In a significant development related to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, Delhi Court has discharged three men, expressing concerns over the manner in which the investigation was conducted. The court voiced suspicions that the investigating officer of the Delhi Police might have
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!“manipulated evidence” and filed chargesheets in a “predetermined and mechanical manner.”
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts stated,
“It is worth to mention here that this order of discharge is being passed on account of realizing that the reported incidents were not properly and completely investigated and that the chargesheets were filed in predetermined, mechanical and erroneous manner, with subsequent actions to only cover up the initial wrong actions.”
The judge further referred the matter back to the Delhi Police for a thorough assessment of the investigation and to ensure that the complaints reach a legal and logical conclusion.
The three men, Akil Ahmad alias Papad, Rahish Khan, and Irshad, were previously accused of rioting, being part of an unlawful assembly, and committing vandalism during the riots. The case was based on FIR 71/2020, registered at Dayalpur police station, which was initiated from a rukka prepared by an ASI on February 28, 2020. This FIR combined several complaints from individuals like Farooq Ahmad, Shahbaz Malik, Nadeem Farooq, and Jai Shankar Sharma.
The court highlighted inconsistencies in the chargesheets and the statements provided by the complainants. It was pointed out that the investigating officers had overlooked the presence of two distinct mobs with opposing views on the Citizenship Amendment Act/National Register of Citizens. The judge remarked,
“This fact is very important to realize 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.”
Judge Pramachala further emphasized that if multiple incidents occurred around Victoria Public School due to a riotous mob, it was the duty of the IO to determine the composition of such a mob during each incident. He stated,
“If a person ceases to be a member of an unlawful assembly, then he cannot be made responsible for any act done by that mob in the absence of such person.”
The court also raised concerns about the timing of the incidents mentioned in the chargesheets and the subsequent statements of the complainants. It was observed that these statements seemed to have been recorded to cover up gaps in the prosecution’s case, without any evidence to support their accuracy.
In conclusion, the court’s decision underscores the importance of thorough and unbiased investigations, especially in cases of such gravity. The discharge of the three men serves as a reminder of the need for due diligence and the upholding of justice.
