A Delhi court has upheld the discharge of two individuals in a 2020 Northeast Delhi riots case, sharply criticising the police investigation for significant lapses and raising serious questions about the credibility of the evidence presented.
Key Points
- Delhi court upholds the discharge of two individuals accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots case due to significant lapses in the police investigation.
- The court expressed 'grave suspicion' regarding the police's version of events, citing unexplained delays in FIR registration and contradictions in witness statements.
- The police failed to collect crucial evidence, including CCTV footage and independent witness testimonies, raising doubts about the investigation's thoroughness.
- The court criticised the police for inconsistencies in identifying the accused and for not properly documenting the incident site, further undermining the prosecution's case.
- The judge stated that compelling the accused to face trial would be unfair and a waste of judicial time, given the shortcomings in the prosecution's case.
A Delhi court on Wednesday upheld the discharge of two persons in a 2020 Northeast Delhi riots case, citing several lapses in the probe and observing that there is a grave suspicion "not on the accused but against the story of the police" in the case.
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai was hearing a plea filed by the Delhi Police challenging the trial court order discharging Ajay and Gaurav Panchal in the case of vandalism and arson.
In an order, the court said, "This court completely agrees with the observations of the learned trial court that if observed cumulatively, it is difficult to believe the prosecution material at its face value".
"The court would like to add here that the well settled principle of law is, that while considering charge against an accused person, there has to be not only suspicion but a grave suspicion against him, but in the case in hand the suspicion or grave suspicion is infact not on the accused but against the story of the police," the judge said.
Key Issues in the Investigation
The court noted several lapses in the probe, including an unexplained delay in registering the FIR, contradictions in the complainant's statements and inconsistencies in medical records relating to the alleged victim.
The judge pointed out that the injured person's name, parentage and address in the hospital record differed from the details provided in the police complaint.
"It is observed that the police did not take even the police remand of the accused in order to recover the alleged weapons that is 'danda' and iron rod and immediately after their arrest, judicial custody of the accused was obtained," the court said.
It also criticised the police for failing to collect crucial evidence such as CCTV footage from nearby public cameras or shops, identify independent witnesses present at the scene or properly document the incident site.
"This court also observes that the manner in which the accused persons were identified by the complainant makes the story of the police doubtful. Further, this kind of identification has not been done in the present case only, but in many cases of riots," the judge said.
The court further expressed doubt over the identification of the accused, noting that the complainant allegedly recognised them in a police station nearly two months after the incident, despite earlier describing the attackers only in vague terms as young men aged between 20 and 25 years.
"This is also a major contradiction in the two statements of the complainant and creates doubt in the story of the prosecution. The court observes that these kinds of contradictions would come only when the manipulations are done and the case is cooked up," the court said.
Observing that the shortcomings in the prosecution case, when seen cumulatively, made it difficult to rely on the material on record, the court said compelling the accused to face trial would be unfair and amount to wastage of judicial time.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the state's revision petition and upheld the order discharging the accused persons.
