Court Orders Registration Of FIR Against Delhi Police Cop For Allegedly Assaulting Street Dog With Lathi, Picks Holes In Official Inquiry

Picking holes in the official inquiry conducted by Delhi Police in a case of animal cruelty, a Delhi Court has ordered registration of FIR against a police officer for allegedly assaulting a street dog with lathi while performing patrolling duty in Jafrabad.

Metropolitan Magistrate Bharat Aggarwal of Karkardooma Courts observed that the facts disclosed by the complainants and documents on record show commission of various cognizable and non-cognizable offences, requiring a police probe.

“The video placed on record by the applicants clearly shows that the proposed accused has inflicted severe lathi blow upon the street dog while it was lying on the ground already and the dog cannot be seen attacking the proposed accused immediately before or when the severe lathi blow was inflicted upon it. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the police to have registered the FIR upon receipt of the complaint and begin collection of evidence at that very stage,” the court said.

The court was hearing two complaint cases seeking registration of FIR against the police official who was seen beating the street dog with a lathi. Dr Asher Jesudoss and Niharika Kashyap are complainants in the matter. The video of the incident had gone viral on social media platforms. 

Advocate Gauri Puri appeared for the complainant.

It was alleged that the officer committed grave and serious offences by “inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on a community dog by continuously beating it with a stick so as to maim and render it useless.”

The status report filed by the ACP stated that the inquiry revealed that allegations leveled by the complainants were “unsubstantiated”. It stated that while the accused officer was on duty, the street dog came and bit on his left leg and that he hit the dog with danda in his self defence.

A detailed inquiry report conducted by Inspector PG Cell concluded that the officer had assaulted the dog with his danda after it bit him, however, the assault did not attract any offence under law.

It also said that an inquiry conducted from local residents, complainants, accused and doctors revealed that the victim dog was of “ferocious nature”, adding that the complainants’ version that the dog was “friendly” was unsubstantiated.

Perusing the documents on record, the judge observed that in the garb of inquiry, the police had “rather conducted an investigation” after the court asked it to file a status report or action taken report.

It said that the Delhi police had chosen to conduct a full-fledged inquiry by recording statements of not only the complainants and accused official but several others to conclude that the complainants’ averments were “unsubstantiated”.

“Perusal of the inquiry report so filed would show the offender in the video has been identified as the proposed accused. The report effectively states that the proposed accused assaulted the dog, yet no action is required to be taken and there is no need to register a FIR, as the police has determined during “inquiry” that the act of the policeman was in his private defence and the he has not caused any permanent damage to the dog as such and hence, the accused has not have committed any punishable offence and no action is required under the law,” it said.

Observing that the authenticity of the video placed on record needs to be established, the court said that a proper investigation needs to be done with a view to ascertain the truth and statements of the residents, eye-witnesses, by-standers and doctors who treated the dog, while ensuring protection to the witnesses as it was submitted that witnesses were being influenced during the inquiry itself.

Pulling up the police, the court said the investigating agency's role is limited to execution of law and “not to interpret it in a suitable manner.”

“The procedure of conducting “inquiries” and handing over clean-chits to the proposed accused without even registering the First Information Report and without conducting “investigation” in the manner prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, can lead to disastrous consequences, further quelling the faith of the common man in the administration of criminal justice,” it said.

It observed that preparation of closure reports prior to registration of FIR with the title of “inquiry” is impermissible, however, it is often resorted to by the police bypassing the procedure prescribed under the CrPC.

“Such practice deserves to be condemned and shall be avoided to ensure effective implementation of the law, in its letter and spirit. The senior police officials must ensure that such delaying tactics are avoided and evidence be collected at the first instance to avoid its tampering and loss of material against the culprits,” the judge said.

Emphasising that investigation in the case must be carried out fairly, expeditiously and impartially with a view to elicit the truth, the court asked the DCP to consider that the investigation through an “independent unit.”