Read Time: 07 minutes

While hearing a case pertaining to Northeast Delhi Riots, a Delhi court pulled up the Delhi Police for its ‘poor’ standard of investigation conducted in various riots cases, observing that it is "painful to note that in a large number of cases of riots, the standard of investigation is very poor. After filing of chargesheet in the Court, neither the IO (Investigating Officer) nor the SHO (Station House Officer) nor the aforesaid supervising officers bother to see as to 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."

Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav observed that a large number of cases of riots have been pending consideration on charge before the Court and in majority of cases the IOs have not been appearing in Court, either physically or through video-conferencing at the time of consideration on charge. Moreover, the IOs have not been briefing the Special Public Prosecutors for arguments of charge.

“In the morning of the date of hearing on charge, they simply e-mail pdf of the chargesheet to the learned Special PP and leave it upon him to argue the matter on charge as it is, without giving him an opportunity to go deep into the facts and the investigation conducted in the matter. They don’t even bother to care for the queries of learned Special PPs, if any, regarding the chargesheet and the further investigation which is supposed to have been conducted in the matters.”

The observations were made while hearing case on framing of charges of two persons accused of attacking police personnel with glass bottles, acid and bricks resulting in injuries to the said personnel.

Framing charges against the two accused the Court said, “This case is a glaring example, wherein injured persons/ victims are police personnel itself, yet the IO did not bother to collect the sample of acid/corrosive substance and to have its chemical analysis, particularly when Section 326-A IPC has been invoked in the matter. The IO has further not bothered to collect the opinion about the nature of injuries upon the victims, particularly when the provision of Section 332 IPC have been invoked. The supervising officers have miserably failed to supervise the investigation, as contemplated under Delhi High Court Rules, especially Rule Nos.10, 13 and 14 of Part A, Chapter 11, Volume-III as also Rule 3 Volume III Chapter 12."

The court further noted that the local Magistrate had also failed to monitor the investigation during the course of remand proceedings before taking cognizance in the matter.

“It is noticed that after filing the half-baked chargesheets 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”, the Court said.

The court has accordingly directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District and other higher ups to take notice of the situation and take remedial action required in the matters.

Case Title: State vs Ashraf Ali and Anr
Edited by Shreya Agarwal