A Delhi Court has expressed strong disapproval towards the Delhi Police for improperly consolidating 19 complaints related to the Delhi riots. The court emphasized that these complaints lacked a solid foundation for being grouped together and directed that each incident be probed individually.
The case in question revolved around an FIR that was registered based on a complaint by Shokin, who claimed that during the 2020 riots, a mob had set his house and shop ablaze. As the investigation progressed, the police, citing the closeness of the incident locations, added 19 other complaints to this case. However, the court found discrepancies in this approach.
Also read- Delhi Judge Scolds Prosecutor Over Courtroom Outburst During Riot Trial (lawchakra.in)
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts highlighted that while there were 20 distinct incident locations considered under a single FIR, none of the Investigating Officers (IOs) took the initiative to question the two primary witnesses about the additional 19 incidents. The judge remarked,
“Therefore, it is well apparent that practically, except for examining the 19 additional complainants, no other investigation was made, to find out the time of those occurrences as well as culprits behind those incidents.”
The court further questioned the police’s rationale, stating,
“I fail to understand as to how could police file a chargesheet and untrace report together in this case. This was a wrong practice, because the complaints other than made by Shokeen were clubbed for investigation in this case, without having a sound basis to do the same.”
Emphasizing the rights of complainants, the court noted that every individual has the right to present their case before the magistrate against such reports. However, in this instance, the police’s approach denied the complainants this crucial opportunity. The judgment read,
“In the present case, due to several complaints wrongly taken up together in one FIR for investigation and filing one composite report of investigation for all such complaints, this important right of complainants could not be exercised by them.”
In a significant development, the court acquitted Sandeep Kumar, who was charged with rioting and unlawful assembly. The court found that the evidence against him was merely circumstantial and that the additional 19 complaints added to the FIR were neither complete nor adequately investigated.
This case underscores the importance of thorough and unbiased investigations, especially in sensitive matters like riots, ensuring that justice is served to all parties involved.
Also read- Supreme Court To Hear Umar Khalid’s Plea Challenging UAPA Provisions (lawchakra.in)
