Court pulls up Delhi Police, orders investigation
New Delhi (ANI): Delhi’s Karkardooma Court pulled up Delhi Police for clubbing 39 riot complaints into two FIRs without any concrete evidence. The court has directed the concerned SHO to investigate these additional complaints separately. This case pertains to riots and vandalism in the Karawal Nagar police station area. In one FIR the police added 17 complaints and in the other 22 complaints. The court on Friday issued directions while framing charges against three accused Javed, Gulfam and Pappu alias Mustaqeem for offenses of arson, theft, house trespass, violation of prohibitory order and violation of orders issued by government authorities. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala framed charges against Javed, Gulfam and Pappu alias Mustaqeem for offenses punishable under relevant sections of the law.
“A case is made out against the accused persons for offenses punishable under sections 148/380/427/435/452 of IPC read with section 149 IPC and section 188 IPC,” ASJ Pramachala said in the order passed on November 17. However, the court acquitted the accused persons of the crime of destruction of property by fire. “In the present case the accused persons are acquitted for the offense under section 436 of the IPC,” the court said.
ASJ Pramachala said that on the basis of the statement of the star witnesses of the prosecution and the complaint as well as the statement of Zameer Ahmed, I find that the shop of Zameer Ahmed was vandalized by a mob of rioters including the accused persons. “The photographs of his shop placed on record do not show any marks of burning in the shop, thereby constituting a case of offense under section 436 of the IPC,” the judge said. The court said, the allegations made by this complainant constitute a case of theft of his cooler as well as burning of the cooler in his shop besides damaging the shutter of his shop. It is also clear that the accused persons violated the order under 144 CrPC. As issued by the learned DCP (North East) of North-Eastern District. On the issue of clubbing the 39 complaints together, the court said that the statements given by the additional complainants showed that their information about the time and date of the incident was based on information given to them by some different persons. “Unfortunately, during the initial period of investigation, the IO did not try to trace and investigate their details so as to ascertain the actual time and date of the incident in question,” he said.
The court said that the IO asked additional complainants about the details of such informants very late on February 9, 2023. But by this time, the complainants had expressed their inability to furnish details of the current whereabouts of those informants. “In the circumstances, I find that there is no evidence on record even to corroborate the time and date of the incident at the respective places of the additional complainants concerned,” the judge said. “I also find that the key prosecution witnesses to identify the accused persons did not say anything about witnessing the incident reported by the additional complainants,” the judge said. The court pulled up the prosecution and said, “Thus, the stand of the prosecution in prosecuting all the additional complaints along with the FIR registered in this case is found to be wrong.” The court expressed displeasure over the lack of investigation into these complaints and said that the IO relied on hearsay.
The judge commented, “The additional complaints were not fully investigated to confirm the date and time of such incidents on the basis of relevant evidence. The IO merely relied on the hearsay evidence of additional complainants and added these complaints to the case.” The judge said, “In my opinion, the findings on investigation of additional complaints are incomplete and they cannot be included for prosecution in this FIR. These additional complaints require further and in-depth investigation to reach a specific conclusion.
Therefore, S.H.O. “Separate action has been directed to be taken for further investigation as per law to take all the additional complaints to their logical conclusion.” The present cases were registered on the basis of complaints by complainants Aftab and Zameer. In his complaint, Aftab alleged that he used to run his shop on rent at Chand Nagar, Main Karawal Nagar Road, in which he sold new cycles and repaired old cycles. It was further alleged that on February 25, 2020, rioters looted his shop, took out all the goods kept in it and set the shop on fire. He further alleged that he suffered a loss of Rs 6 lakh in that incident. In his complaint, Zameer Ahmed alleged that he had taken a shop on rent in street number 2. 9 Moonga Nagar, Neeli Building, Karawal Nagar Road and was selling coolers. He alleged that on 24 February 2020, after hearing some noise between 11 and 12 in the morning, he closed his shop and came to his home. On the morning of February 25, 2020, he came to know that rioters had broken the shutter of his shop and looted coolers and cooler accessories worth Rs 15-16 lakh. During the investigation, the police also received other complaints and added them with the present FIR. (ANI)
