New Delhi: Delhi's Karkardooma Court while framing charges against two accused in a Delhi riots case pulled up Delhi police for clubbing three other complaints with the present case without investigation them.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastaya Pramachala said that it is amply clear to this court that all these complaints subsequently clubbed for investigation in present FIR remained without any effective investigation by the Investigating officer (IO).
The court has framed charges against Firoz Khan alias Pappu and Mohd Anwar for the offences punishable under section 148/380/427/451 IPC read with Section 149 IPC; 436 IPC read with Section 511 and 149 IPC. Both accused are also found liable to be tried for offence punishable under section 188 IPC.
ASJ Pramachala noted that IO chargesheeted the accused persons for all the incidents (in the initial/first chargesheet there were 8 more complaints related to different date and time) without having any evidence to connect these accused persons with all those incidents.
"This was very unfortunate that IO shrugged off his duty to investigate every incident professionally. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned herein above I find that there is no
complete evidence collected by IO in respect of incidents taken place at the shops of Kafil Ahmed, Eshak and Mukhtiyaz Ali," ASJ Pramachala observed order passed on September 22.
The court further observed that the investigation qua these three complaints remained
incomplete. In fact, clubbing of these complaints in this FIR was a questionable exercise because it could have been done only on the grounds of having material to show that all these incidents were outcome of one continuous riotous act by same mob.
"However, IO did not have any such material with him at the time when he clubbed all these complaints with present FIR. On the basis of hearsay evidence (subsequently the source of information imputed to one Subhash who was never examined) this court cannot presume the given date and time of incidents at the shops of Kafil Ahmed, Eshak and Mukhtiyaz Ali. Even Constable Vikas referred to having seen incident at the property of Chhidda Lal only," said the court.
The court opined, "There cannot be a presumption that properties of other complainants would also have been damaged at the same time and by the same mob."
The court further said that however, there is no evidence to show that property of Chhidda Lal Tomar was actually burnt.
In his complaint, Chhidda Lal Tomar had alleged only about attempt of arson. Photographs furnished by Chhidda Lal do not show any burn mark in that property. So at the most it
be presumed that an attempt was made to burn this property.
Chhidda Lal had alleged that the riotous mob had stolen the articles from the godown situated on the ground floor of his property and they had vandalised the property, which make out a prima facie case for commission of offences punishable under sections 148/380/427/451 IPC read with Section 149 IPC; 436 IPC read with Section 511 and 149 IPC, said the court.
Both accused are also found liable to be tried for offence punishable under sections 188 IPC and charges are to be framed accordingly, the court directed.
The court referred the matter back to SHO to take up the complaints of Kafil Ahmed, Eshak and Mukhtiyaz Ali for further investigation in accordance with law.
The court said that at the same time, it is reminded that complaint of other 8 complainants have not been taken back from the record of this case, which gives impression that they have been forgotten altogether.
"Police is under duty to take each complaint to a logical conclusion after conducting investigation properly and needless to say that SHO shall do the same in accordance with law," directed the court.
The court has also directed to sent the order copy to DCP (North East) to make an appraisal of 'moon shine' investigation conducted by IO of the case in respect of additional complaints clubbed in this case and to take necessary action.