A local court in Delhi has come down heavily on Delhi police for clubbing different complaints without proper investigation related to the riots that rocked the North eastern parts of the national capital in February 2020.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts, while acquitting Akil Ahmed, Raheesh Khan and Irshad, noted that charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution in the vandalism case involving the courier service office of one Dinesh.
The ASJ pointed out that the Investigation Officer (IO) clubbed 27 complaints together; however, names of three complainants were mentioned twice in the list.
It said the charge sheet revealed that 27 complaints were clubbed but the serial number allotted in the list was inconsistent. After serial no. 14, serial no. 16 was written and proper reading disclosed that only 23 complaints in totality could be found.
After questioning the IO, the trial court reached the conclusion that the complaint was clubbed only because other incidents took place in close proximity with Dinesh’s shop.
Hence, the accused in this case were included in the charge sheet of other complaints on the premise of being allegedly involved in vandalisation of the courier service office, noted the ASJ.
It further observed that no proper investigation was done in other complaints.
The only witness in the First Investigation Report (FIR), Constable Piyush, had stated that around 1500-2000 people were raising slogans against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Karawal Nagar.
Reiterating the chain of events mentioned by Constable Piyush, the court commented on the authenticity of the evidence. It noted that the witness in his testimony said he saw the three accused to be part of the mob when he was on patrol.
He immediately informed his senior after returning from the duty. A statement was also made before the IO on March 5, 2020 as per the witness, however, no record of it could be found. Instead, a statement was recorded on April 16, 2020.
Though surprisingly, the IO agreed that the statement was recorded on March 5, 2020, the court remarked.
The court pointed out another contradiction in the statement made by Piyush. It said the witness first stated about knowing the accused(s) before riots but during cross-examination, he said that he became aware about the name of Irshad, when the accused inquired about secret informers after the riots.
The Session Court had a similar stand on the statement given by witness in respect of Raheesh Khan. During the cross- examination, Piyush mentioned that he only informed the residential area of the accused and, not the name of his parents yet, it could be found in the statement recorded before IO.
The Judge mentioned that the incompatibilities of the statement were enough to shake his confidence in the credibility of the witness.
The court held that either witness was not deposing correctly before the court or the statement recorded before the IO under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not solely based on his own knowledge, but rather on the information given by the IO to him.
ASJ Pramachala further commented on improper investigation, saying that neither the particulars of the person who informed Dinesh about the incident were investigated, nor the IO was able to present before the court the time of the incident.
The IO did not mention either about other complaints or investigation done in respect of those allegations before the court, during examination or in the charge sheet, it noted.
Mehmood Pracha, the counsel for Akil Ahmed said that accusations by the IO were made with an ulterior motive. He alleged that attempts to plant witnesses and make sensational news were made.
The other two accused were represented before the court by Advocate Salim Malik.
The allegations were refuted by all three of them on the ground of their absence from the area on the day of the incident.
The court pronounced the three accused to be free from charges in Danish’s courier service office case since the prosecution could not prove their presence in the mob that was responsible for committing the vandalism, but restricted itself from passing any order in other complaints.
A complaint was filed by Danish, alleging that his courier service office at Chandu Nagar in Karawal Nagar Road was looted and burnt down by the miscreants. He claimed that he suffered a total loss of Rs 6-7 lakh. Later on, the Dayalpur Police Station, Delhi compiled other complaints with this one.