The court has summoned the officer responsible for this action to provide a written explanation.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala presided over the hearing on charges against three accused individuals in the northeast Delhi riots case, where the FIR was filed by the Gokalpuri police station.
The court observed that while initially, 25 complaints were consolidated into the case, it had directed in April last year that only 17 of these complaints should be considered in the current case.
Despite this, the Investigating Officer (IO) filed a new supplementary charge sheet on May 17 for prosecuting 22 complaints.
The IO’s decision was based on newly recorded statements from some complainants, which aimed to demonstrate that they had originally provided incorrect dates and times for the alleged rioting incidents at their locations.
The court found this investigative approach deeply concerning, noting that the IO recorded statements at a subsequent point in time without seeking court permission, defying the legal provisions outlined in Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which pertains to further investigation in a case.
The court highlighted the inconsistency and lack of seriousness on the part of the prosecution since the beginning of the case. Even with the new statements, the complainants did not claim to be eyewitnesses, and the modifications to the date and time of the alleged incidents referred to “some neighbours.”
The court criticised the investigation for not identifying these neighbours due to its “half-hearted nature”. The case is now listed for next hearing on November 20.
–Ajit Weekly News
spr/vd
News Credits – I A N S
