NE Delhi violence: Court pulls up police for clubbing 19 complaints in one FIR, acquits accused

New Delhi [India], November 1 : Delhi's Karkardooma Court on Tuesday while acquitting an accused pulled up Delhi police for clubbing 19 complaints of riots wrongly in one FIR. The court also said that the complaints were not properly investigated.
The court has directed the SHO to take up these complaints for further investigation. This case pertains to an FIR registered at Karawal Nagar police station in 2020.
This FIR was registered on a complaint filed by a man named Shokeen.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala acquitted accused Sandeep Kumar giving him the benefit of the doubt.
The court said that the prosecution though established the incident of riot, vandalism and loot at the premises of Prosecution witness Shokeen failed to prove the presence of the accused in the unlawful assembly responsible for such incident, beyond reasonable doubt.
"I also find that an additional 19 complaints were wrongly clubbed in this FIR and were not
completely and properly investigated," ASJ Pramachala said in the judgement passed on October 31, 2023.
He added that in view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, accused Sandeep Kumar is hereby acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
However, the court directed the police to further investigate additional 19 complaints.
"At the same time SHO is directed to take up the additional 19 complaints for further investigation separately from this case, " the court said.
Accused Sandeep was charge-sheeted by the police for having committed offences punishable under Section 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapons), 149 (punishment for unlawful assembly), 427 (mischief by fire), 436 (destruction of property by fire), 380 (punishment for theft), 454 ( house trespassing to commit offence), 506 (criminal intimidation), 188 (violation of orders passed by public servant) IPC.
As per the Prosecution, on February 28, 2020, an FIR was registered at PS Karawal Nagar, on a written complaint from Shokeen, a resident of Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar.
In his complaint, he alleged that on February 25, 2020, at around 9 o'clock, a large crowd attacked his house and they vandalised and set on fire his shop and house.
It was further alleged that several articles and jewellery were taken away in that incident. He alleged that somehow he and his family members managed to save their lives.
It was further alleged that prior to this incident, in the morning of the preceding Monday, he was given a threat by some boys.
He also claimed that if shown, he would identify them.
The court noted that the Prosecution had presented two eyewitnesses of the case. One
was Shokeen and another was HC Ashok Kumar.
It further noted that however, Shokeen deposed that on February 25, 2020, at about 7 p.m., he had left his house with his wife for Loni and that till the time he was at his house, the mob had not come to his house. He came back to his house after around one week.
The court observed, "Such testimony of Shokeen shows that he was not an eye witness of any incident."
The court said that HC Ashok Kumar was an official of the same Police Station and as per his testimony, on August 2, 2020, he and other staff were shown photographs by IO, so
as to confirm, if they had seen any of the persons appearing in those photographs during the riots.
He deposed that he had identified one photograph out of 9, which was found to be
photograph of accused Sandeep.
The court also noted that he had seen an accused in a mob at Gali no. 7 and that the mob was vandalizing the corner property of that gali.
"Interestingly, IO did not examine this witness about the description of the property being vandalized in his presence, nor did he ever take this witness to the place of incident, for identification of those properties which were being vandalized by the mob in the presence of this witness," the court said.
Thus, it is left to guess which properties were seen by this witness being vandalized, it added.
The court also said that there were 20 different places for different incidents taken up for investigation in this case, but none of the IOs bothered to ask these two alleged eyewitnesses about 19 additional incidents.
The court observed, "Therefore, it is well apparent that practically, except for examining the 19 additional complainants, no other investigation was made, to find out the time of those
occurrences as well as culprits behind those incidents."
"In such circumstances, it shall be injustice with the 19 additional complainants, if the fate of their complaints is decided by this court in the present case, " ASJ Pramachala remarked.