Delhi riots case: Three accused discharged, court unhappy with police probe

A Delhi Court on Thursday discharged three accused in North East Delhi riots, while observing that when history will look back at the worst communal riots since partition in Delhi, it will be seen as the failure of investigating agency to conduct proper probe by using latest scientific methods, and it will surely torment the sentinels of democracy.

The court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma further observed, “The sort of investigation conducted in the instant case and the lack of supervision thereof by the superior officers clearly depicts that the investigating agency has merely tried to pull the wool over the Court’s eyes and nothing else.  After investigating this matter for so long, police has shown up only five witnesses in the matter; one is the victim, other is Constable Gyan Singh, one Duty Officer, a formal witness and the IO. 

“I cannot restrain myself from observing that this case is a colossal wastage of the hard earned money of tax-payers, without there being real intent of investigating the matter. I am pained to note that no real/effective investigation in the matter has been carried out and merely by recording the statement of Constable Gyan Singh (No.1192/NE), that too at a belated stage, especially when the accused persons were already under arrest in case registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas, the investigating agency has just tried to show the case as ‘solved’. The evidence brought on record by the investigating agency in the case in hand miserably falls short for framing charges against the accused persons,” it added. 

The court was pronouncing it’s decision on the point of charge in the FIR registered on the basis of two written complaints. 

Complainant Harpreet Singh Anand stated that he had been running shop bearing situated at main Wazirabad Road, Chand Bagh, Delhi. During the days of riots in the said area, when he visited his shop, he found its shutter broken/damaged and came to know that his shop had been attacked, looted and thereafter set on fire by the riotous mob. He further stated in the complaint that cash amounting to around Rs 10-13,000 had also been looted from his shop. 

The Counsel of accused argued that there is an unexplained delay in filing of FIR and the complainant does not even recognise the accused persons. The Counsel stated, “Till date, the investigating agency has not been able to identify/apprehend any other accused person in the matter, which is very surprising and clearly points out towards their false implication.He contended that there is no independent eye witness account of the incident in question. It is strongly emphasized that there is no electronic evidence available against the accused persons either in the form of CCTV footage/video-clip or CDR location to confirm their presence at the spot/scene of crime (SOC) on the date and time of incident.  Even no recovery of any sort has been effected from any of the accused persons.” 

On the other hand, the counsel of the complainant did not specifically name/identify the accused persons in his two initial written complaints. 
It is argued that the communal riots in North-East Delhi were very unprecedented where people were very much scared and the police personnel were busy in maintaining law and order duty, rescuing the victims and stopping further damage to the life, limb and properties in the area. There was curfew like atmosphere at or around the area and the people were so shocked and traumatized that it took several days for them to muster courage to come out and report the matter to the police when the situation became normal. 

Also Read: AgustaWestland VVIP Chopper scam: Delhi High Court grants time to Christian Michel for filing of additional documents

The court after hearing all the facts and circumstances observed that the following points while discharging the accused all the three accused persons namely (i) Shah Alam, S/o Shri Kallan Saifi; (ii) Rashid Saifi, S/o Shri Yamin Saifi; and (iii) Shadab, S/o Shri Nafis Ahmad – 
(i)      The accused persons have neither been specifically named in the FIR nor any specific role has been assigned to them in the matter. Complainant Harpreet Singh Anand has also not specifically named/identified any of the accused persons either in his two written complaints           (ii)     No recovery of any sort has been effected from any of the three accused persons.             (iii)    There is no independent eye witness account of the incident available on record.

(iii)    There is no independent eye witness account of the incident available on record.           (iv)    There is no CCTV footage/video-clip of the incident in question available on record to confirm the presence of accused persons at the spot/SOC at the relevant time. Even there is no CDR location of the accused persons available on record.