brought dead by the doctor
vide MLC No. E-45293/20. The dead body was got preserved in
mortuary of RML Hospital pending identification.
4. On 06.03.2020, postmortem examination on the body of
Page 4 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
deceased as “unknown, s/o. Unknown” was conducted at RML
Hospital by a Medical Board, vide Post-Mortem no.162/2020.
Doctors preserved clothes worn by deceased, tooth for DNA and
blood in gauze and same were taken into police possession.
Postmortem proceedings were got videographed through Sh.
Ankit Shrivastava. After post-mortem examination, the dead
body was preserved in the mortuary of GTB hospital for the
purpose of identification, because there was no facility of
preserving dead-body at RML hospital.
5. On 09.03.2020, Mohd. Tehsin along with his family members
and relatives came to PS Gokalpuri in search of his son, who was
missing since 25.02.2020 and he met ASI Manvir Singh. Mohd.
Tehsin complained that his son namely Aas Mohammad had left
his house for work in the morning of 25.02.2020 and he had not
come back since then. He showed the photograph of his son to
IO. They were taken to GTB hospital by ASI Manvir Singh and
were shown the aforesaid dead-body (found on 01.03.2020 vide
DD No.26A). Mohd. Tehsin identified the dead-body as that of
his son Aas Mohammad. After identification, the dead body was
handed over by IO to the family members on 09.03.2020.
6. During postmortem examination, doctors had verbally conveyed
to SHO/PS Gokalpuri that there were serious fatal injuries on the
head of deceased. Accordingly, this case FIR No.149/20, u/s.
147/148/149/302/201 IPC, was registered on 10.03.2020 at PS
Gokalpuri, by Duty Officer ASI Yeshpal on the basis of DD
Entry. Further investigation was handed over to Insp. Bineet
Kumar Pandey.
Page 5 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
7. During the course of further investigation on 10.03.2020,
IO/Insp. Bineet Kumar Pandey prepared site plan of spot at the
instance of ASI Manvir Singh and recorded statement of
witnesses. On 11.03.2020 the exhibits preserved in the case i.e.
tooth and blood sample of deceased, were sent to FSL, Rohini
through PSI Ashish Garg and were deposited there for DNA
fingerprinting. On 22.03.2020 remaining exhibits i.e. clothes of
the deceased, were deposited in malkhana. As per prosecution, on
25.02.2020 at about 7-7.30 PM, deceased Aas Mohd. was killed
by the rioters and was thrown in the drain (nala) at Bhagirathi
Vihar/Johripur pulia. He was coming on foot from the side of
Loni Border, Ghaziabad.
8. On 24.03.2020, further investigation of the case was transferred
to the SIT-II of Crime Branch and it was entrusted to Insp. Vinod
Kumar Ahlawat on 07.04.2020. On 10.04.2020 postmortem
report of the deceased Aas Mohammad was received from RML
Hospital through SI Ashish Garg. The cause of death was opined
as “Head injury and its complications due to blunt force impact.
All injuries were ante-mortem in nature.” On 12.06.2020
subsequent opinion regarding kind of weapon of offence in the
present case, was taken from Medical Board. It was opined that
“Most of the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused
by heavy blunt objects like (but not limited to) heavy lathis,
metal rods, bricks, heavy stones etc.”.
9. On 12.04.2020, IO recorded statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of Ct.
Vipin, who took name of accused Ankit, Badshah, Pankaj,
Prince, Himanshu, Jatin Sharma, Rishabh, Vivek, Lokesh, Babu
Page 6 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
and others. He stated that on 25.02.2020 at around 4 PM on
seeing police party, rioters alerted their associates to hide
themselves to each other by taking their afore-said names.
10. On 15.04.2020, blood sample of father and son of the deceased
namely Mohd. Tehsin and Rehan were got preserved at GTB
hospital. The samples were seized by the IO and deposited in
malkhana. On 16.04.2020, report of crime team was obtained.
Photographs of the spot clicked by IO/ASI Manvir Singh was
also obtained. On 08.05.2020, blood sample and other exhibits
were sent to FSL, Rohini for DNA matching and biological
examination. On 22.04.2020 spot was got inspected and
photographed by FSL Team, and report was obtained by IO. On
08.05.2020 mobile phone of eyewitness Nilu Jain was sent to
FSL, Rohini for retrieval of data, images, videos and posts. On
15.05.2020 mobile phones of witnesses Anuj Kumar Sharma,
Piyush Panchal, Shubham Sharma @ Sahil, Abhishek Panchal
and Aniket Panchal, were also sent to FSL for retrieval of data
and posts. On 22.07.2020 spot was inspected by draughtsman,
scaled site plan of the spot was got prepared and same was
received on 30.07.2020. IO added Sections 144, 153A, 505,
120B, 34 IPC in the present case.
11. During the course of further investigation, eleven (11) accused
persons namely, (1) Lokesh Kumar Solanki @ Rajput, (2) Pankaj
Sharma, (3) Sumit Chaudhary @ Badshah, (4) Ankit Chaudhary
@ Fauzi, (5) Prince, (6) Jatin Sharma, (7) Rishabh Chaudhary @
Tapash, (8) Vivek Panchal @ Nandu and (9) Himanshu Thakur
were arrested in this case. Certified copies of CDR and CAF of
Page 7 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
the mobile numbers of accused persons obtained from respective
service providers.
12. As per the chats of WhatsApp group namely “Kattar Hindut
Ekta”, accused persons and their associates conspired to teach
Muslims a lesson for attacking the Hindus, and they equipped
themselves with lathis, dandas, sticks etc. and started roaming in
the area with the motive to vandalize/burn the properties. They
further resolved to kill Muslims, whoever came across before
them.
13. After completion of investigation, on 19.08.2020 main
chargesheet was filed against nine (9) accused persons namely
Lokesh Solanki @ Rajput, Pankaj Sharma, Sumit Chaudhary @
Badshah, Ankit Chaudhary @ Fauzi, Prince, Rishabh Chaudhary
@ Tapas, Jatin Sharma @ Rohit, Vivek Panchal @ Nandu and
Himanshu Thakur, for offences punishable under Section
302/144/147/148/149/153-A/505/201/120-B/34 IPC. On
16.09.2020, ld. CMM/NE took cognizance of offences under
Section 302/144/147/148/149/201/120-B/34 IPC against afore-
said nine (9) accused persons. Vide this order, ld. CMM/NE
declined to take cognizance of offences u/s. 153-A and 505 IPC
for want of prior sanction u/s. 196 Cr.P.C.
14. On 15.10.2020 first supplementary chargesheet along with
photocopy of reports of retrieved data of mobile phone (seized in
FIR No.35/20), FSL reports, one pen-drive containing soft copy
of FSL report and other documents, was filed before ld.
CMM/NE. This supplementary chargesheet was sent by ld.
CMM/NE to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 21.10.2020.
Page 8 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
15. On 07.05.2021 second supplementary chargesheet along with
sanction order u/s. 196 Cr.P.C., subsequent medical opinion
regarding possible weapons of offence and other documents, was
filed before ld. Duty MM (North-East), Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi. This supplementary chargesheet was filed impleading
three additional accused persons namely Tinku Arora, Sandeep
@ Mogli and Sahil @ Babu, in the present case. Section 188 IPC
was also added in the present case through this supplementary
chargesheet. This supplementary chargesheet was sent by ld.
CMM/NE to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 26.10.2021.
16. On 15.09.2022 third supplementary chargesheet along with
sanction u/s.195 Cr.P.C. and copy of order u/s. 144 Cr.P.C. was
filed before ld. CMM/NE. On that day, ld. CMM/NE took
cognizance of offence u/s. 188 IPC in the present case. This
chargesheet was sent by ld. CMM/NE to the Court of Sessions
vide order dated 22.10.2022.
17. On 25.11.2024 fourth supplementary chargesheet along with data
retrieved in respect of WhatsApp chats, was filed directly before
this court. On 18.12.2024 fifth supplementary chargesheet along
with certificate u/s. 63 BSA as issued by expert from CERT-In,
was also filed directly before this court.
CHARGES
18. On 04.04.2022, charges were framed against accused 1. Lokesh
Kumar Solanki @ Rajput 2. Pankaj Sharma, 3. Ankit Chaudhary
@ Fauzi, 4. Prince @ D.J Wala, 5. Jatin Sharma @ Rohit, 6.
Himanshu Thakur, 7. Vivek Panchal @ Nandu, 8. Rishabh
Chaudhary @ Tapash 9. Sumit Chaudhary @ Badshah, 10. Tinku
Page 9 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Arora, 11. Sandeep @ Mogli and 12. Sahil @ Babu for offences
punishable under Section 144/147/148/153A/302/201/432/505/34
IPC read with Section 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial. The charges were framed in following terms: –
“That from the early morning of 25.02.2020 till the late
night of 26.02.2020, in the area at or around main Ganda Nala
Road, near C-Block, Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi, within the
jurisdiction of PS Gokalpuri, all of you being members of
unlawful assembly along with your other associates (identified
& unidentified) formed an unlawful assembly carrying deadly
weapons like lathis, sticks(danda), stones, swords and other
arms, used force or violence in prosecution of a common object
i.e. committed rioting and you all knew being members of the
aforesaid unlawful assembly that offences were likely to be
committed in prosecution of that common object and thereby
committed offences punishable under Section(s) 144/147/148
IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, on 25/02/2020, at around 07:00 – 07: 30 p.m., at
or around main Ganda Nala Road, near C-Block, Bhagirathi
Vihar, Delhi,, you all being members of said unlawful assembly
along with your other associates (identified and unidentified)
used force or violence in prosecution of a common object and in
furtherance of common intention committed murder of Aas
Mohammad S/o Shri Tehsin, merely on account of the fact that
he belonged to the other community and thereafter threw his
dead body in the Bhagirathi Vihar ganda nala with a view to
conceal/destroy his identity and thereby you all along with your
other associates (identified and unidentified) committed
offences punishable under Section(s) 302/201/432/34 IPC read
with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, that on the aforesaid dates, time and place, you all
being members of said unlawful assembly along with your other
associates (identified and unidentified) raised religious slogans
in furtherance of common intention and common object to incite
and promote enmity between different groups on the ground of
religion and acted in a way that are prejudicial to the ways ofPage 10 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuriharmony and thereby you all along with your associates
(identified and unidentified) committed offences punishable
under Section(s) 153A/505 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and
within my cognizance.”
DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
19. Several witnesses were dropped on the basis of admission of
documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C./330 BNSS and prosecution
examined 32 witnesses in support of its case, as per following
description: –
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
PW1/Sh. PW1 deposed that on 25.02.2020, he had gone to the
Narottam temple at about 7.30-8 pm and he was strolling
Singh around that temple and came back to his home
bearing F-442-A, Gali No.8, Ganga Vihar,
Gokalpuri, Delhi, at about 9-9.30 pm. PW1 further
deposed that on 25.02.2020, he did not see any
particular incident except vehicles in burnt
condition.
During his cross-examination by ld. Special PP, PW1
denied the suggestion that he had stated before the
police that on 25.02.2020 at about 4 pm, while
looking for his motorcycle, he reached on Bhagirathi
Nala or that he saw a mob at that place indulging in
rioting and assaulting persons.
PW1 did not support the case of prosecution on the
point of identification of accused persons and he was
declared hostile.
PW2/Nisar In February 2020, PW2 was resident of E-61/1, Main
Ahmed Nala Road, near Johripur pulia, Bhagirathi Vihar,
Delhi.
On 25.02.2020 at about 7-7.30 a.m., PW2 made a
telephonic call to his sister Amina and told her to
come to his home, keeping in view the tensed
situation due to riots. When he had gone in search ofPage 11 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS GokalpuriSl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
her sister, PW2 saw a mob of some persons
assembled at Johripur pulia. PW2 identified some
members of this mob, as he knew some by their
names and some by their faces. In the mob, PW2
saw accused persons namely Vikas, Golu, Avdhesh
Mishra, Shekhar, Michael, Mogli, Tinku, Babu,
Prince, Ashok, Tikkiwala, Gaurav Dabral and
Himanshu Thakur. As per his testimony, on
25.02.2020 at 8 am, PW2 had seen Sandeep, Vikas,
Golu, Michael, Akash, Sanjay and Ashok Tikkiwala
in the mob on the road going towards Chaman Park
from Johripur pulia. On that day, at about 10 am,
PW2 was present in his balcony, when he saw that
afore-said mob came towards his home and that mob
started looting shop of Salman situated adjacent to
his house.
During his testimony, PW2 identified accused Sumit,
Babu @ Sahil, Sandeep @ Mogli, Tinku, Pankaj,
Vivek Panchal, Jatin, Himanshu and Prince, by
taking their names in the court. PW2 pointed out
towards accused Lokesh Solanki while taking his
name as Himanshu. PW2 also pointed out towards
accused Rishabh and Pawan stating that he did not
know their name.
During his cross-examination by ld. Special PP, PW2
deposed that in the murders taken place on Johripur
pulia by the mob on 25.02.2020, accused Vikas,
Golu, Sandep @ Mogli, Michael, Tinku, Prince,
Pankaj, Avdhesh Mishra, Shekhar, Akash and Sanjay
were there among the others in that mob.
PW2 also admitted the suggestion that on
25.02.2020 the same mob consisting of around 200-
250 persons including above-mentioned persons and
others were present at ganda nala, Tiraha, Johripur;
and that he had told police that on 25.02.2020 for
Page 12 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
whole day, said rioters/mob continued to commit
loot, arson and killing; and that same mob/persons
were checking the ID of passers-by and on finding
the same as Muslim, they used to kill the person and
throw the dead body in the nala.
PW2 correctly identified accused Ankit in the court,
stating that he was present in the mob on 25.02.2020.
On court query, PW2 deposed that on 25.02.2020, he
had seen accused Ankit for the first time at about 8
am and thereafter at about 4 pm, in the mob.
PW3/ PW3 was resident of C-129, Ex.PW3/
Shivam Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi. He was Article-1
Bhardwaj using a mobile phone make (mobile phone
Realme using no. 7217779080 of make Realme
Jio company, during period belonging to
between 24.02.2020 to 26.02.2020. PW3)
He was member of certain
WhatsApp group during that
period. His afore-said mobile
phone was taken from him in the
Crime Branch Office. He
identified his signature at circle X
on the seizure memo of WhatsApp
Chat dated 08.03.2020 with print
of chats (39 pages), pertaining to
FIR No.35/20. PW3 identified his
said mobile phone before the
court.
PW3 did not support the case of
prosecution and he was declared
hostile on the point of knowing
some accused and about
confession made by Lokesh for
killing Muslim persons alongwith
Page 13 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
other accused persons.
PW4/Sh. PW4 was resident of H.No. C-106, Gali No.3,
Mohit Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi. He was working in Khaiber
Sharma Pass Metro Depot as Technician. He was user of
mobile phone no. 89 ……. He was added in a
WhatsApp group namely “Katter Hindut” with
afore-said mobile number.
Officials of Crime Branch Office, Shakarpur, had
made enquiry from PW4 in respect of chats of afore-
said WhatsApp group. His mobile phone was seized
there in FIR No.35/20, PS Gokalpuri. PW4 identified
his mobile phone of Samsung company (as
Ex.PW4/Article-1 in FIR No.35/20), in the court.
PW4 did not support the case of prosecution and he
turned hostile on the point of identification of the
accused persons.
PW5/Sh. PW5 was residing at B-4/A, gali no.1, Bhagirathi Aman Vihar, in February 2020. Saxena PW5 did not support the case of prosecution and was
declared hostile by ld. SPP on certain aspects.
PW6/ On 25.02.2020, PW6 was present Ex.PW6/A
Shehjad at his home bearing no. E-289, gali (Site plan);
no.4, Bhagirahi Vihar. At about 9 Ex.PW6/B
a.m., he was present at the main (photograph)
gate of his home. He saw 400-500
persons were raising slogans of
‘Jai Shri Ram’. The member of
that mob were carrying hockey,
iron rod etc. He thereafter closed
the door of his house and went to
the terrace of his home. From the
terrace, he continued watching that
mob. PW6 saw that mob was
vandalizing the house of Nisar,
which was situated on the nala
Page 14 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
road.
At about 7 p.m., PW6 alongwith
his brother Jahid went to Toll Tax
on the main road, where he saw a
boy coming from the side of Loni
on that road, wearing green jacket
and black trouser. At that time,
there were about 250-300 persons
at Toll Tax and the mob caught
hold of that boy, assaulted him and
threw him in the drain near Toll
Tax.
PW6 deposed that he did not know
any person in the afore-said mob,
prior to afore-said incident.
However, he had seen some
persons in that mob. On the basis
of photograph shown by police,
PW-6 identified that person in the
photo as the same, who was
assaulted and thrown in the drain.
In the court, PW6 identified that
photograph with his signature at
point X, which was given exhibit
mark as Ex.PW6/B.
Police had prepared site plan at the
instance of PW6.
During his testimony, PW6 pointed
out towards accused Tinku Arora
as member of afore-said mob, in
the court.
PW7/Sh. PW7 was resident of B-99, Gali No.1, Bhagirathi
Paras Vihar, Delhi and he was working in Kosmos
Hospital. He deposed about making a call to police
Page 15 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
at 100 number on 25.02.2020 regarding situation of
riots. However, his testimony had no reference to
incident in question.
PW8/ Zahid PW8 was resident of H.No.289, gali no.4, E block,
Alvi Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi. He was brother of PW6.
On 25.02.2020 at about 7-7.30 p.m, PW8 alongwith
his brother Shehjad (PW6) went to Tikona, in order
to see the riots. There was a mob of around 100-150
persons at that Tikona. This Tikona was situated
immediately after coming down from the flyover
coming from the side of Ganga Vihar. PW8 saw that
one thin boy was being assaulted by said mob and
thereafter that boy was thrown in the drain. The
members of the mob were carrying weapons like
danda or iron rod and were raising slogan of ‘Jai Shri
Ram’. PW8 deposed that he did not know any person
in afore-said mob. Though he had seen faces of some
persons, but he did not remember as to how many
faces seen by him. No one had asked him to identify
members of afore-said mob by showing any
photograph. He had seen the face of boy, who was
being beaten, but no one had shown him photograph
of that boy for identifying him.
During his cross-examination by ld. Prosecutor, PW8
admitted that he knew faces of number of persons
residing in his locality and that there were persons
from local area in the afore-said mob. However,
PW8 again modified his statement to say that there
were no persons from local area. He admitted that
the afore-said mob was comprising of persons from
Hindu Community. He pointed out to accused
Prince, Mogli and Pankaj by taking their names as
the persons of his locality, in the court. PW8 also
pointed out towards Tinku and Babu stating that he
Page 16 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
does not know their name. These persons were
pointed out to say that they were resident of his
locality, but he denied having seen these persons in
the afore-said mob.
PW8 deposed that he had made complain to police
on 26.02.2020, but police did not make any enquiry
regarding riots from him at any point of time. He
further deposed that he never informed police on his
own about afore-said incident of beating of the thin
boy.
PW9/Ct. On 25.02.2020, vide DD No.25-B, PW9 was deputed
Vipin for law & order duty in the area of Bhagirathi Vihar.
On that day, his duty hours were from 9 a.m.
onwards.
On that day, at about 4 p.m., when PW9 came
towards Johripur pulia from the side of Bhagirathi
Vihar, he saw a mob of around 100-150 persons near
this pulia. On seeing PW9 with other police staff,
that mob started running away, while taking names
of Rishabh, Pankaj, Prince, Lokesh, Badshah, Ankit
and some other names.
During his cross-examination by ld. Special PP, he
admitted the suggestion that he had mentioned the
names of accused Himanshu, Jatin, Avdhesh Mishra,
Vivek and Shekhar, in his statement given before
Insp. Vinod.
PW10/ PW10 was resident of C-156, gali no.3, Bhagirathi
Neelu Jain Vihar, since about 2018 upto 2020 and he had been
using WhatsApp on his mobile no.786867686 for
last 5-6 years. Riots had taken place in the locality of
PW10 and he remained inside his home for 3-4 days.
During riots, someone had added PW10 to a
WhatsApp group i.e. ‘Hindu Bajran etc.’ In some
messages of that group, it was mentioned that in a
Page 17 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
colony near Maujpur, riot was going on and no one
should come out of the house. PW10 visited PS
Nand Nagri after receiving the call from police after
28.02.2020. PW10 identified his signature at point X
on the seizure memo dt.01.05.2020 and seizure
memo of hard copy of WhatsApp chat.
PW10 did not support the case of prosecution on the
point of identification of accused persons and he
was declared hostile.
