New Delhi: A Delhi court has decided to discharge three individuals who were previously accused of charges including rioting, participation in an unlawful assembly, and committing acts of vandalism during the 2020 Delhi riots.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Pulastya Pramachala, presiding over the Karkardooma Courts, took this decision and simultaneously voiced suspicion over the conduct of the investigating officer (IO) affiliated with the Delhi Police.
The judge elaborated that there were indications suggesting potential manipulation of evidence by the IO, who, in their opinion, appeared to be filing chargesheets in a preconceived and mechanical manner.
The court's assessment leaned towards the view that the reported incidents were not rigorously or adequately investigated, and the chargesheets seemed to be drawn up with the purpose of concealing initial shortcomings.
As a consequence of these observations, the judge directed the matter back to the Delhi Police, urging them to reevaluate the investigation process and proceed with appropriate legal measures.
The origins of the case, officially registered as FIR 71/2020, trace back to a rukka, a written communication, prepared by an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) on February 28, 2020. Subsequent to this preliminary documentation, the IO amalgamated various complaints into this singular case, ultimately resulting in the filing of the initial chargesheet against the accused on July 14, 2020. Supplementary charge sheets were subsequently introduced on February 15, 2022, and on the following year's February 16.
Amid this legal proceeding, the court raised poignant concerns about the inconsistencies manifest within the charge sheets, including instances where individuals were named without corresponding mentions in statements. The court also questioned the chronological sequence of events and their alignment, underscoring discrepancies between the recollections of different complainants and the actual observations recorded by ASI Surender Pal.
The court's summation indicated that subsequent statements seemed contrived to obscure gaps within the prosecution's case and to validate the charges brought against the accused. These subsequent statements were found to be lacking in substantive evidence to uphold their accuracy.
In light of these assessments, the presiding judge arrived at the conclusion to discharge the implicated individuals. This decision is underscored by the court's concern for a fair and just resolution of the case, necessitating a thorough reevaluation of the investigative procedures and evidence presented.