‘Very poor’ standard of probe in many riots cases, says Delhi court

Additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav, in an August 28 order, said the police officers concerned (the investigating officers, or IOs) do not appear before the court, either physically or through video-conferencing while charges are being framed.

A Delhi court, while framing the charges in a north-east Delhi riots case, has noted that the standard of investigation in a large number of matters pertaining to the February 2020 violence has been “very poor” and that police officers did not bring investigations to a logical conclusion after filing “half-baked” charge sheets.

The north-east Delhi riots were one of the deadliest riots the Capital has seen, leaving 53 dead and hundreds injured (Sanchit Khanna/HT PHOTO)

Additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav, in an August 28 order, said the police officers concerned (the investigating officers, or IOs) do not appear before the court, either physically or through video-conferencing while charges are being framed.

“...In a large number of cases of riots, the standard of investigation is very poor. After filing of charge sheet in the court, neither the IO nor the SHO [station house officer] nor the supervising officers bother to see what other material is required to be collected from the appropriate authority in the matters and what steps are required to be taken to take the investigation to a logical end. They don’t even bother to care for the queries of SPPs [special public prosecutors], if any, regarding the charge sheet and the further investigation which is supposed to have been conducted in the matters,” the judge said in a 13-page order.

“It is noticed that after filing the half-baked charge sheets in court, the police hardly bothers about taking the investigation to a logical end. The accused persons, who have been roped in multiple cases, continue to languish in jails as a consequence thereof. It is high time that the DCP of north-east district and other higher officers concerned take notice of the aforesaid observations and take immediate remedial action required in the matters. They are free to seek the assistance of experts in this regard, failing which there is likelihood of injustice being caused to the persons involved in these cases,” the court added.

Senior police officers said they had taken note of the court’s concerns.

“The observations made by the court in the case and other shortcomings related to investigation of other cases will be addressed. As far as the investigation into the present case is concerned, the court had framed charges based on evidence collected by our investigating team. We will take note of the other issues raised by the court,” said deputy commissioner of police (north-east) Sanjay Kumar Sain.

The order came as charges were being framed against two accused — Ashraf Ali and Parvez Ali — for allegedly attacking paramilitary personnel with acid, glass bottles and bricks during the communal violence on February 25, 2020.

The police filed the charge sheet against the two for rioting, unlawful assembly, disobedience of an order by a public servant, causing grievous hurt, assault to deter a public servant and voluntarily causing hurt to the public servant with common intention.

The counsel for the accused contended that there was a two-day delay in lodging the FIR, and that his clients’ names were not mentioned in the complaint.

The court, while summoning the accused, said that there was prima facie evidence on record to frame charges against the accused persons under requisite sections. It noted that though there was no CCTV footage, an independent witness had identified the accused.

The police argued that due to the communal frenzy, there was a curfew-like atmosphere at or around the area and the people were so shocked and traumatized that it took several days for them to muster courage to come out and report the matter to the police when the situation became normal.

It contended that an additional force of the Seema Sahastra Bal was summoned from Bihar to Delhi “at or around February 23, 2020” at very short notice and it was very difficult for the SSB officer and his colleagues to get acquainted with the area and as such, they could not specifically name or identify the accused persons.