PW11/Sh. PW11 was residing at H.No.93, gali Ex.PW11/A
Nazim no.1, Aisha Masjid, Shakti Vihar, (Receipt of
Dayalpur. Riots had taken place in delivery of
the year 2020 and brother of PW-11 dead body)
namely Aas Mohammad had gone
on 25th day towards the side of
Johripur for his work. He was not
having any mobile phone at that
time. Aas Mohammad did not return
back to his home on that day. Father
of PW11 had made a complaint
about missing of Aas Mohammad
and on 09.03.2020, PW-11
alongwith his uncle went to GTB
hospital, where he saw the dead
body of Aas Mohammad. PW11
identified his signature on ‘receipt
of delivery of dead body’ at point X.
PW12/Ms. PW12 was the widow of Aas Mohammad. On
Sahiba 25.02.2020, husband of PW12 left home at about 10-
11 a.m. for his work. Aas Mohammad did not return
back to his home on that day. Riots were going on
during those days. Father-in-law of PW12 made
online complaint regarding missing of Aas
Mohammad. In the month of March 2020, Manvir
saheb took PW12, her father-in-law and brother-in-
Page 18 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
law to GTB Hospital, where they identified the dead
body of Aas Mohammad on the basis of clothes
worn by Aas Mohammad on that date. PW12
identified the photograph of Aas Mohammad.
PW13/Sh. PW13 used to work as vendor for scrap dealing and
Ahmad for this purpose, he used to roam around in the area
Shahid of Ganga Vihar, Bhagirathi Vihar, Johripur, Shiv
Vihar, Mustafabad, Dayalpur and Karawal Nagar.
PW13 deposed that riot had taken place on
24/25.02.2020 in and around the area of Brijpuri
Pulia. Since atmosphere had worsened since
24.02.2020, therefore, PW13 was at his home on
25.02.2020.
On receipt of telephonic call from his aunt (mausi)
Ameena, at about 3-4 pm, PW13 went to her house
situated at the corner of a street (gali) near Johripur
pulia. PW13 saw that there was a mob of around
100-150 persons at Ganga Vihar/Johripur pulia, who
were raising slogans like Har Har Mahadev, Jai Siya
Ram. PW30 went to the terrace of house of Ameena
and from the terrace, PW13 saw that the persons
from that mob were equipped with lathi, danda etc.
They were stopping the passers-by. PW13 knew 2-4
persons in that mob, who were Thakur (who was
carrying danda), Mukesh Master, Avdhesh Mishra,
Kanhaiya, Sahil, Tinku & Mogli. PW13 had seen
these persons in the aforesaid mob, who were raising
slogans etc. Thereafter, PW13 took his aunt Ameena
to his home, through back side streets.
PW13 identified accused Mogli, Tinku and Sahil in
the court. PW13 was declared hostile by prosecution
on the point of identifying some accused persons.
PW14/SI PW14 was Duty Officer in PS Ex.PW14/A
Yashpal Gokalpuri. He registered FIR in (endorsement
Page 19 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
the present case on the basis of of PW14 on
rukka handed over by ASI Manvir. rukka); &
Thereafter, he also made Ex.PW14/B
endorsement on the back side of (FIR)
rukka.
PW15/ASI On 23.05.2020, PW-15 was posted Ex.PW15/A
Mahesh in SIU-II, Crime branch, Nand (arrest memo
Nagri as ASI. Accused Ankit of Ankit
Chaudhary, Sumit Chaudhary, Chaudhary)
Pankaj Sharma and Prince were in Ex.PW15/B
police custody in FIR no.156/20, (pointing out
PS Gokalpuri. IO/Insp. Vinod memo at the
Ahlawat interrogated them and instance of
arrested them in the present case. Ankit
PW-15 was holding custody of Chaudhary)
Ankit Chaudhary and he signed
over arrest memo of Ankit
Chaudhary.
Thereafter on same day at about 11
a.m., PW15 alongwith IO, SI
Deepak Pandey, ASI Billu Singh,
HC Karambir and HC Pankaj, took
aforesaid accused to southern part
of Johripur pulia towards side of
Ganga Vihar. PW15 prepared
pointing out memo at the instance
of Ankit Chaudhary.
All aforesaid accused persons were
sent to J/C.
PW15 identified accused Ankit
Chaudhary, Sumit, Pankaj Sharma
and Prince, in the court.
PW16/ASI PW16 deposed on the same lines Ex.PW16/A
Billu Singh of PW15. IO/Insp. Vinod Ahlawat (arrest memo
Page 20 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
interrogated and arrested Sumit of accused
Chaudhary, vide arrest memo Sumit
which was signed by PW16. Chaudhary)
Pointing out memo at the instance
Ex.PW16/B
of Sumit Chaudhary was prepared,
(pointing out
which was signed by PW16. memo at the
PW16 identified accused Sumit instance of
Chaudhary in the court. Sumit
Chaudhary)
PW17/HC On 25.02.2020, PW17 was Ex.PW17/A
Sarnam working as Deployment Officer in (OSR colly 4
PS Gokalpuri and he had prepared Sheets) (true
duty roster for the date of photocopy of
25.02.2020. duty roster).
PW18/ASI PW18 along with PSI Ashish Garg Ex.PW18/A
Manvir was witness to recovery of three (seizure memo
dead bodies from nala, on of glass bottle
01.03.2020. with syringe);
The dead body concerning to this Ex.PW18/B
case was taken out by PW18 with (certificate u/s
the help of other police staff from 65B of IE Act);
Ganga Vihar drain. This dead body
Ex.PW18/P1 to
was stuck near Gokalpuri Metro
Ex.PW18/P5
Station in the drain. PW18
(photographs)
witnessed recovery and seizure of
one glass bottle having mark of Ex.PW18/C
Avil, from the right side pocket of (Inquest
wearing trouser of this dead body. papers);
PW18 also deposed that mobile Ex.PW18/D
crime team was called at the spot (seizure memo
and got the place of incident of pullanda of
inspected. PW18 took 5 teeth and blood
photographs of the dead body on gauze);
through his mobile phone. PW18
Page 21 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
proved his certificate u/s. 65-B of Ex.PW18/E
I.E. Act and said photographs. (endorsement
PW18 deposed that dead body on DD
concerning to this case was taken no.26A);
to RML hospital by him and PSI Ex.PW18/F
Ashish Garg. The dead body was
(site plan);
declared ‘bought dead’ vide MLC
No. 45293/20 in RML hospital. Ex.PW18/G
This dead body was preserved in (seizure memo
mortuary of RML hospital. of 2
On 06.03.2020, PW18 prepared photographs);
inquest papers for postmortem Ex.PW18/H
examination of the dead body (seizure memo
pertaining to this case and of mobile
submitted the same in RML phone)
hospital. After postmortem
examination, PW18 brought the
dead body and got it preserved in
mortuary GTB hospital, as there
was scarcity of space at mortuary
in RML hospital.
On 09.03.2020, PW18 prepared
identification memo of the third
dead body at GTB hospital, at the
instance of one Bhullan and one
Shamshad, which are Ex.A1 and
Ex.A-2. PW18 delivered the dead
body vide memo Ex.PW11/A. On
same day PW18 reached RML
hospital and after receiving sealed
pullanda of teeth and blood on
gauze, seized them vide a seizure
memo.
On 10.03.2020, PW18 made
Page 22 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
endorsement on DD no.26A dated
01.03.2020, for registration of FIR.
Further investigation was assigned
to Insp. Bineet Pandey and
thereafter PW18 took Insp. Bineet
Pandey to the drain in front of
Ganga Public School, Ganga Vihar
and he prepared site plan of that
place at the instance of PW18.
Subsequently, investigation was
transferred to Crime branch and
Insp. Vinod Ahlawat was IO of the
case.
On 10.02.2021, PW18 had seized
one mobile phone and one pen-
drive containing photographs, in
FIR No.78/20 of same PS, from
one Nisar Ahmed. PW18 had
arrested accused Sandeep @
Mogli, Babu @ Sahil and Tinku in
that case, who were appearing in
the video recorded by Nisar
Ahmed. PW18 had handed over
documents pertaining to that FIR,
to Insp. Vinod.
PW19/SI PW19 deposed on the lines of Ex. PW19/A
Ashish Garg PW18 in respect of recovery of (R/C no.
dead body from Ganga Vihar nala 09/21/20)
near Ganga Public School, as well
as recovery and seizure of glass
bottle from right side pocket of
wearing trouser of the dead body.
PW19 also deposed in respect of
dead body taken by him along with
PW18 to RML hospital and
Page 23 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
regarding preserving the same in
mortuary of RML hospital.
On 11.03.2020, PW19 had taken 2
exhibits to FSL Rohini and
deposited the same, vide R/C no.
9/21/20. Till the period, exhibits
remained in his possession, same
were not tampered with.
PW20/ASI On 15.04.2020 on the directions of Ex.PW20/A
Karambeer IO/Insp. Vinod, PW20 took father (seizure memo
and son of deceased to GTB of pullanda
hospital and got preserved their containing
blood sample. PW20 handed over blood sample
4 sealed pullandas with their with MLC);
MLCs, to IO, who seized the same, Ex.PW20/B
vide a seizure memo. (arrest-memo
On 23.05.2020, PW20 alongwith of Vivek);
IO, SI Deepak Pandey, PW16/ASI Ex.PW20/C
Billu Singh, PW15/ASI Mahesh, (arrest memo
HC Pankaj, took accused Prince, of Rishabh);
Pankaj Sharma, Badshah and
Ex.PW20/D
Fauji, to Johripur pulia. PW20
(arrest memo
witnessed preparation of pointing
of Jatin);
out memo at the instance of 4
accused persons. PW20 also Ex.PW20/E
witnessed (i) preparation of arrest (Pointing-out
memo of accused Himanshu, memo at the
Rishabh Chaudhary, Jatin Sharma instance of
Vivek Panchal, Badshah, Fauji, Rishabh);
Prince and Pankaj Sharma; (ii) Ex.PW20/F
preparation of pointing out memos (arrest memo
at the instance of Rishabh of Prince)
Chaudhary.
Page 24 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
PW20 identified accused Vivek,
Prince, Rishabh, Fauji and
Badshah in the court. PW20
identified accused Pankaj in the
display screen, while taking his
name as Lokesh.
PW21/Dr. On 06.03.2020, PW21 alongwith Ex.PW21/A
Vinod Dr. Tejasvi and Dr. Abhishek (postmortem
Kumar K.N. Sharma, conducted post mortem report);
examination of one unknown dead Ex.PW21/B
body and prepared report of their and
findings. Police had furnished Ex.PW21/C
inquest papers and MLC.
(Opinion of
Subsequently, on receipt of request
PW21
letter from police on 11.06.2020,
alongwith other
the afore-said persons gave
members of
opinion in respect of probable
medical
nature of weapon used for causing
Board.)
injuries upon the dead body.
