18 Nov 2023 2:52 AM GMT
A Delhi Court on Friday reprimanded the Delhi Police for clubbing 39 complaints in two Delhi riots cases against three accused persons based on “hearsay evidence” and ordered further investigation in the complaints separately. Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala observed that there was no evidence on record to even confirm the date and time of the alleged incidents mentioned in...
A Delhi Court on Friday reprimanded the Delhi Police for clubbing 39 complaints in two Delhi riots cases against three accused persons based on “hearsay evidence” and ordered further investigation in the complaints separately.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala observed that there was no evidence on record to even confirm the date and time of the alleged incidents mentioned in the additional 39 complainants.
The court also said that the star witnesses of the prosecution for identification of the three accused persons in both the cases did not say anything about witnessing the incident reported by the additional complainants.
“Thus, the stand of the prosecution to prosecute all the aforesaid additional complaints with the FIR lodged in this case, is found to be fallacious. The additional complaints were not completely investigated to even confirm the date and time of such incidents, on the basis of relevant evidence. IO simply relied upon the hearsay evidence of the additional complainants and clubbed these complaints in this case,” the court said.
The development ensued in two different FIRs registered against the accused persons namely Javed, Gulfam and Pappu alias Mustkeem.
FIR 100 of 2020 was registered at Dayalpur police station on the basis of a complaint of one Aftab alleging that the rioters looted his shop and set some article lying therein on fire. During investigation, 17 more complaints were also clubbed with the FIR for investigation.
Similarly, FIR 116 of 2020 was registered at Dayalpur police station on the basis of a complaint of one Zameer Ahmed alleging looting in his shop. In this case, 22 additional complaints were clubbed for probe.
Making similar observations in two separate orders, the court said that even though the IO placed on record several site plans to show the proximity of different places, however, it added that such proximity cannot be a ground to presume that all incidents reported by additional complainants took place at the same time and by the same mob.
“The statement given by the additional complainants show that their knowledge about time and date of incident was based on information given to them by some different persons. Unfortunately, during initial period of investigation IO did not try to find out their particulars and to examine them, so as to ascertain the actual time and date of incident in question,” the court said.
It added that the IO asked about particulars of the informers from additional complainants at a much belated time by which they showed their inability to furnish particulars of the present whereabouts of such informers.
“The statements dated 09.02.2023 cannot be a basis to make the hearsay evidence of the additional complainants regarding time and date of incidents at their respective places, to be the relevant evidence to establish the time and date of such incidents. In these circumstances,” the court said.
It added: “In my opinion conclusion on investigation on the additional complaints are incomplete and they could not be clubbed for prosecution in this FIR. These additional complaints do require further and thorough investigation to reach a particular conclusion. Hence, SHO is directed to take up all the abovementioned additional complaints for further investigation separately, in accordance with law in order to take them to a logical conclusion.”
However, the court found that the shop of both the primary complainants in the two cases were vandalised by a mob which included the accused persons.
“Accordingly, a case is made out against accused persons for offences punishable u/s. 148/380/427/435/452 IPC r/w. Section 149 IPC and u/s. 188 IPC. Accused persons are discharged for offence u/s. 436 IPC in the present case,” the court said in both the orders.
Click Here To Read Orders