Express News Service
Discharging three men in a case of 2020 Delhi riots, a sessions court has pulled up Delhi Police, saying the case was not properly and completely investigated and chargesheets were filed in “predetermined, mechanical and erroneous manner.”
Granting relief to Akil Ahmad, Rahis Khan and Irshad, who were chargesheeted for rioting and criminal conspiracy among other offences, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said, “I am having suspicion for IO (Investigating Officer) having manipulated the evidence in the case, without actually investigating the reported incidents properly.”
The court then referred the matter back to cops to make assessment of the investigation done in the case and to take further action in conformity with law, to take the complaints to a legal and logical end.
The riots started in Jaffrabad, in North East Delhi, near a spot where women were holding a sit-in protest against India’s Citizenship Amendment Act. Violence ensued after Kapil Mishra, an AAP-party leader who had joined the BJP, threatened to “hit the streets” if the protests against the law were not contained.
The three people in the current case were charged under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly with a common object), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 188 (disobedience to public order), 436 (mischief by fire), among others of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In the recent order, the judge noted the inconsistencies in the chargesheets and subsequent statements, suggesting an attempt to cover up flaws in the prosecution’s case.
In the first supplementary chargesheet, the IO included three individuals as accused who were not mentioned in a constable’s statement, the order pointed out.
The investigating officer failed to present any evidence demonstrating the accuracy of these subsequent statements, it stated.
The court said the statements of the complainants were recorded only to cover up lacuna in the case of prosecution and to justify chargesheeting the accused persons in this case.
A first information report (FIR) was registered at Dayalpur police station on the basis of a rukka (a complaint copy from which the contents are taken for filing FIRs) prepared by an Assistant Sub-Inspector on February 28, 2020.
Later, the IO combined complaints in the case by Farooq Ahmad, Shahbaz Malik, Nadeem Farooq and Jai Shankar Sharma and a chargesheet was filed and also the cognisance of the same was taken in the same year.
Subsequently, in last year and February this year, two supplementary chargesheet along with certain documents and fresh statements were filed.
In the 23-page order, the judge observed that there is a conflict between two sets of relied-upon evidence of the prosecution in respect of date and time of the alleged incidents.
IOs ignored the observations recorded in the rukka and in the first statement of all the complainants that there were mobs raising slogan in favour of and against CAA/NRC, the order said.
“This fact is very important to realise that they were two different and rival mobs. IOs remained silent over the question as to which particular incident was caused by a particular mob. If several incidents took place in and around Victoria Public School at the hands of riotous mob, the job of IO was to ascertain the composition of such mob during each of such incidents,” the order read.
Discharging three men in a case of 2020 Delhi riots, a sessions court has pulled up Delhi Police, saying the case was not properly and completely investigated and chargesheets were filed in “predetermined, mechanical and erroneous manner.”
Granting relief to Akil Ahmad, Rahis Khan and Irshad, who were chargesheeted for rioting and criminal conspiracy among other offences, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said, “I am having suspicion for IO (Investigating Officer) having manipulated the evidence in the case, without actually investigating the reported incidents properly.”
The court then referred the matter back to cops to make assessment of the investigation done in the case and to take further action in conformity with law, to take the complaints to a legal and logical end.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
The riots started in Jaffrabad, in North East Delhi, near a spot where women were holding a sit-in protest against India’s Citizenship Amendment Act. Violence ensued after Kapil Mishra, an AAP-party leader who had joined the BJP, threatened to “hit the streets” if the protests against the law were not contained.
The three people in the current case were charged under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly with a common object), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 188 (disobedience to public order), 436 (mischief by fire), among others of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In the recent order, the judge noted the inconsistencies in the chargesheets and subsequent statements, suggesting an attempt to cover up flaws in the prosecution’s case.
In the first supplementary chargesheet, the IO included three individuals as accused who were not mentioned in a constable’s statement, the order pointed out.
The investigating officer failed to present any evidence demonstrating the accuracy of these subsequent statements, it stated.
The court said the statements of the complainants were recorded only to cover up lacuna in the case of prosecution and to justify chargesheeting the accused persons in this case.
A first information report (FIR) was registered at Dayalpur police station on the basis of a rukka (a complaint copy from which the contents are taken for filing FIRs) prepared by an Assistant Sub-Inspector on February 28, 2020.
Later, the IO combined complaints in the case by Farooq Ahmad, Shahbaz Malik, Nadeem Farooq and Jai Shankar Sharma and a chargesheet was filed and also the cognisance of the same was taken in the same year.
Subsequently, in last year and February this year, two supplementary chargesheet along with certain documents and fresh statements were filed.
In the 23-page order, the judge observed that there is a conflict between two sets of relied-upon evidence of the prosecution in respect of date and time of the alleged incidents.
IOs ignored the observations recorded in the rukka and in the first statement of all the complainants that there were mobs raising slogan in favour of and against CAA/NRC, the order said.
“This fact is very important to realise that they were two different and rival mobs. IOs remained silent over the question as to which particular incident was caused by a particular mob. If several incidents took place in and around Victoria Public School at the hands of riotous mob, the job of IO was to ascertain the composition of such mob during each of such incidents,” the order read.
