Delhi Riots: Court Criticizes Prosecution and Police Over Lapses in Investigation
In a recent development concerning the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, a Delhi court has expressed its dissatisfaction with the prosecution and the police over their handling of evidence. The court’s criticism revolves around two primary cases.
In the first case, the court discovered that the Special Public Prosecutor had misled the court by claiming that a video, crucial for the trial, was awaiting receipt from a forensic laboratory. However, it was later revealed that the said video was not with the laboratory at the time. The court remarked,
“It is unfortunate that till date, ld. Special PP and SI Rajiv, had been befooling this court in the name of pendency of this video and the report before FSL, without actually having any information in respect of the same. The same should not be repeated in future.”
The trial, which was initially set for March 13, was postponed after the Special Public Prosecutor informed the court that the CCTV footage, crucial for identifying the accused, was still under examination at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Rohini. However, a month later, the Director of FSL clarified that their records showed no deposit of any such evidence related to the current FIR. The police then made a statement that the video in question was from an incident on February 24, 2020, while the case at hand was from February 25, 2020. They further argued that the video was not relevant to the current case.
However, the court pointed out that if the video was used to identify culprits in the present case, it remains relevant for the prosecution. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, North-East Delhi, was then instructed to take necessary actions.
In another case, the court criticized the police for preparing a site plan that covered only three locations of the riots, even though six different incidents had been combined for investigation due to their close proximity in terms of location and timing. The court expressed its inability to find any justification for such a discrepancy. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the prosecution took over six months under the guise of preparing a calendar of evidence. The court stated,
“The court had asked them to prepare a calendar of evidence, so that at least in that process they could realise the evidence placed by them on the record in respect of incidents being prosecuted in this case and simultaneously, could also know absence of any vital evidence. So prima facie, I find that neither investigation was done properly, nor exercise of preparing calendar of evidence was done with an open mind, even to be aware of their own omissions.”
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala, who was overseeing the case, emphasized that it was “unfortunate” that the prosecution was “befooling” the court. He also cautioned the investigating agency against such behavior in the future. The case in question was registered by the Dayalpur police station against Mohammed Farooq and others. The court had requested the prosecution to provide a video for the identification of the accused. The absence of this video halted the prosecution’s evidence in the case.
The ASJ noted that a mirror copy of the video was still pending preparation and retrieval from the FSL. He expressed hope that the Station House Officer would expedite the process. The case is slated for further proceedings on October 9.
This comprehensive coverage aims to provide readers with a detailed understanding of the ongoing investigation into the 2020 northeast Delhi riots and the court’s stance on the matter.
