‘Very Disturbing Trend Of Investigation’: Court Raps Prosecution For ‘Fluctuating’ Stands On Clubbing Of Complaints In Delhi Riots Case

Calling it a very disturbing trend of investigation, the Delhi Court has pulled up the prosecution for “fluctuations and ups and downs” in its stand about clubbing of complaints in a 2020 Delhi riots case.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts sent a copy of the order to the DCP, North East Delhi, and directed the official to appear before the court himself or some other responsible senior officer with explanation in writing.

The matter was earlier also referred to the DCP so as to point out the approach of investigating officer and delay being caused in the case.

“This is very disturbing trend of investigation, where after filing of a chargesheet taking a stand by the prosecution, IO records statement at any subsequent point of time as per his wish, even without seeking any permission from the court and in defiance of laws u/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C. The lack of seriousness in the stand being taken by prosecution, is well reflected from the fluctuations in the same since beginning till date,” the court said.

The development ensued in FIR 148 of 2020 registered at Gokulpuri police station.

The judge said that there had been a lot of fluctuations in the stand being taken by the prosecution since beginning till date because as per the latest supplementary chargesheet filed in May, the concerned IO took a stand to prosecute the case on 22 complaints out of 25.

“It is worth to mention that initially 25 complaints were

clubbed in this case. The new stand of IO is based upon recording of fresh statement of some of the complainants, so as to show that they had mentioned wrong date and time of the incident at their premises initially,” the court said.

The judge persued the latest statements recorded by IO of some of the complainants, which were recorded without any formal permission from the court.

The court said that the complainants did not claim to be eyewitness of their incidents and while modifying the date and time of incidents at their premises, they referred to some neighbours giving information to them.

“Who were those neighbourers, are not known, courtesy to half hearted investigation done by the IO,” the court said.

It added that the supplementary chargesheet being filed by IO the with forwarding from SHO and ACP, taking a contrary stand as taken in the past, cannot be accepted without seeking clarification and explanation from the investigating agency.

“Therefore, ld. DCP (N/E) is called upon to go through the orders passed in this case since beginning till date, so as to be acquainted with the different stand taken by prosecution at different point of time. The court shall be interested to know as to how could without taking any permission from the court as per Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., further investigation was being done that too in half hearted manner, with probably a pre determined objective to show that all the incidents had taken place on a particular date and time,” the court said.