Delhi Riots | "Police Had To Play Double Role Of Restorers Of Peace & Investigators": Court On Delay In Recording Witness Statements, Frames Charges

While framing charges against two men in a case relating to the North East Delhi riots of 2020, a city Court has said that it would be a travesty of justice to disregard the statement of witnesses on mere account of delay.

It attributed the delay in recording of statements to the "double role" that the Police was forced to play during the riots. The Court noted that the Police were both "restorers of peace" as well as "investigators", coupled with the fact that the traumatized general public was not willing to come forward to make statements.

Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat thus rejected the contention of the accused that the version of two witnesses in the case can not be believed and their statements deserve to be discarded in toto at this very stage on account of delay.

It proceeded to frame charges against the two accused namely Raj Kumar @ Goli and Raj Kumar @ Raju under Section 147 (Rioting), 148 (Rioting armed with deadly weapon), 427 (Mischief), 435 (Mischief by fire), 436 (Mischief by fire to destroy house) and 149 (Unlawful assembly) of IPC.

"The police had to play double role i.e. restorers of peace as well as the investigators. On one hand they were engaged in controlling the riots, restoring peace in the area, instilling sense of security in the public; and on the other hand they had to conduct investigation in hundreds of FIRs which were registered in the aftermath of the riots. Locating the witnesses and tracing culprits was an uphill task for the police. In these circumstances, it would be travesty of justice to discard the statements of the witnesses only on account of delay," the Judge said.

However, the Court discharged the duo of the charge of criminal conspiracy under sec. 120B of IPC observing that the prosecution failed to point out any evidence on record suggesting that the two had committed the crimes in pursuance to any criminal conspiracy.

The FIR 125/2020 registered at Dayalpur Police Station was based on a written complaint submitted by one Mahender Kumar alleging that the rioters had pelted stones on his house, broke open its locks, committed theft and vandalization and then set it ablaze.

Later, the police had found that the rioters had committed loot and arson in several shops in the area belonging to members of both the communities and that 70 vehicles parked in the parking near the incident spots were either damaged or burnt.

The chargesheet stated that several complaints were received in the police station with regards to the damage or setting ablaze of vehicles in the two parking sites as well as the shops situated in the area.

The owners of the vehicles and shops were examined and their statements under sec. 161 of CrPC were recorded. They had stated that on the riotous mob looted, burnt, damaged their shop and vehicles as well as other properties. A total of 70 such complaints were filed in the police station.

The Court noted that while there was no video footage or the photographs related to the riotous incident in question, however, the Court referred to the statement of constable wherein he had identified both the accused, at the time of their arrest, as the rioters, who alongwith their associates had committed vandalization and arson at the spot including the house of the complainant.

That apart, the Court noted that two public witness had identified the two accused as the rioters and from the photographs and dossier shown to them by the IO.

The Court rejected the argument put forth by accused counsel stating that the statements of the two public witnesses were recorded after about 1 1⁄2 years of the incident of rioting in question. The Court said:

"It is to be borne in mind that this case relates to the unprecedented violence during the communal riots that had erupted in North­ East Delhi on 23.02.2020 and continued unabated till 25.02.2020. Several innocent lives were lost during the violence and several others were rendered homeless. The shops as well as business establishments of several people were reduced to ashes by the rioters. There was an atmosphere of terror and trauma prevailing in the entire North­East Delhi for months even after the riots were controlled. In such circumstances, it is difficult to expect the public persons, who had witnessed the violent incidents, to come forward immediately for giving their statements before the police."

The Judge also rejected the argument that since the accused persons and most of the victims or complainants belonged to the same community, they cannot be believed to have vandalized and set ablaze their properties.

Stating that the argument was "too far fetched and unconscionable to be accepted", the Court said:

"When a riotous mob resorts to vandalization and arson, it is difficult for the rioters to differentiate between the properties belonging to members of different communities where the properties are situated adjacent to each other. Besides that, the rioters may not be familiar with the area in question and thus had no idea about the owners of the properties in area."

Accordingly, charges were framed by Court against the two.

Click Here To Read Order