Delhi Riots: Court Pulls Up Delhi Police For Making ‘Artificial Statements’ About Accused’s Involvement, Acquits Him

While acquitting a man in a case connected to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, a Delhi court on Thursday criticized an Investigating Officer and a Constable of the Delhi Police for making “artificial statements” about his involvement in the mob which committed rioting and vandalism.

In an order passed today, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Court observed that though the prosecution established the incident of riot and vandalism, it failed to prove Javed’s presence in the unlawful assembly beyond any reasonable doubt.

Charges were framed against Javed on February 26 last year for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 427, 435, 436 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

“My foregoing discussion and observations lead me to hold that prosecution though established the incident of riot, and vandalism, but it failed to prove presence of accused in the unlawful assembly responsible for such incidents, beyond reasonable doubts,” the court said.

The judge also pulled up the Delhi Police for filing multiple chargesheets in the case in a mechanical manner without properly investigating the alleged incidents.

Accordingly, the court referred the matter back to the concerned SHO to take further steps in respect of the incidents reported by complainants Salman and Mujahid.

“It is also established on the record that charge sheet was filed for multiple incidents in this case, in mechanical manner and without actually investigating such incidents properly. There was no evidence of offence u/s 436 IPC and such Section was also invoked without ascertaining the actual situation,” the court said.

Few days back, the judge had passed a similar order and said that it is suspicious that the Delhi Police’s investigating officer “manipulated evidence” and filed chargesheets in a riots case in a “predetermined and mechanical manner”.

The FIR in question was registered after an information was received from the control room in Dayalpur police station on February 25, 2020, stating that the riots were taking place near R.P. Public School and that several persons were injured.

Four separate complaints were received in the police station which were jointly clubbed in the FIR.

Regarding the complaint of Salman who had alleged that he was shot on his thigh by three boys, the court said that it was not an act of a riotous mob but the culprits were three boys only and as such, clubbing of his complaint much prior in time to the FIR in question was misconceived and not in consonance with law.

“This illegality was continued in order to report this complaint in the chargesheet in this case, despite the fact that neither Salman had identified accused as one of the culprits, nor IO met any other witness to this incident, who would have claimed having seen accused as one of three boys involved in this incident,” the court said.

Observing that Salman’s complaint and the alleged incident remained with inconclusive investigation and without any legal resolution, the judge added that the investigation was illegally clubbed in the FIR on the “pretext of proximity of place of incident.”

“No care was taken regarding alleged time of incident. IO/PW8 deposed that he did not conduct any investigation in respect of firing at Salman. Therefore, this complaint requires further investigation,” the court said.

Regarding the complaints of Jameer and Mujahid, the court said that none of the two complainants were present at the time of incident at their respective shops where the alleged violence took place.

The court observed that the incident taken place at Mujahid’s shop was not properly investigated and that its liability was put upon the mob in question in a “mechanical manner.”

While acquitting Javed, the court compared the testimonies given by the IO and a constable, both prosecution witnesses, regarding his arrest and observed that both had had given different description.

“IO was probably making artificial statement in respect of the time of getting knowledge about involvement of accused Javed in the incidents being probed in this case. That could be reason for him to first claim that Ct. Pawan/PW9 had told him about involvement of Javed on 27.02.2020 itself, but he could not say about the reasons for not mentioning name of Javed in the FIR,” the court said.

It added that the IO was taking advantage of a “break in recording of his evidence” and subsequently changed his version so as to make it in accordance with record of the case.

Noting that the constable gave wrong description of location of Mujahid’s grill shop, the court said:

“Shop of PW4 was located in a different area of Nehru Nagar. Such false claim of PW9 shows that even he made artificial statement regarding having properly seen the mob at the time of incidents in question. When PW9 was examined by IO and made a witness in this case, then it must have been told to him by IO as to for which particular kind of shops, this case was all about. Thus, PW9 went on to make blank claim, even without realizing that one of this shop was located somewhere else.”

Click Here To Read Order