Karkardooma Court Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala acquitted one Javed, who had been charged under seven sections of the IPC.

Not for the first time, a court in Delhi has hauled up the Delhi Police over its investigation into the riots of 2020.
LiveLaw has reported that Karkardooma Court Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala acquitted a man on August 24, and took a dim view of police making “artificial statements” on a mob’s involvement, filing multiple charge sheets in a “mechanical manner” and not investigating the incidents properly.
Judge Pramachala hauled up the investigating officer and a constable, saying they had failed to prove the now acquitted Javed’s presence in an unlawful assembly beyond any reasonable doubt. It also said that the two had given conflicting descriptions of the case.
“IO was probably making artificial statement in respect of the time of getting knowledge about involvement of accused Javed in the incidents being probed in this case. That could be reason for him to first claim that Ct. Pawan/PW9 had told him about involvement of Javed on 27.02.2020 itself, but he could not say about the reasons for not mentioning name of Javed in the FIR,” the court said.
Javed had been charged under seven sections of the Indian Penal Code, including for armed rioting, unlawful assembly and mischief by fire.
The judge referred the matter back to the concerned station house officer.
“It is also established on the record that charge sheet was filed for multiple incidents in this case, in mechanical manner and without actually investigating such incidents properly. There was no evidence of offence under section 436 IPC [mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house] and such Section was also invoked without ascertaining the actual situation,” the court said.
LiveLaw also noted that mere days ago, the judge had passed a similar order and said that it is suspicious that the Delhi Police’s investigating officer “manipulated evidence” and filed charge sheets in a riots case in a “predetermined and mechanical manner”.
In this case, which pertains to violence near R.P. Public School, one Salman had alleged that he was shot at by three boys. The court had hauled police for clubbing this case with that of a riotous mob because the accused are clearly mentioned as three boys here here.
This FIR had been clubbed with a complaint by two people, Mujahid and Jameer, who had said that their shops had been destroyed in the violence.
The judge had earlier said that the investigation was illegally clubbed in the FIR on the “pretext of proximity of place of incident.”
Time and again, various courts in Delhi hearing the riots cases have pointed to shoddy investigation by Delhi police, highlighting various oversights, small and big. Various fact-finding teams have also highlighted that the police’s investigation remains partisan and has ensured scholars and activists are in jail, while a large section of those who incited the riots are as yet not brought to book.

Courtesy: The Wire