While discharging three Muslim men in a case relating to the 2020 northeast Delhi pogrom, a Delhi Court said it is suspicious that the Delhi Police “manipulated evidence” and filed chargesheets in a “predetermined and mechanical manner.”
“It is worth to mention here that this order of discharge is being passed on account of realizing that the reported incidents were not properly and completely investigated and that the chargesheets were filed in predetermined, mechanical and erroneous manner, with subsequent actions to only cover up the initial wrong actions,” Live Law quotes Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts as saying.
“…instead of having a grave suspicion against the accused persons for their involvement in the alleged incidents as reported by four complainants as well as for their involvement in the incidents as observed by ASI Surender Pal in the rukka, I am having suspicion for IO having manipulated the evidence in the case, without actually investigating the reported incidents properly,” Pramachala said.
The court discharged Akil Ahmad, Rahish Khan, and Irshad who were accused of rioting, being members of an unlawful assembly and committing vandalism during the violence.
On July 14, 2020, a chargesheet was filed against the three accused persons. Cognizance of the same was taken on December 09, 2020. Subsequently, two supplementary chargesheets, along with certain documents and fresh statements, were filed on February 15, 2022, and February 16 of this year, according to Live Law.
The court said: “Apparently at the time of preparing this chargesheet, names of chargesheeted accused persons were no where mentioned anywhere in any evidence related to identification of the culprits. Their names were only mentioned by the police witnesses of FIR No.84/20, wherein these accused persons were initially arrested by Insp. Ashish Kumar.”
It went on to say: It was a rare kind of coincidence that all these different complainants suffered same kind of problem i.e. shock/trauma for reporting wrong date and time in their complaints and realizing such trauma after around three years from making their respective complaints, in order to give a changed version of date and time of the alleged incidents. Such developments and the alleged trauma need to be appreciated in the background of proceedings taken place in this case.”
The court further said that subsequent statements of the complainants were recorded, only to cover up the lacuna in the prosecution case and to justify chargesheeting the accused persons in the matter. It also said that the Investigation Officer did not come up with any evidence to show that the subsequent statements were correct.
