A Delhi court has pulled up the Delhi police in its handling of a 2020 Delhi riots case for the second time in a span of ten days, stating that it filed a chargesheet in a “mechanical manner without actually investigating the incidents properly”.
The Delhi court in its order on 24 August stated that the “... 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. 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.” The court has acquitted the accused, Javed, in the case.
The same Karkadooma court had on 16 August, while discharging three accused men in another Delhi riots case had said the police had “manipulated evidence” and filed chargesheets in a “predetermined and mechanical manner”
Contradiction In Statements
The latest acquittal was related to violence in northeast Delhi’s Dayalpur, which had left several people injured and properties damaged. The police had filed four complaints, which were subsequently clubbed during the investigation.
The court questioned the “contradiction” in the different statements made about the arrest of the accused.
“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.”
'Rare Coincidence That...'
In the 16 August order, the court discharged Akil Ahmad alias Papad, Rahish Khan, and Irshad who were accused of rioting, being members of an unlawful assembly and committing vandalism.
The judge, Pulastya Pramachala, questioned the complaints too.
“It was a rare kind of coincidence that all these different complainants suffered same kind of problem i.e. shock/trauma for reporting wrong date and time in their complaints and realising such trauma after around three years from making their respective complaints, in order to give a changed version of date and time of the alleged incidents. Such developments and the alleged trauma need to be appreciated in the background of proceedings taken place in this case,” the court said.
The judge suspected the IO of “manipulating the evidence in the case.”
“In these circumstances, instead of having a grave suspicion against the accused persons for their involvement in the alleged incidents as reported by four complainants as well as for their involvement in the incidents as observed by ASI Surender Pal in the rukka, I am having suspicion for IO having manipulated the evidence in the case, without actually investigating the reported incidents properly.”
The court also stated that there were two separate mobs-- ‘pro-CAA’ and ‘anti-CAA’ and the IOs failed to identify which incident was perpetuated by which mob.
“IOs of this case ignored the observations recorded...that there were mobs raising slogan in favour of and against CAA/NRC. 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.”
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)