On 11.03.2021, the police
requested for opinion while
submitting two sealed pullandas.
After examining the exhibits taken
out from those pullandas, they
prepared another report, opining
that most of the injuries sustained
by the deceased could be caused
by any of weapons i.e. two
wooden planks or a base-ball bat
(kept in two sealed pullandas).
PW22/Sh. PW22 was working as Scientist, Ex.PW22/A
Arun Cyber Forensic Lab, CERT-In, (true
Kumar Ministry of Electronics, photocopy of
Sahani Government of India, New Delhi. the original
Page 25 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
On 17.04.2020, he received report prepared
request letter from Crime branch in by PW22 in
FIR No.35/20, PS Gokalpuri, respect of
alongwith 5 sealed packets and extracted data
other documents. These exhibits from digital
were assigned to PW22 and his exhibits);
Incharge Lt. Colonel Santosh
Ex.PW22/B
Khadsare.
(true
PW22 extracted data from the photocopy of
digital exhibits i.e. mobile phones, original
SIM cards and memory cards as certificate u/s
contained in those 5 sealed
65B of IE Act
packets. The extracted data were
copied/stored in a pendrive and a was issued in
certificate u/s 65-B of IE Act was respect of
issued in respect of the same. retrieved data);
PW22 again received another Ex.PW22/D
request letter dated 07.09.2020 in (true
FIR No.35/20, alongwith sealed photocopy of
packets of exhibits as sent back by original
this witness to the police. This extracted data
time, PW22 examined exhibits A1- from pen-
MOB, A2-MOB and A3-MOB, drive);
alongwith their related SIMs and
Ex.PW22/E
memory cards. PW22 extracted
(true
data from the same in another
photocopy of
pendrive vide report and issued a
original
fresh certificate, in respect of the
certificate u/s.
same. PW22 had prepared two
65-B of I.E.
copies of that pendrive and all
Act);
these exhibits and pendrives were
sealed and sent back. He identified Ex.PW22/H
afore-said pendrive with its (certificate u/s
contents. 63 BSA in
respect of
Page 26 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
mirror copy of
extracted data);
Ex.PW22/
Article-1 (pen-
drive with its
contents)
PW23/Sh. PW23 was working as Deputy Ex.PW23/A
L.K. Secretary (Home), GNCT, Delhi. (sanction
Gautam PW23 deposed that Lt. Governor orders dated
of GNCT of Delhi, approved for 16.12.2020)
according sanction u/s. 196 Cr.P.C
for offences u/s 153A/505 IPC
against accused Lokesh Solanki,
Pankaj Sharma, Sumit Chaudhary,
Ankit Chaudhary, Prince, Rishabh
Chaudhary, Jatin Sharma, Vivek
Panchal and Himanshu Thakur, in
this case.
PW23 being competent officer to
sign the sanction order on behalf
of LG, signed said sanction order.
Similar sanction was accorded by
LG against accused Sandeep, Sahil
and Tinku in this case.
PW24/ASI On 08.02.2021, PW24 alongwith Ex.PW24/A
Satender IO/Insp.Vinod Ahlawat, HC (Arrest memo
Pankaj and Ct. Rajender, went to of accused
Mandoli Jail. PW24 witnessed Sandeep @
arrest of accused Sandeep @ Mogli)
Mogli.
PW25/Insp. On 01.05.2020, PW25 witnessed Ex.PW25/A to
Deepak retrieval of data from the Ex.PW25/F
Page 27 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
Pandey WhatsApp group namely ‘Self (seizure memo
Defence’ in paginated form from of mobile
no.1 to 116 from the mobile phone phones of 6
of Neelu Jain and seizure of said persons);
mobile phone by PW32/Insp. Ex.PW25/G,
Vinod Ahlawat. Ex.PW25/H,
Ex. PW25/J
PW25 also witnessed seizure of
mobile phones of Anuj, Piyush, (arrest memos
Shubham, Abhishek and Aniket by of Pankaj,
IO on 15.05.2020. Lokesh Solanki
and
PW25 also witnessed arrest of Himanshu);
Ankit Chaudhary, Sumit, Prince,
Ex.PW25/I
Pankaj, Lokesh, Himanshu, by IO.
(pointing out
PW25 also witnessed the pointing memo at the
out memo at the instance of instance of
Lokesh. Lokesh)
PW25 identified accused Sumit,
Prince, Himanshu and Ankit, in the
court. He also identified accused
Pankaj and Lokesh (both
appearing on the display screen) in
the court.
PW26/Insp. On 09.04.2020, PW26 was posted Ex.PW26A
Dinesh as Insp. in Crime Branch, (OSR) &
Kumar Shakarpur, Delhi. He had arrested Ex.PW26/B
accused Jatin and Vivek in FIR no. (OSR) (true
36/20 PS Gokalpuri, being IO of photocopies of
that case. seizure memos
of danda
On 11.04.2020, PW26 had
recovered at
recovered and seized one danda
the instance of
each at the instance of both these
Jatin and Vivek
accused persons in FIR No.
Page 28 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
36/2020. On that day, both these pertaining to
accused persons were on police FIR No.
remand. PW26 alongwith both 36/20);
these accused persons and Rishabh
as well as SI Arun, SI Ravinder, Ex.PW26/C &
ASI Om Prakash, ASI Vikal, HC Ex.PW26/D
Dinesh, had gone to Bhagrirathi
(True
Vihar pulia. PW26 had recovered
photocopy of
one danda each at the instance of
site plans at the
Vivek and Jatin, from that place
instance of
near that pulia and a pilkhan tree.
Jatin and Vivek
PW26 had prepared cloth pullanda
pertaining to
of both these dandas and had
FIR no.36/20);
seized them vide separate seizure
memos. PW26 had provided copy Ex.PW26/E to
of aforesaid seizure memos to Ex.PW26/G
Insp. Vinod Ahlawat. (True
PW26 correctly identified accused photocopies of
Jatin, Vivek and Rishabh, before arrest memos
the court. of accused
Jatin, Vivek
and Rishabh
pertaining to
FIR no.36/20.)
PW27/Sh. PW27 was not sure about the date. He had seen a
Amber dead body floating in the drain and going towards
Bhardwaj direction of Ganga Vihar. He called at 100 number.
PW28/Retd PW28 being IO of FIR no.35/20 Ex.PW28/A to
Insp. Vinay and 37/20, had arrested accused Ex.PW28/E
Tyagi Lokesh, Pankaj, Sumit, Ankit, (True
Prince, Jatin Sharma, Rishabh, photocopies of
Vivek and Himanshu. PW28 seizure memo
provided photocopies of of mobile
documents related to arrest of phones
aforesaid accused persons in
Page 29 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
aforesaid FIR numbers, to pertaining to
PW32/Insp. Vinod Ahlawat. FIR no.35/20.)
PW28 had seized mobile phone of
Lokesh, Shivam, Dimple, Mohit
on 08.03.2020 and that of mobile
phone of accused Pankaj on
10.03.2020, in FIR no.35/20. He
had provided photocopies of
seizure memo of these mobile
phones to Insp. Vinod
Ahlawat/PW32. PW28 had
retrieved WhatsApp chats of the
group from the mobile phone of
Mohit, Shivam and Dimple. He
had also provided photocopies of
those retrieved chats to Insp. Vinod
Ahlawat.
PW29/HC PW29 witnessed preparation of Ex.PW29/A &
Pankaj pointing out memos at the instance Ex.PW29/B
of accused Pankaj and Prince and (pointing out
arrest of accused Pankaj by IO on memos at the
23.05.2020. instance of
PW29 also witnessed seizure of accused Pankaj
DVD of postmortem of deceased and Prince)
Aas Mohammad, which was
handed over by Ankit Shrivastava Ex.PW29/C
with certificate u/s 65B of IE Act, (seizure memo
to IO on 24.06.2020. of DVD and
PW29 witnessed pointing out certificate);
memos at the instance of Jatin, Ex.PW29/D
prepared by IO on 05.08.2020.
(Pointing out
On 12.03.2021 on the direction of memos at the
PW32/IO/Insp. Vinod Ahlawat, instance of
PW29 collected 2 dandas, seized
Page 30 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
in FIR No.36/20 and one danda Jatin)
seized in FIR no.156/20 in sealed Ex.PW29/E
condition, from malkhana PS and F
Gokalpuri and handed over the
(Pointing out
same with request letter, in
memos at
department of Forensic Medicine
instance of
in RML hospital.
Sandeep and
On 22.03.2021, PW29 took an Sahil.);
authority letter given by IO to
RML hospital. PW29 collected
danda and subsequent opinion
from RML hosptial. PW29 handed
over sealed dandas alongwith one
copy of this opinion to MHC(M)
in PS Gokulpuri. He handed over
original opinion to IO.
PW29 was part of investigation of
this case on 08.02.2021,
10.02.2021, 27.04.2021 and
30.04.2021, with IO/PW32 and
other staff.
PW29 witnessed arrest of accused
Tinku Arora and Sandeep @
Mogli, by IO on 08.02.2021 at
CJ-13, Mandoli. On same day,
PW2/Nisar Ahmed joined
investigation of the present case
and PW2 identified both these
accused persons to be involved in
the riot on 24/25/26.02.2020.
PW29 also witnessed arrest of
accused Sahil on 27.04.2021 by IO
at CJ-12, Mandoli Jail. One
witness namely Shehzad was
Page 31 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
passing by and he was also joined
in the investigation on 30.04.2021.
Shehzad identified Sahil.
PW30/HC On 05.08.2020, PW30 witnessed Ex.PW30/A
Vivek preparation of pointing out memo (pointing out
Tomar at the instance of Vivek Panchal. memo at the
PW30 correctly identified accused instance of
Vivek Panchal in the court. Vivek Panchal)
PW31/Insp. PW31 deposed on the same lines Ex.PW31/A
Bineet of PW18/ASI Manvir Singh. (seizure memo
Pandey PW31 witnessed preparation of of clothes of
site plan at the instance of ASI deceased Aas
Manvir Singh. On 11.03.2020, Mohammad)
PW31 had sent the exhibits i.e.
teeth and blood sample of
deceased, to FSL Rohini through
SI Ashish.
On 22.03.2020, PW31 witnessed
preparation of seizure memo of
clothes of deceased Aas
Mohammad.
