Northeast Delhi Riots: Court Picks Holes in Delhi Police Probe, Asks If Action Taken For Wrongly Naming Accused In FIR

Picking holes in Delhi Police's investigation of a case connected to the Northeast Delhi riots of 2020, a Sessions Court has sought a clarification from the DCP on the prosecution's "conflicting stand" in the matter where initially 30 complaints were clubbed but last month the investigating officer moved an application seeking their return.

"Several question arise as to why fourth name in the complaint of Azad Singh was cut with ink? How was it ensured that which statement of this witness was correct and what action was contemplated for mentioning wrong name of accused in the FIR," Additional Sessions Judge Pulastaya Pramachala said in the order passed on Tuesday.

Seeking withdrawal of the complaints which were filed earlier with the chargesheet in a Karawal Nagar police station, the police in an application said none of the complainants could identify or name any accused involved in damaging and looting their properties.

Dealing with the application, the court in the order recorded that initially a complaint was filed by one Azad Singh, who owned shops in New Sabha Pur. His allegation was that on February 25 in 2020, a mob equipped with lathis and dandas came toward his two shops and broke open their locks and looted the articles lying therein. It was also alleged that the persons burnt some of the articles.

Singh named four persons in the complaint, leading to registration of an FIR. The order states that, "however, the fourth name is cut with ink, which apparently appears to have been done subsequently".

According to the order, the complaints of other people regarding damage and loot of their property by the mob on February 25 was also placed on record of the same case. The complaints were of resident or shop owners in New Sabha Pur area of Karawal Nagar.

The court noted that there are other complaints also wherein either date of incident is mentioned as February 26 or no date has been mentioned. It said that chargesheet has been filed against five accused persons, "though in the complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C ld DCP made complaint against 14 accused persons. The complaint of ld. DCP was made with reference to this case only, and he recorded his satisfaction on the basis of statement of witnesses, to name 14 accused in the complaint".

However, the court noted that in a subsequently recorded statement of first complainant (Azad Singh), he exonerated even other three named accused in his initial complaint. Thereafter, he gave another statement where he mentioned names of three other persons, it added.

Observing that the record reveals a conflicting stand of both the first complainant as well as prosecution, which has chargesheet few persons and mentioned more in the complaint under Section 195 CrPC, the court posed specific questions to the police regarding the witness Azad Singh.

"Before proceeding further, it is necessary to get a clear and clean picture with support of relevant evidence. Hence, the matter is referred to ld.DCP, N/E to look into above-mentioned scenario and questions and to come up with clarifications," it said.

The court however returned three complaints referring to the incident of February 26, 2020 back to the IO, observing that they are required to be probed separately.

"Hence, these complaints in original be returned back to the IO, while keeping attested copy of the same on the record. IO shall file report thereby confirming filing of separate report of investigation qua these complaints," the judge ordered.

Listing the matter for hearing on December 24, the court said, "as far as other complaints for incident dt. 25.02.2020 are concerned, they are kept on record of this case, waiting clarification of ld. DCP, Northeast".

The court in July had directed the special public prosecutor (SPP) as well as the SHO concerned to come up with concrete report to explain the legal basis to chargesheet the accused persons for more than three incidents in a single chargesheet.