NEW DELHI: Discharging three men in a case of 2020 Delhi riots, a sessions court has pulled up Delhi Police, saying the case was not properly and completely investigated and chargesheets were filed in “predetermined, mechanical and erroneous manner.”
Granting relief to Akil Ahmad, Rahis Khan and Irshad, who were chargesheeted for rioting and criminal conspiracy among other offences, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said, “I am having suspicion for IO (Investigating Officer) having manipulated the evidence in the case, without actually investigating the reported incidents properly.
The court then referred the matter back to cops to make an assessment of the investigation done in the case and to take further action in conformity with law, to take the complaints to a legal and logical end. The trio were charged under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).In the recent order, the judge noted the inconsistencies in the chargesheets and subsequent statements, suggesting an attempt to cover up flaws in the prosecution’s case.
In the first supplementary chargesheet, the IO included three individuals as accused who were not mentioned in a constable’s statement, the order pointed out. The investigating officer failed to present any evidence demonstrating the accuracy of these subsequent statements, it was stated. The court said the statements of the complainants were, recorded, only to cover up lacuna in the case of prosecution and to justify chargesheeting the accused persons in this case.
A first information report (FIR) was registered at Dayalpur police station on the basis of a rukka(a complaint copy from which the contents are taken for filing FIRs) prepared by an Assistant Sub-Inspector on February 28, 2020.
Later, the IO combined complaints in the case by Farooq Ahmad, Shahbaz Malik, Nadeem Farooq and Jai Shankar Sharma and a chargesheet was filed and the cognisance of the same was also taken in the same year. Subsequently, in last year and February this year, two supplementary chargesheet along with certain documents and fresh statements were filed.
In the 23-page order, the judge observed that there is a conflict between two set of relied-upon evidence of the prosecution in respect of date and time of the alleged incidents.IOs ignored the observations recorded in the rukka and in the first statement of all the complainants, that there were mobs raising slogans in favour of and against CAA/NRC, the order said.
‘Attempt to cover up flaws in prosecution’s case’
In the recent order, the judge noted the inconsistencies in the chargesheets and subsequent statements, suggesting an attempt to cover up flaws in the prosecution’s case. In the first supplementary chargesheet, the IO included three individuals as accused who were not mentioned in a constable’s statement, the order pointed out. The investigating officer failed to present any evidence demonstrating the accuracy of these subsequent statements, it was stated.