PW32/Insp. PW32 was the last IO of the Ex.PW32/A
Vinod present case. On 07.04.2020, he(pointing out
Ahlawat was marked further investigation
memo at the
of the present case. instance of
PW32 deposed on the lines of accused Tinku)
PW6 in respect of Ex.PW6/A and
Ex.PW6/B.
PW32 deposed on the lines of
PW15, PW16, PW18, PW20,
PW24, PW25, PW29, PW30 in
respect of proceedings conducted
leading to preparation of
Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW15/B,
Page 32 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW16/B,
Ex.PW18/G, Ex.PW20/B,
Ex.PW20/C, Ex.PW20/D,
Ex.PW20/E, Ex.PW20/F,
Ex.PW20/PD-1, Ex.PW24/A,
Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW25/G,
Ex.PW25/H, Ex.PW25/I,
Ex.PW25/J, Ex.PW29/A,
Ex.PW29/B, Ex.PW29/C,
Ex.PW29/D, Ex.PW29/E,
Ex.PW29/F and Ex.PW30/A.
On 08.02.2021, he along with
other Police Officials, including
PW29/HC Pankaj went to Mandoli
Jail and after obtaining permission
PW32 interrogated and arrested
accused Tinku Arora vide arrest
memo Ex.A-37. Thereafter, on
09.02.2021 accused Tinku were
taken by police team including
PW32 to Johripur Pulia and at the
instance of PW32 prepared a
pointing out memo of place of
offence.
PW32 correctly identified all 12
accused persons before the court.
Admitted documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C/330 BNSS
Particulars of R/C of vehicle no. DL 5S BA 7168 as Ex. A-1 & A2,
respectively; certificate u/s. 65/B of I.E. Act as Ex. A-3; MLC
no.758 as Ex.A-4; postmortem report no.358/220 as Ex.A-5; death
certificate as Ex.A-6; emergency registration card as Ex.A-7;
opinion regarding weapon of offence as Ex.A-8; Copy of FIR
no.41/20 as Ex.A-9 (colly 3 pages); copy of arrest memo of Ankit
Chaudhary as Ex.A-10; copy of arrest memo of Sumit @ Badshah
Page 33 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
Ex.A-11; copy of p/search memo of Ankit Chaudhary as Ex.A-12;
copy of p/search memo of Sumit @ Badshah as Ex.A-13; copy of
FIR no.50/20 as Ex.A-14; copy of arrest memo and p/search memo
of accused Prince Ex.A-15 & A-16 respectively; R/C. No. 17/21/20
as Ex.A-17; CDRs and CAFs as Ex.A-18 to Ex.A-58, respectively.
PLEA OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 351 BNSS
20. For the purpose of recording statement of accused persons under
Section 351 BNSS, prosecution was asked to file synopsis of
incriminating evidence. It was so filed by ld. Special Public
Prosecutor.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFENCE & PROSECUTION ON THE
POINT OF INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE
21. I heard ld. Special PP as well as ld. counsels for accused persons
and I perused the entire material on the record.
22. Ms. Anita Seth, Adv. and Sh. Shubham Arora, Adv. authorised by
Sh. Nishant Kumar Tyagi, ld. counsel for accused Lokesh
Solanki, Rishabh Chaudhary, Jatin Sharma, Vivek Panchal and
Sahil @ Babu; Sh. Rakshpal Singh and Sh. Hari Krishan, ld.
counsels for accused Pankaj Sharma, Prince, Sumit @ Badshah,
Ankit Chaudhary @ Fauji, Sandeep @ Mogli and Tinku Arora;
and Sh. Rajan Sisodia, ld. counsel for accused Himanshu Thakur;
took plea that the alleged eye witnesses of prosecution, did not
support the case of prosecution and they were declared hostile by
the prosecutor. None of the witnesses of prosecution identified
any of the accused persons, as part of the mob of rioters which
killed the victim in this case. Hence, judgment of acquittal should
Page 34 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
be passed in the case.
23. However, Sh. Saleem Ahmed, ld. Special P.P. argued that though
the witnesses cited as eye witness of the incident did not support
the case of prosecution against all accused persons, but there are
circumstantial evidences on the record, which point out to
accused persons. Hence, those circumstantial evidences should
be put to the accused persons, for their response under Section
351 BNSS.
24. Ld. Special PP further argued that PW6/Shehzad is eyewitness,
who identified accused Tinku. PW2/Nisar Ahmad corroborates
evidence of PW6, as he had also seen Tinku in the same morning.
It was further argued that site plan Ex.PW6/A shows place of
incident and position of PW6. Same was basis of preparing scale
site plan Ex. A-44. Photo of deceased Ex.PW6/B was identified
by PW6. Description of clothes was also corroborated by photo.
It was further argued that PW8/Sh. Zahid Alvi corroborates
presence of PW6 at the spot. It was further argued that address of
PW6 and accused Tinku pertained to E-Block, Bhagirathi Vihar.
There is no evidence of ill motive of PW6 to identify accused
Tinku. PW12/Ms. Sahiba also described clothes worn by
deceased, when he had left home.
SECTION 255 BNSS & 351 BNSS
25. Section 255 BNSS (erstwhile S.232 Cr.P.C.) provides as under: –
“Acquittal- If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution,
examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the
defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no
evidence that the accused committed the offence, the judge
shall record an order of acquittal.”
Page 35 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Section 256 BNSS (erstwhile 233 Cr.P.C.) provides as under: –
“Entering upon defence. – (1) Where the accused is not
acquitted under section 255, he shall be called upon to enter
on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in
support thereof. (2) If the accused puts in any written
statement, the Judge shall file it with the record. (3) If the
accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling
the attendance of any witness or the production of any
document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless
he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application
should be refused on the ground that it is made for the
purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of
justice.”
Section 257 BNSS further provides that when examination of the
witness of accused, (if any) is complete, the prosecutor shall sum
up his case and thereafter the accused shall be entitled to respond
to the arguments of the prosecutor. Section 258 BNSS further
provides that after hearing arguments and points of law (if any),
the judge shall give a judgment in the case.
26. On the other hand, Section 351 BNSS (erstwhile S.313 Cr.P.C.)
provides as under: –
“Power to examine the accused – (1) In every inquiry or trial,
for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain
any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the
Court- (a) may at any stage, without previously warning the
accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers
necessary; (b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution
have been examined and before he is called on for his
defence, question him generally on the case: ……”
27. As it is evident from the language used in Section 351 BNSS,
this provision talks about “any circumstance appearing in the
evidence against the accused”. On the basis of such language,
practically the courts have been using the term of “incriminating
Page 36 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
evidence”. The purpose or objective behind the provision under
section 351 BNSS is also evident from the language of the
provision, wherein it is mentioned that ‘for the purpose of
enabling the accused personally to explain’. Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in the case of Ranjan Dwivedi & Anr. v. CBI, 2008
Cri.L.J. 1440 (DHC), was examining the scope and content of
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in that process, Delhi High Court
referred to following observations made by hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC
612: “the ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused
has been fairly examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. (similar
provision under old Act), would be to enquire whether, having
regard to all the question put to him, he did get an opportunity to
say what he wanted to say in respect of prosecution case against
him. If it appears that the examination of the accused person was
defective and thereby a prejudice has been caused to him, that
would no doubt be a serious infirmity.”. Taking view of object
behind Section 313 Cr.P.C., Delhi High Court observed that ” 19.
Thus, it is well settled that the provision is mainly intended to
benefit the accused and as it’s corollary to benefit the court in
reaching the final conclusion. 20. At the same time, it should be
borne in mind that the provision is not intended to nail him to
any position, but to comply with the most salutary principle of
natural justice enshrined in the maxim ‘audi alteram partem’.”
28. Delhi High Court further made observations in the same case in
the following terms: –
Page 37 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri“24. We think that a pragmatic and humanistic approach is
warranted in regard to such special exigencies. The word
‘Shall’ in clause b to Section 313 (1) of the code is to be
interpreted as obligatory on the court and it should be
complied with when it is for the benefit of the accused.”
29. Delhi High Court was dealing with a different situation in the
concerned case, however, in that process, the court did come up
with clear cut observations that the principle underlying Section
313 Cr.P.C. was “audi alteram partem” i.e. to afford an
opportunity to the accused to explain adverse material or
circumstances. The court further made it clear that the said
provision was intended for the benefit of the accused, to explain
circumstances, which might appear adverse to him, so that
accused could explain them.
30. In the case of Sivamani & Anr. v. State of Kerala, 1993 Cri.L.J.
23 (Kerala), while examining the scope of section 232 Cr.P.C.,
hon’ble Kerala High Court observed that an accused can be
acquitted u/s 232 only when there is no evidence that he
committed the offence. In that case, Kerala High Court dealt with
the term of ‘there is no evidence’ and in that process the court
referred to observations made by Division Bench of same court
in the case of State of Kerala v. Mundan, 1981 Cri.L.J. 1795
(Kerala), to the effect that where there is some evidence
connecting the accused with the commission of crime, it is the
duty of the judge to pass on to Section 233 and not to appreciate
that evidence and find out whether it was reliable or not, so as to
pass an order u/s 232 of the Code. In the case of Mundan (supra),
Kerala High Court had further observed that the words ‘no
Page 38 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
evidence’ in Section 232 Cr.P.C. cannot be construed and
interpreted to mean absence of sufficient evidence for conviction
or absence of satisfactory or trustworthy or conclusive evidence
in support of the charge. The judge has to see whether any
evidence has been let in on behalf of the prosecution in support
of their case that the accused committed the offence alleged, and
whether that evidence is legal and relevant. It is not the quality or
quantity of the evidence that has to be considered at this stage. If
there is any evidence to show that the accused has committed the
offence, then the judge has to pass on to the next stage. It is not
open to him to evaluate and consider the reliability of the
evidence at that stage.
31. In the case of Madan Mohan Jagga v. The State, 1984 Cri.L.J.
681 (Himachal Pradesh), even High Court of Himachal Pradesh
examined the scope of ‘no evidence’ as appearing in Section 232
Cr.P.C. to observe that “this term neither means total absence of
evidence, nor does it mean absence of cogent, convincing,
reliable and trustworthy evidence. All that it means is that there is
no inculpatory evidence against the accused in the sense that
even if the prosecution evidence adduced is accepted at it’s face
value, it would not amount to legal proof of the evidence,
charged against the accused. In such a case, the court is not
required to marshal the evidence with a view to find out if it
would be safe to act upon it or not.”
