In a stern rebuke to the Delhi Police, a Delhi court has criticized the handling of investigations in two cases related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots. Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala issued strong remarks in response to lapses and apparent misconduct by the prosecution and the police force, Bar and Bench reported.
“Befooling the Court”
In one case involving the burning of Saheen Saifi’s house (State v. Mohd. Farooq et al.), the court chastised the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) and a Delhi Police official for misleading the court regarding the status of crucial evidence. The court discovered that the SPP had incorrectly claimed that a video necessary for the trial was awaiting examination at a forensic laboratory, only to later learn that the video was not in the laboratory’s possession at that time.
The court stated, “It is unfortunate that till date, ld. Special PP and SI Rajiv, had been befooling this court in the name of pendency of this video and the report before FSL, without actually having any information in respect of the same. The same should not be repeated in the future.”
Previously, the trial had been postponed after the SPP informed the court that CCTV footage, crucial for identifying the accused, was pending examination at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Rohini. The court had directed the FSL to expedite the examination. However, a month later, the FSL’s director revealed that there was no record of any case property related to the FIR in question.
On July 6, the police argued that the video referred to in the case was from February 24, 2020, while the present case was from February 25, 2020, making the video irrelevant. The court disagreed, emphasizing that if the video was used for identifying culprits, it remained relevant to the prosecution. The court ordered the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North-East Delhi, to take appropriate action.
The court was later informed that the police had requested a mirror copy of exhibits from FIR 60/20 from the FSL, even though it was revealed that these exhibits had already been collected in December 2020. The court expressed strong disapproval of the police’s conduct, noting that the trial had been halted due to the unavailability of the video in question. The court urged the SHO to expedite the process.
“Double Standard”
In another case (State v. Shah Alam et al.), the court questioned the police’s preparation of a site plan for only three of the six incidents that were clubbed together for investigation due to their proximity in place and time during the riots. The court found no justification for the investigating officer to use different parameters for these cases.
Furthermore, the court criticized the prosecution for taking over six months to prepare the calendar of evidence, which was intended to help organize the evidence in the case. The court noted that the investigation and evidence compilation had not been conducted properly.
Judge Pramachala directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to address these issues and create a site plan that includes all places relevant to the incidents being prosecuted in the case. The deadline for this comprehensive site plan is set for the next court hearing on September 15, 2023.
Related
