While discharging three Muslim youth in an FIR related to the northeast Delhi pogrom, Delhi Court’s Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav said there are a “large number of accused persons who have been languishing in jail for the last about one and half years merely on account of the fact that the trial in their cases are not being initiated.”
“When history will look back at the worst communal riots since partition in Delhi, it is the failure of investigating agency to conduct proper investigation by using latest scientific methods, will surely torment the sentinels of democracy,” observed a Delhi Court on Thursday while discharging AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain’s brother Shah Alam, Rashid Saifi and Shadab in a case related to alleged loot and vandalisation of a shop during the February 2020 pogrom in the Chand Bagh area of Delhi.
Pulling up the Delhi Police who is investigating Delhi pogrom cases, the Court observed that the case appeared to have been solved merely by filing this charge sheet “without any real effort being made to trace out eye witnesses, real accused persons and technical evidence” in the matter, reported Live Law.
The Court went on to say: “This Court cannot permit such cases to meander mindlessly in the corridors of judicial system, sweeping away precious judicial time of this Court when the same is open and shut case. The casualty in the matter is the pain and agony suffered by complainant/victim, whose case has virtually remained unsolved; callous and indolent investigation; lack of supervision by the superior officers of the investigation and criminal wastage of the time and money of the taxpayer.”
Of the 750 pogrom cases, 150 cases have been received by this court for trial, Court said. So far, charges have been framed in 35 cases.
“The police seems to be still busy in filing supplementary chargesheets therein. The precious judicial time of this Court is being wasted in giving dates in those cases. A lot of time of this Court is being consumed by the cases like the present one, where there is hardly any investigation carried out by the police,” the Court observed.
Looking at the facts of the specific case against three Muslim youth, Judge Yadav took note of the fact that the accused persons were neither named in the FIR nor any specific role was assigned to them in the matter. It was also observed that there was no independent eye witness account of the incident available on record.
While discharging three, Judge Yadav added: “The sort of investigation conducted in the instant case and the lack of supervision thereof by the superior officers clearly depicts that the investigating agency has merely tried to pull the wool over the Court’s eyes and nothing else.”