32. In view of above-mentioned observations made by higher courts,
it had to be seen if at all examination of an accused u/s 351
BNSS was necessary in all the circumstances. As per S.351
Page 39 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
BNSS, the inculpatory evidence appearing against the accused is
to be put to him, so as to enable the accused to give his
explanation. As per Section 255 BNSS, if the judge considers
that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence,
the judge shall record an order of acquittal. On conjoint reading
of Section 255 and Section 351 BNSS, it becomes amply clear
that the focus of the court has to be on inculpatory evidence.
However, the expression ‘no evidence’ as mentioned in Section
255 BNSS has an important role to decide if examination u/s 351
BNSS is mandatory in all circumstances. If there is no admissible
evidence on the record, so as to indicate towards the accused for
commission of alleged offence, then there remains no occasion to
seek any kind of explanation from the accused. In absence of
inculpatory evidence on the record, examination u/s 351 BNSS is
useless exercise, because accused is otherwise not required to
explain evidence of any such fact, which does not connect him
with the offences charged against him. Section 255 BNSS
becomes relevant for such situation only.
33. On analysing the evidence on the record, on the above-mentioned
parameters, I did not find any incriminating evidence against the
accused persons except Tinku, which could connect them with
the alleged riotous incident of killing of victim Aas Mohammad.
Hence, statement of accused persons except Tinku /s 351 BNSS
was dispensed with, vis a vis the charges u/s 147/148/302 IPC
read with 149 IPC. Statement of Tinku was recorded in respect of
aforesaid charges, as per evidence appearing on the record.
Statement of accused Lokesh was recorded for charges under
Page 40 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Section 153-A/505 IPC, as per evidence appearing regarding this
charge.
PLEA OF ACCUSED LOKESH
34. Accused Lokesh took plea that he did not know about the
WhatsApp Chat retrieved from the phone of witness Shivam. He
further took plea that he had not posted any message against any
community. He did not deny that a mobile phone make Redmi
Y-2 with dual SIM facility having SIM of mobile number
7557497409 was taken from his possession by IO, with
WhatsApp group in the name of “Kattar Hindut Ekta” and that
there were messages from his afore-said mobile number in afore-
said WhatsApp group. He also did not deny the correctness of
CDR and CAF of mobile no. 7557497409, which was issued in
his name. He took further plea that he was not an active member
in afore-said WhatsApp group and he was added in this
WhatsApp group by someone without his consent. He pleaded
innocence.
PLEA OF ACCUSED TINKU
35. Accused Tinku denied correctness of testimony of PW6 and
pleaded that PW6 falsely identified him at the instance of IO. He
pleaded innocence and stated that he was falsely implicated in
this case.
FINAL ARGUMENTS OF DEFENCE & PROSECUTION
36. Sh. Nishant Tyagi, ld. counsel for accused Lokesh Solanki argued
that in the present case the ingredients of S.153-A IPC are not
proved and satisfied. He submitted that the allegations against
accused Lokesh could be covered under Clause (a) only and there
Page 41 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
are no allegations to invoke Clause (b) & (c) at all. According to
him, for invoking Clause (a) malicious intent is very important
and there must be consequences of the words spoken or written
by the accused, to result into creating disharmony or riots etc. Ld.
counsel submitted that accused Lokesh through his messages did
not ask anyone to join him or to kill anyone. Accused rather
offered his help to the others. It was further argued that the other
members of that group were not before accused Lokesh in his
physical presence and there is no evidence that any of those
members joined this accused for subsequent action. There is no
evidence to show that any disturbance was created because of
messages of accused Lokesh. Accused Lokesh did not hold any
position of responsibility so that his messages could be given
importance by anyone else. Thus, no one had listened to him and
no one was influenced by his messages.
37. Per contra, Sh. Saleem Ahmed, ld. Special Public Prosecutor for
State, argued that there is no requirement in law that there should
be some consequence as outcome of the hatred messages. He
submitted that if all the messages posted by Lokesh in the
WhatsApp group are read together, then there cannot be doubt
about satisfying the ingredients of S.153-A (a) IPC. He submitted
that a sanction under S. 196 Cr.P.C regarding this offence was
also duly proved. He also submitted that Lokesh had posted
messages on 25.02.2020 as well as on 26.02.2020, and he is
liable for each instance of posting such messages.
38. Sh. Rakshpal Singh and Sh. Hari Krishan, ld. counsels for Tinku
argued that PW6 and PW8 gave contradictory statement
Page 42 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
regarding place of their visit. PW8 referred to a different place
i.e. Tikona rather than Toll Tax. PW2 deposed about incident at
his house, rather than incident at the given place of incident.
PW8 was with PW6 and he knew Tinku, but he denied having
seen Tinku in the mob. It was further argued that regarding cloth
worn by deceased, PW6 referred to a green colour jacket, but
PW8 referred to a green colour T-shirt. PW8 said that he had
made complaint to police on 26.02.2020, but PW6 denied having
made any complaint to police. PW6 deposed falsely on tutoring
of IO, against Tinku, as they resided in same locality. It was
further argued that before coming to court, PW6 had not
identified any accused.
39. I have given due consideration to the rival contentions and
perused the record.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY & RIOT
40. Though the first charge refers to a wide range of period from
25.02.2020 to 26.02.2020, but it has to be appreciated that FIR in
this case was registered for murder of an unidentified person
presumably by a mob. Subsequently, said dead person was
identified as Aas Mohammad. On the basis of investigation,
prosecution alleged in the chargesheet that this victim was killed
on 25.02.2020 at about 7-7.30 PM, by the rioters and thrown in
the drain (nala) near Bhagirathi Vihar/Johripur pulia. Therefore,
talking about any unlawful assembly at any other place and at
any other time, is irrelevant in this case. In the present case, I
have to look for evidence of unlawful assembly at Bhagirathi
Page 43 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Vihar/Johripur Pulia at around 7-7.30 PM on 25.02.2020 and
their alleged acts.
41. PW1/Narottam deposed that he did not see any incident at all,
except vehicles in burnt condition. Thus, testimony of PW1 does
not lead to any concrete situation, to confirm the incident taking
place in his presence, as alleged in this case. This witness was
examined by prosecution in other cases also, including FIR 35/20
of same police station which related to murder of Hashim.
However, prosecution did not take support from the statement
made by this witness in other case. Thus, evidence of this witness
on the record of this case, does not depict any incriminating
circumstance against any accused.
42. PW18/ASI Manvir and PW19/SI Ashish Garg were the police
officials, who deposed about recovering a dead body from drain
near Ganga Public School and Gokalpuri Metro Station.
PW11/Nazim was brother of deceased and according to him
deceased Aas Mohd. had left home for Johripur on 25.02.2020 at
about 8-8.30 A.M. PW11 had identified the dead body of
deceased. PW12/Sahiba was widow of deceased, who deposed
that deceased had left home on 25.02.2020 at about 10-11 A.M.
and he was wearing black color jeans, parrot green color jacket
with check shirt. Deceased did not come back home.
Subsequently she had met police Manveer and had shown
photograph of her husband. Thereafter, she had seen dead body
of her husband in GTB Hospital, where dead body was handed
over to them. She had given photograph of her husband to
Manveer, and she identified that photograph on the record i.e.
Page 44 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Mark PW8/A.
43. PW6 and PW8 claimed to be eye witnesses of the incident of
beating of a boy. PW8 claimed having seen face of that
boy/victim. PW6 identified photograph Ex.PW6/A, and PW8
identified photograph Mark PW8/A, as pertaining to that victim.
Both photographs i.e. Ex. PW6/A and Mark PW8/A show picture
of same person. Though, these photographs were not proved in
accordance with law of Evidence, but testimony of PW6, PW8
and PW12 to identify deceased in these photographs cannot be
ignored. Their evidence show that deceased was same person,
whom PW6 and PW8 claimed to have seen on 25.02.2020 near
Johripur Pulia, being beaten by a mob.
44. The postmortem examination report of Aas Mohammad Ex.
PW21/A, shows that he had been inflicted several injuries
including injury on his head. Cause of his death was opined as
head injury and its complication.
45. Thus, there is no doubt to the fact that deceased Aas Mohd. was
beaten to death, which might be done by a mob. I shall discuss
credibility of evidence of PW6 and PW8 under next heading.
IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED PERSONS
46. Next question is that whether there is any evidence to show that
accused persons prosecuted in this case, were behind killing of
Aas Mohammad? Ld. Prosecutor submitted that the
circumstantial evidence on the record, point out to the accused
persons.
47. Before I proceed further, it shall be beneficial to have an idea of
Page 45 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
legal principles related to circumstantial evidence. In K.T.
Palanisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal)
870, Supreme Court held that: –
“When the offence is said to have been committed and the
circumstantial evidence is made the basis for establishing the
charge against the appellant, indisputably all the links must be
completed to form the basis for his conviction. It is now well
settled that in a case where an offence is said to have been
established on circumstantial evidence alone, indisputably all
the links in the chain must be found to be complete.”
48. Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the conditions, which need
to be satisfied, before circumstantial evidence can be made the
basis of conviction. In Shambhu Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer
AIR 1956 SC 404; Shivaji Shohib Rao Bobade Vs. State AIR
1973 SC 2622; Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR
1984 SC 1622; Pandala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P and Other
AIR 1990 SC 79; C. Chenga Reddy and Others Vs. State of A.P
1996 (3) 10 SCC 193; Bodh Raj @ Bodha Vs. State of J & K
AIR 2002 SC 3164; Trimukh Murty Kirka Vs. State of
Maharashtra 2007 (Crl.); Vithal Eknath Adilinge Vs. State of
Maharashtra 2009(3) RCR (Crl.) 161, Hon’ble Supreme Court
had the occasion to deal with the circumstantial evidence based
cases. The principles for use of circumstantial evidence to arrive
at the finding of guilt, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court,
can be summarized as: –
i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn, should be fully established. The circumstances
concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’ established;
ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of guilt of accused, i.e. to say, they should not
be explainable on any other hypothesis except that thePage 46 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuriaccused is guilty;
iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature &
tendency;
iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved, and there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused
and must show that in all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused.”
49. In the present case, the circumstantial evidence has been relied
upon by ld. Prosecutor, for the reasons that the cited eye
witnesses, did not support the prosecution on the aspect of
identifying all accused persons except Tinku, as member of the
mob, which had allegedly intercepted deceased. In fact, except
for PW6 and PW8, no other witness claimed having seen any
incident at the given place and time of alleged incident. The
circumstantial evidence has to be looked into, to see if a chain of
facts is so established, as to lead to inference that accused
persons except Tinku, were part of a mob which was responsible
for killing of Aas Mohammad. I shall discuss evidence related to
Tinku separately.
