Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav was one of the judges who were recently transferred to the Rouse Avenue Courts by the Delhi High Court on Wednesday.
Judge Yadav, who was hearing the Delhi Riots cases, was highly critical of the Delhi Police’s investigation in matters. Here’s a look at some of the observations made in the orders he passed recently:
1) October 5, 2021: State v. Dinesh
“Prima facie, one of the police witnesses is lying on oath,” the order stated after noting that two police witnesses had given contradictory statements during recording of evidence as far as the identification of the accused persons was concerned.
The Court said though three people had specifically been named as accused, the police had not interrogated them.
“This is a very sorry state of affairs. Let a report from the DCP/NE (northeast district) be called for on the above aspect,” the Court ordered.
2) September 2, 2021: State v. Shah Alam & Anr
The Court discharged three accused - Shah Alam, Rashid Saifi and Shadab - who stood accused of rioting, unlawful assembly and theft.
Before parting with the verdict, Judge Yadav made a mention of the failure of the Delhi Police to conduct proper investigation by employing the 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.
3) August 28, 2021: State v. Ashraf Ali & Anr
The Police was yet again pulled up by the Court, which said that in a “large number of cases of riots, the standard of investigation is very poor” and that the police was filing “half-baked chargesheets” in such cases.
“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 also expressed displeasure over the non-appearance of investigating officers - either physically or through video-conferencing - in cases pending consideration.
“It is further 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 nor the SHO 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,” it had observed.
4) August 23, 2021, State v. Rohit
While framing charges against the accused, the judge noted that the investigation appeared to be “highly callous”.
“...it is worth noting that investigation in the matter appears to be highly callous, inefficient and unproductive; however, as noted earlier this Court at this stage, cannot ignore the statements of victims dehors the delay in recording of FIR in the matter," the order said.
5) July 13, 2021: State v. Mohammad Nasir
The order imposed ₹25,000 costs on the Delhi Police, which challenged an order directing registration of FIR on the complaint of a man who suffered an eye injury. The Court noted that the police officials had "miserably failed in their statutory duties in this case after holding a due inquiry in this regard."
“Seeing the matter from any angle, I have not been able to persuade myself about the efficacy and fairness of the investigation carried out in the matter,” it added.