Delhi Court observes 'Very poor' standard of investigation in north-east violence cases

New Delhi [India], August 29 : A city court here has pulled up police officials for observing that in the majority of cases the Investigating Officers (IO) have not been appearing in Court, either physically or through video-conferencing at the time of consideration on charge and in a large number of cases of Delhi's northeast violence, the standard of investigation is very poor.
Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav made these observations while ordering framing of charges against one Ashraf Ali, accused of attacking police officials with acid, glass bottles and bricks during the communal violence on February 25, 2020.
The court noted the case as a glaring example, wherein injured persons 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 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been invoked in the matter.
The court also noted that 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 of the IPC have been invoked.
The court also said that the supervising officers have miserably failed to supervise the investigation, as contemplated under Delhi High Court Rules.
The court said that after filing the half-baked chargesheets in Court, the police hardly bothers about taking the investigation to a logical end.
"It is high time that the DCP of North-East District and other higher officers concerned take notice of the aforesaid observations and take immediate remedial action required in the matters. They are free to seek the assistance of experts in this regard, failing which there is a likelihood of injustice being caused to the persons involved in these cases, " the court said.
The court said: "It is really painful to note here that a large number of cases of riots have been pending consideration on charge before this 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. I have also been given to understand that they have not been briefing the learned Special PPs (public prosecutors) for arguments of charge."
The court noted that in the morning of the date of hearing on the charge, they simply e-mail pdf of the chargesheet to the Special Public Prosecutor and leave it upon him to argue the matter on charges as it is, without giving him an opportunity to go deep into the facts and the investigation conducted in the matter.
"It is further painful to note that in a large number of cases of riots, the standard of investigation is very poor," the court remarked.
"After the filing of chargesheet in the Court, neither the IO nor the SHO nor the 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," the court said.
"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 court said.