50. Ld. Prosecutor heavily relied upon the WhatsApp chats from
above-mentioned group, to raise fingers against accused Lokesh
Solanki and some others. For the purpose of charge of murder,
these chats were proved to show extra judicial confessions made
therein by accused Lokesh. The relevant part of those chats is as
follows: –
“2/26/20, 9:45 AM – Binni: sare taiyaar rho
2/26/20, 8:29 PM – Binni: Bhai taiyaar rho kaam start hone vala
hai
2/26/20, 8:29 PM – Binni: taiyaar rho sarePage 47 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri2/26/20, 8:30 PM – Binni: puliya se pipeline ki trf aarge hai suer
2/26/20, 8:44 PM – +91 97168 29847: Aane du in mullo ka suar
bna denge
2/26/20, 10:22 PM – +91 70539 44604: Bhaio ye danga q ho raha
h nale par abhi jo hua tha
2/26/20, 10:22 PM – +91 70539 44604: Jhoripur nale par
2/26/20, 10:24 PM – +91 96435 06209: Dikat lag rhi he 6 no me
sab ready rhena
2/26/20, 11:39 PM – +91 75574 97409: Bhai Mai Ganga Vihar se
lokesh Solanki hu agr kisi ko koi problem ho or wha log Kam
pde to bta dena Mai apni Puri Ganga Vihar ki team k sath
aayunga Sara Saman hai humare pass goli bandook sab kuch
2/26/20, 11:40 PM – +91 75574 97409: Bhai Pura support hai
abhi Hindu bhaiyo ko
2/26/20, 11:40 PM – +91 75574 97409: Bilkul bhai Ganga Vihar
gokulpuri jhoripur sb sath hai tumhare
2/26/20, 11:41 PM – +91 97739 29196: 15 k Dane h kya
2/26/20, 11:41 PM – +91 97739 29196: Kisi Bhai k pass
2/26/20, 11:41 PM – +91 95992 45196: Monty Nagar.vcf (file
attached)
2/26/20, 11:41 PM – +91 95992 45196: Bahi ad kro bhai ktr
hindu h
2/26/20, 11:41 PM – +91 95992 45196: Yeh
2/26/20, 11:41 PM – +91 75574 97409: Pistol hai
2/26/20, 11:42 PM – +91 75574 97409: Humare pass
2/26/20, 11:42 PM – +91 97739 29196: Faltu h kya
2/26/20, 11:42 PM – +91 97739 29196: Bhai goli h Kya 315 ki
2/26/20, 11:44 PM – +91 75574 97409: Tumhare Bhai ne abhi 9
bje k krib b.vihar m 2 mulla mare hai
2/26/20, 11:44 PM – +91 75574 97409: Or nale m feka hai
2/26/20, 11:44 PM – +91 97168 29847: Bilkul Lokesh bhai
2/26/20, 11:44 PM – +91 75574 97409: Apni team k sath
2/26/20, 11:44 PM – +91 70539 44604: Haa bhai
2/26/20, 11:45 PM – +91 97168 29847: Ha
2/26/20, 11:45 PM – +91 75032 34804: Rajput bhai bhagirath
vihar me bande bhej do
2/26/20, 11:45 PM – +91 75574 97409: Bhai abhi thodi aarhe hai
hum sab raily lekrPage 48 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri2/26/20, 11:45 PM – +91 75574 97409: B.vihar m
2/26/20, 11:45 PM – +91 97739 29196: Koi dikkt na h Bhaiyo
2/26/20, 11:49 PM – +91 75574 97409: Vinay tumhe pta hai na
tumhara Bhai sbse aage rhta hai aise kamo m”
51. Such posts/messages were posted a day after the alleged incident.
Therefore, they cannot have any link with the alleged incident.
Even otherwise, they cannot form the sole basis for conviction
due to their inherent weaknesses and they must be supported by
independent & reliable evidence. The Supreme Court has
emphasized for voluntariness, truthfulness, and corroboration,
reflecting safeguards under Article 20(3) of the Constitution
(protection against self-incrimination).
52. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the relied upon
confessional chats, cannot be substantive evidence to show that
accused Lokesh had actually killed any muslim person. Above-
mentioned chats, at the most could be used as corroborative piece
of evidence, so as to support the substantive evidence. But there
is no substantive evidence showing complicity of Lokesh in the
alleged incident. Moreover, they cannot be read, as confession of
killing Aas Mohammad. Prosecution has used same confession
for killings of nine persons in different cases. Thus, even
prosecution used it only as circumstantial evidence, without
being sure as to for which particular victim, this particular chat
related to. The argument of ld. Prosecutor that the chats show that
Lokesh and other accused persons who were member of that
group, were involved in the riots. However, I find that this plea
refers to a general situation, without support of substantive
evidence qua incident in question, and has no bearing in this
Page 49 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
case. It shall be matter of analysis of other piece of circumstantial
evidence, to see if the chain of all circumstances has been
connected, to show involvement of Lokesh and others in the
incident leading to death of Aas Mohammad.
53. Ld. Prosecutor also relied upon testimony of PW2/Nisar to seek
corroboration to evidence of PW6. PW2 claimed having seen and
identified several persons including some accused persons, in the
mob present near Bhagirathi Nala or Johripur Pulia at different
points of time than the alleged time of incident in this case. In
that situation, any name being mentioned by PW2, becomes
worthless.
54. Ld. Prosecutor argued that evidence of PW2 shows a pattern of
presence in the mob during the period since 24.02.2020 upto
26.02.2020. Before I deal with this plea, it is worth to refer to
some part of the evidence of PW2. In his cross examination by
prosecutor, PW2/Nisar deposed that he had subsequently come to
know from police that murders had taken place at Johripur Pulia.
This goes on to show that he had not seen any incident of murder
himself. PW2/Nisar admitted suggestion of the prosecutor that he
had told name of some persons to police, who were part of the
mob seen by him and who continued rioting for whole day of
25.02.2020 and they used to kill muslim persons.
55. First of all, such admission of suggestion does not become
evidence of the stated facts, because what was told by PW2/Nisar
before police, does not become substantive evidence. What was
deposed by him before the court, is the substantive evidence.
Secondly, even this statement does not show if PW2/Nisar had
Page 50 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
seen any particular incident of murder. This was a generalized
statement, perhaps based on hearsay, which does not help in the
trial of a particular incident. Therefore, even without going into
question of credibility of evidence of PW2/Nisar, I find that his
evidence does not help the case of prosecution in any manner, to
prove involvement of any accused in the alleged incident or to
connect any chain of circumstances.
56. As far as pattern of presence in the mob for three days, is
concerned, it cannot be forgotten that prosecution has
chargesheeted the accused persons, for murder of Aas
Mohammad with aid of S.149 IPC. Unless, it is shown that there
was a mob, which killed Aas Mohammad and unless the identity
of members of the culprit mob is established, vicarious liability
cannot be fastened upon anyone else. In absence of some
concrete evidence laying down the foundation, no presumption
can be raised that some persons identified as part of some mob at
some place at some other time period, would also have been part
of a mob, and such mob was involved in the incident of murder
of Aas Mohammad.
57. Ld. Prosecutor further referred to evidence of PW9/Ct. Vipin,
submitting that this witness also had heard names of some
accused, being taken by the members of a mob. As per testimony
of this witness, on 25.02.2020 he was on duty. On that day at
about 4 P.M., he came towards Johripur Pulia (bridge) from the
side of Bhagirathi Vihar and he saw a mob near that Pulia. On
seeing police, that mob started dispersing away and while
running away from that place, they took names of Rishabh,
Page 51 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Pankaj, Prince, Lokesh, Badshah, Ankit and some other names.
All of them fled away from that place and this witness could not
see any person. This witness could not remember other names
heard by him but, when ld. Prosecutor suggested names of
Himanshu, Jatin, Avadhesh Mishra, Vivek and Shekhar, then this
witness admitted having heard these names as well.
58. The aforesaid evidence of PW9 does not even indicate to alleged
incident in this case. There is a time gap between 4 P.M. and 7-
7.30 P.M. and once again it is presumption only that same mob
would have been there at the alleged time, which is not
sustainable. Even otherwise, aforesaid kind of statement of
hearing names, without being able to see anyone, does not
establish presence of accused. Therefore, whatever was heard by
PW9, cannot be connected with the alleged incident, nor on the
basis of the same it can be inferred that any of the accused
persons were part of a mob, which could be behind the killings of
Aas Mohammad.
59. Other circumstance relied by ld Prosecutor, was recovery of a
stick (Danda) each from Himanshu, Jatin and Vivek in other
cases. Those sticks were sent to Forensic Department of GTB
Hospital. The Board of Doctors, who had conducted postmortem
examination, gave opinion that the injuries found on the body of
Aas Mohammad, could be caused by those sticks. However, at
the same time nothing more was found on any of those sticks, so
as to say that same sticks were used to inflict injuries upon Aas
Mohammad. Hence, such general opinion does not help much, so
as to infer anything against these three accused persons in the
Page 52 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
present case.
60. Thus, in the name of circumstantial evidence, there are some
fragments and pieces of evidence, which fall much short to point
out towards accused persons except Tinku, as culprit for killing
of Aas Mohammad.
61. Now I shall deal with the question of credibility of evidence of
PW6. PW6 and PW8 are brothers. Both of them claimed that
they had come out of their residence in E block, Bhagirathi Vihar
and had come near Johripur Pulia, where they had seen incident
taking place with deceased in this case. PW6 deposed that he and
PW8 went to Toll Tax on the main road, when he saw deceased
coming from the side of Loni. He saw mob intercepting that boy
and beating him and then throwing him in the drain. PW6 also
claimed that he made call at 100 number and informed police
about riot taking place. PW8 also claimed having made a call to
police.
62. Prosecution did not prove any such PCR form to show if PW6 or
PW8 had actually made such call and to show as to what
information was given by PW6 or PW8, to police. PW6 also
deposed that he had seen some persons in that mob, but he did
not know any person. However, at the same time contradicting
his aforesaid stand, PW6 deposed that he had informed police
about name of some members of that mob. PW6 mentioned
names of four persons, which were told by him to the police. But
these names did not include name of any of the accused persons
in this case. Before the court, PW6 identified Tinku as one of the
members of aforesaid mob.
Page 53 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
63. In his cross examination by ld. prosecutor, PW6 changed his
version and deposed that he had mentioned name of Tinku before
the police. However, he again changed this version during his
cross examination by defence, and he further deposed that he had
not informed name of Tinku before police and had so stated
earlier mistakenly. This time he deposed that he had come to
know name of Tinku on the day of his examination before the
court itself. This flip flop in the statement of PW6, is significant
in nature.
