Delhi Court asks forensic lab to expedite report on videos on Delhi riots

A Delhi Court has asked the forensic science lab to expedite and submit their findings on the videos etc provided by Delhi Police in connection with a Delhi riots case. (Devangana Kalita vs State).The Court has further directed the Delhi Police to take steps for filing supplementary chargesheet along with the forensic reports at the earliest..The case pertains to riots at Jafrabad in Delhi's north east area in February 2020. .The order was passed by Fahad Uddin, Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara in an application moved by Pinjra Tod activist, Devangana Kalita (applicant), an accused in the case..The application prayed for supply of copies of video footage and other electronic footage available with the Delhi Police in the case..It was the applicant’s grievance that although two chargesheets had been filed in the FIR, she was yet to be provided with all the electronic material/record which form part of the chargesheet or was otherwise being relied upon by the Delhi Police..One such electronic material was video clips from February 22 to February 26 from Jafrabad. As per Delhi Police, these clips were not part of the chargesheet and were used only to identify the accused in the case.Thus, while refusing to supply the same, Delhi Police claimed that these clips were being used only for the purpose of investigation in the present case and the main copy was with Jafrabad police station. .The other material, which was part of the chargesheet, included the video clip from Jafrabad metro station on February 25, several photographs, footage videos of accused etc. .Delhi Police stated that this material was before the forensic lab for getting an expert opinion and would be supplied to the applicant and other accused at an appropriate stage. .In its order, the Court stressed on the importance of "fair trial" and "due process" under the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 21 of the Constitution. .It said, “The Code gives a right to the accused to receive all documents and statements as well as to move an application for production of any record or witness in support of his case. This constitutional mandate and statutory rights given to the accused place an implied obligation upon the prosecution to make fair disclosure. The concept of fair disclosure would take in its ambit furnishing of a document which prosecution relies upon whether filed in Court or not.”.The Court, however, added that the fair trial was not what the accused wanted in the name of fair trial but also included the collective interest of the society..“Thus, balancing the rights of both parties is imperative. The Court is duty-bound to issue suitable directions to meet the ends of justice.”the Court said. .In the present case, the Court noted that cognizance was yet to take place and thus the stage of Section 207 CrPC had not reached..“In the said circumstances, the application of the accused/applicant to supply copies of videos seems to be premature as the request of the accused can be entertained only after cognizance is taken and the stage of Section 207 is reached.”.Considering that the case pertained to communal riots and attracted media glare and public attention, the Court opined, .“..supply of the entire videos/pen drive procured by the prosecution for the purposes of investigation, to identify other accused/ the witness.. at this crucial stage when further investigation is going on and trial of the case is yet to commence, may be harmful/detrimental to the prosecution case as well as the interest of the society at large.".The Court thus held,.“in the considered opinion of the Court, the said pen drive may not be supplied to the accused u/s 207 CrPC as prayed for by the accused/applicant in the present application but u/s 91,233 and 243 CrPC as the case may be at the appropriate stage since the said videos may be required by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons to prepare effective defence of the accused persons at the time of trial or for cross examination..”.Clarifying that it was not rejecting the prayer made by the applicant, the Court deemed it fit to give liberty to the applicant to move an application under section 91 at the appropriate stage..For other material which already formed part of the chargesheet, the Court gave liberty to the applicant to move an appropriate application to obtain copies of the same once forensic report is obtained..It, therefore, further ordered,“It is directed that letter of request be issued from this Court to the Director, CFSL. CBI, Lodhi Colony, Delhi to expedite FSL results pending in the present case and tale appropriate setps for filing the same before the Court at the earliest.IO of the case is also directed to expedite the matter and take steps for filing supplementary chargesheet alongwith pending CFSL results at the earliest.".State was represented by SPP RK Sharma. Advocate Adit Pujari appeared for the applicant. .Read the Order: