A Delhi court on Thursday came down upon the Delhi Police for the lacklustre and shoddy probe being conducted by it in cases relating to Delhi riots of February 2020 (State v. Shah Alam).

Additional Sessions Judge in Karkardooma District Courts, Vinod Yadav said that the worst communal riots in the history of Delhi since partition, will be remembered for the failure of the Delhi Police to conduct proper investigation employing latest scientific methods.

"I am not able to restrain myself from observing that when history will look back at the worst communal riots since partition in Delhi, it is the failure of investigating agency to conduct proper investigation by using latest scientific methods, will surely torment the sentinels of democracy," the judge said.

He further stated that a large number of accused persons have been languishing in jail for the last about 1.5 years merely on account of the fact that the trial in their cases are not being initiated since police is busy in filing supplementary chargesheets in such cases.

The observations were made in an order passed by the Court discharging three accused in the riots, Shah Alam, Rashid Saifi and Shadab who stood accused of rioting, unlawful assembly and theft.

The Court while discharging the accused said that no real/effective investigation in the matter was carried out in the case and there was lack of supervision by superior officers.

"The sort of investigation conducted in the instant case and the lack of supervision thereof by the superior officers clearly depicts that the investigating agency has merely tried to pull the wool over the Court’s eyes and nothing else. After investigating this matter for so long, the police has shown up only five witnesses in the matter; one is the victim, other is Constable Gyan Singh, one Duty Officer, a formal witness and the Investigating Officer," the judge observed.

I cannot restrain myself from observing that this case is a colossal wastage of the hard earned money of tax-payers, without there being real intent of investigating the matter, he added.

The Court highlighted how besides the three accused, the investigation had not led to the identification of any other accused from a mob of 150-200 people.

"This speaks volumes about the efforts put in by it in this regard.It is really painful to note that the supervising officers have miserably failed to supervise the investigation in the matter."

While deliberating the facts of the case, the Judge clarified that at the stage of charge an elaborate scrutiny of the material is not permissible unless the case is one of grave suspicion.

To elaborate on this principle, the Court relied on the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Kallu Mal Gupta vs State in which it was held that while deciding the question of framing of charge in a criminal case what is required to be seen is whether there is strong suspicion which may lead to the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence.

The Court further placed strong reliance on the decision by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal wherein the scope of Section 227 (Discharge) of the Cr.PC was examined and in which the apex court had concluded that the judge is not merely a post office to frame charge at the behest of the prosecution but he has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine that a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution.

After a detailed consideration of several precedents and jurisprudence established, the judge concluded that if two views are possible and the court is satisfied that the evidence does not give rise to grave suspicion against the accused, the Court is within its right to discharge the accused.

The Court noted that in the instant case, there was no real effort to trace the eye witnesses, real accused persons or technical evidence.

The case, the Court opined was based on the statement of police constable Gyan Singh.

"After investigating this matter for so long, the police has shown up only five witnesses in the matter; one is the victim, other is Constable Gyan Singh, one Duty Officer, a formal witness and the IO," the order said.

The Court noted that it was Gyan Singh's testimony which suddenly led to action by the police.

"Even after receiving two written complaints, the investigating agency did not start the investigation till March 2, 2020 for the reasons best known to it. Then all of a sudden on March 3, 2020, Constable Gyan Singh emerges in the picture and the IO/investigating agency leapfrogged that opportunity to record his statement and consequently arrested the accused persons from Mandoli jail," the order noted.

The Court further said that as a diligent police official, it was the duty of constable Gyan Singh to have immediately reported the matter to police station which he never did. Instead he never bothered to himself report about the incident/accused persons at police station and it was only during the course of recording of his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC by the IO on March 3, 2020, that for the first time Gyan Singh inculpated the accused persons in the instant matter.

This silence and delay on the part of constable Gyan Singh is not only fatal to the case of investigating agency, but it also gives an impression that he has been “planted/ introduced” to solve the case in hand, the Court made it clear.

"I am pained to note that no real/effective investigation in the matter has been carried out and merely by recording the statement of constable Gyan Singh that too at a belated stage, especially when the accused persons were already under arrest in another case , the investigating agency has just tried to show the case as 'solved'," the judge said while discharging the accused.