64. On the other hand, brother of PW6 i.e. PW8 deposed that he had
seen face of some persons in the mob. PW8 at one time deposed
that there were local persons in that mob, but immediately
thereafter he disowned such statement. PW8 identified accused
Prince, Mogli and Pankaj by taking their names, stating that they
were residents of his locality. PW8 also pointed out to Tinku and
Babu, as residents of his locality, but he did not know their
names. PW8 denied having seen any of the accused persons,
including above-mentioned accused, in that mob.
65. It is worth to mention here that PW8 was examined before the
court on 18.04.2023, while PW6 was examined in the court on
17.02.2023. This is relevant to take note of, because both these
witnesses were residing together. One brother (PW6) claimed
having seen Tinku, but at the same time he had been giving
fluctuating statements regarding knowing Tinku and telling name
of Tinku before police. Prosecution had projected that both these
witnesses had been knowing all accused persons and that they
had seen all accused persons in the mob. Prosecution also
Page 54 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
projected that both these witnesses had mentioned names of all
accused persons before IO. If PW6 had actually seen Tinku in the
mob of rioters on 25.02.2020, it is but natural that he would have
told his brother PW8 about it instantly. PW8 had been knowing
Tinku, being resident of same locality. But, PW8 could not see
Tinku, though PW6 had seen him in the mob. This scenario is
very abrupt and unnatural and cannot be believed upon.
66. Moreover, PW6 vouched that site plan Ex.PW6/A was prepared
at the same place, where he had taken the police. In this site plan,
IO showed position of PW6 at point D, which is nearer to E
block. However, PW6 deposed that he was present at point A.
Point A has been shown by IO, as the place where allegedly
deceased was beaten by the mob. Both these points are much
apart from each other. If this site plan was prepared by IO at the
instance of PW6, then there was no occasion for aforesaid kind
of confusion.
67. Next aspect is the place allegedly visited by PW6 and PW8. PW6
deposed about being at a Toll Tax, when he had seen aforesaid
incident. Site plan Ex.PW6/A shows a Toll Tax of MCD.
However, location of this Toll Tax is just opposite in direction to
aforesaid point D. In order to reach that Toll Tax, one had to
cross Johripur Pulia, if going from the side of E block, Bhagirathi
Vihar (wherein house of PW6 and PW8 was situated). That is
another improbable situation, because according to PW6 mob
was situated near Johripur Pulia and Toll Tax and it could not be
possible for PW6 and PW8 to reach that place from their house.
PW8 did not talk about Toll Tax, rather he mentioned about a
Page 55 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Tikona i.e. a corner. Thus, there is no consistency and clarity
about position of both these witnesses.
68. Therefore, I find that deposition of PW6 and identification of
accused by PW6, is not beyond questions. In view of the
contradiction in the evidence of both these brothers and above-
mentioned improbable situations, I do not find it safe to rely
upon evidence of PW6 to presume presence of Tinku in aforesaid
mob.
SECTION 153-A/505 IPC
69. It is relevant to mention here that accused Lokesh neither denied
the fact that his mobile phone was seized by PW28/Insp. Vinay
Tyagi in FIR 35/20, nor did he deny that mobile number
7557497409 was obtained in his name. He took contradictory
plea in his statement recorded u/s 351 BNSS. At one time he
denied having posted any message in the alleged WhatsApp
group, but subsequently he took plea that he was added in that
group by someone without his consent and he had not posted any
message against any community. It is well proved on the record
that chats from aforesaid group were retrieved by expert in
CERT-In i.e. by PW22, which was provided in a pen-drive. I
have seen messages contained in that pen-drive. There are
various messages posted from aforesaid mobile number of
accused Lokesh in the alleged group. Lokesh did not take plea
that he was not using aforesaid mobile number. Hence, there is
no doubt that those messages were posted by accused Lokesh.
70. Now, I shall reproduce the provisions u/s 153-A and 505 IPC,
which are as follows:
Page 56 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS GokalpuriS.153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds
of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and
doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. — (1)
Whoever– (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or
by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to
promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever,
disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between
different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes
or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to
the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial,
language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which
disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, or (c)
organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity
intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be
trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be
likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained
to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity
intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or
knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will
use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any
religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or
community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or
is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst
members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or
caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. OffencePage 57 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuricommitted in place of worship, etc.–
(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in
any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the
performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall
be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years
and shall also be liable to fine.
S.505. Statements conducing to public mischief. — (1) Whoever
makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report,
with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or
community of persons to commit any offence against any other
class or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
71. In the case of Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, (2021) 15
SCC 35, hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with aforesaid
legal provisions, made following observations: –
“9. Only where the written or spoken words have the tendency
of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order or
affecting public tranquility, the law needs to step in to prevent
such an activity. The intention to cause disorder or incite people
to violence is the sine-qua-non of the offence under Section 153
A IPC and the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens
rea in order to succeed.1
10. The gist of the offence under Section 153 A IPC is the
intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between
different classes of people. The intention has to be judged
primarily by the language of the piece of writing and the
circumstances in which it was written and published. The matter
complained of within the ambit of Section 153A must be read as
a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated
passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one take a
sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by aPage 58 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpurimeticulous process of inferential reasoning.
11. In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P.3, this Court analysed
the ingredients of Sections 153 A and 505 (2) IPC. It was held
that Section 153 A covers a case where a person by “words,
either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible
representations”, promotes or attempts to promote feeling of
enmity, hatred or ill will. Under Section 505 (2) promotion of
such feeling should have been done by making a publication or
circulating any statement or report containing rumour or
alarming news. Mens rea was held to be a necessary ingredient
for the offence under Section 153 A and Section 505 (2). The
common factor of both the sections being promotion of feelings
of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious or racial
or linguistics or religious groups or castes or communities, it is
necessary that at least two such groups or communities should
be involved. It was further held in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo (supra)
that merely inciting the feelings of one community or group
without any reference to any other community or group cannot
attract any of the two sections. The Court went on to highlight
the distinction between the two offences, holding that
publication of words or representation is sine qua non under
Section 505.”
72. This charge is based on the chats posted in the aforesaid
WhatsApp group on 25.02.2020. This group was created on
24.02.2020 at 19:19:42 hours. Accused Lokesh was member of
this group since beginning. Some of the messages posted by him
in this group, are already reproduced in this judgment. I have
gone through the messages posted in this group by different
members. As the name suggests, the central focus of messages in
this group have been to unite the persons from Hindu community.
However, on that pretext, messages started pouring in to the
effect of abusing the muslims. Messages were posted to call upon
the members to assemble together, so as to counter the muslims.
Page 59 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
73. In the given scenario of riots which started from 24.02.2020, any
communication only for the purpose of being united or to come
together to counter any attack from rival group, can be
understandable. However, messages in the aforesaid group were
not limited to this extent only. There were abuses in some
messages for muslims. There were instigations against the
community of muslim. For example, some of such messages are
reproduced herein below: –
“9mullo ko maar diya gya hai.
brijpuri puliya pr.
himmat bnaye rkho or inki bajaye rkho.”
74. Among such kind of messages, accused Lokesh also posted
messages like mentioned herein below: –
“Are inki MAA ki ch–
Jo krna hai kro
Are sbki maa cho–
Dekha jayega
Group m bakchodi krne se kya hoga
Agar Kuch krna hai to
Bahar road pr aao na”
75. I have deliberately skipped to reproduce some of the messages
containing abuses and only a few of them have been mentioned
here. Thus, in the background of messages posted earlier in the
aforesaid group and the kind of participation shown by accused
Lokesh therein, the messages posted by him on 25.02.2020 leave
no doubt that theme of all those messages was to mobilize the
members against muslim persons. It is also well apparent that
intent of the messages posted by accused Lokesh, was to instigate
the others against muslim persons. This act was in fact alike
spreading hatred for muslim persons and to instigate others to
Page 60 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
resort to violence against them.
76. I am in agreement with the arguments of ld. Prosecutor and ld.
counsel for victim, that there is no requirement of evidence of
consequent action taking place, on the basis of messages posted
by accused Lokesh. Thus, I do find that accused Lokesh through
his messages attempted to promote disharmony, feeling of enmity
and hatred for muslim persons and he committed offence defined
and punishable under S.153-A IPC.
77. Accused Lokesh offered to others to help with weapons etc.,
which was to incite others to commit offences against muslim
persons, because no person without authority of law can use
weapon or force against any person. If force or weapons were to
be used by any member of this group against muslim persons,
then it had to be an offence. Thus, messages posted by accused
Lokesh are also found to be with intent to cause alarm to other
members of the group and to induce them to commit offence
against muslim persons and against public tranquility, being
punishable under S.505 IPC.
CONCLUSION & DECISION
78. In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I
find that charges under Sections 144/147/148/302/201/432/34
IPC read with Section 149 IPC, are not proved at all, against
accused namely (1) Lokesh Kumar Solanki @ Rajput, (2) Pankaj
Sharma, (3) Sumit Chaudhary @ Badshah, (4) Ankit Chaudhary
@ Fauzi, (5) Prince, (6) Jatin Sharma, (7) Rishabh Chaudhary @
Tapash, (8) Vivek Panchal @ Nandu, (9) Himanshu Thakur, (10)
Sandeep @ Mogli and (11) Sahil @ Babu.
Page 61 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002730-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 136/2020, FIR No. 149/2020, PS Gokalpuri
79. I also find that evidence on the record for aforesaid charges, is
not beyond reasonable doubt against accused (12) Tinku Arora.
Hence, they are acquitted of such charges.
80. Accused Pankaj Sharma, Sumit Chaudhary @ Badshah, Ankit
Chaudhary @ Fauzi, Prince, Jatin Sharma, Rishabh Chaudhary
@ Tapash, Vivek Panchal @ Nandu, Himanshu Thakur, Sandeep
@ Mogli, Sahil @ Babu and Tinku Arora, are also acquitted for
charges under Sections 153-A/505 IPC.
81. Charges under Sections 153-A/505 IPC stand proved against
accused Lokesh Solanki @ Rajput and he is held guilty and
convicted under both these provisions.
(Announced today on 05.06.2025, from the court as per new
posting, though the judgment was reserved being posted as
ASJ-03 (North-East District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.)
Digitally signed
by PULASTYA
PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
PRAMACHALA
Date: 2025.06.05
11:05:00 +0530
(PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
(This order contains 62 pages)
Page 62 of 62 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi