Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A Delhi Court on Tuesday criticized the Delhi Police for consolidating unrelated complaints in a case connected to the Northeast Delhi riots of 2020.

Additional Sessions Judge, Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Court determined that these complaints had been grouped together for investigation without a substantial foundation and that they had not been adequately scrutinized.

The court said, "I also find that additional 19 complaints were wrongly clubbed in this FIR and were not completely and properly investigated."

This critical observation came as the court acquitted Sandeep Kumar, who had previously faced accusations of involvement in a mob that had allegedly set fire to the complainant Shokin's residence and store. The same mob had also been charged with acts of vandalism and property looting, which included the theft of various items and jewelry.

During the investigation, the police combined 19 additional complaints with this case, citing the geographical proximity of the incidents and a chargesheet was filed against Sandeep Kumar alone, as identified by Shokin.

Court's review of the evidence revealed that there were only two complaints from Lane Number 7, where Shokin's property had been damaged. The remaining complaints originated from distinct lanes, according to the court's findings.

In the supplementary charge sheet, the police declared eight complainants as "untraced." The court expressed its confusion over the police's simultaneous filing of a charge sheet and an "untraced report" in the same case.

Court emphasized that every complainant has the right to present their case before a magistrate in response to such a report. In this instance, the court believed that the police had denied complainants this essential opportunity, stating, "In the present case, due to several complaints wrongly taken up together in one FIR for investigation and filing one composite report of investigation for all such complaints, this important right of complainants could not be exercised by them."

Concerning the case against Kumar, the court said that his presence at the scene of the crime could not be established, and his alleged involvement could not be substantiated, even if the incidents of rioting, vandalism, and looting were confirmed. Consequently, Kumar was acquitted of all charges against him.

Regarding the other complaints merged in the same FIR, the court found that none of the investigating officers had made any effort to inquire into the "alleged eyewitnesses" regarding the 19 other incidents.

Court remarked, "Therefore, it is well apparent that practically, except for examining the 19 additional complainants, no other investigation was made, to find out time of those occurrences as well as the culprits behind those incidents."

The judge further observed that it would be unjust to the 19 additional complainants if the fate of their complaints were determined in the present case. Consequently, court directed the Station House Officer of Karawal Nagar to initiate separate, further investigations into the additional 19 complaints.

Case Title: State v. Sandeep Kumar