Delhi Violence case: Court discharges 3 accused citing shoddy investigation

The court also said that the case was a waste of tax payers' money and of the court’s time, as the police had no real intention to investigate the matter

Session CourtImage

A Sessions Court in Delhi while discharging offences against AAP MLA Tahir Hussain’s brother Shah Alam and two others, reprimanded Delhi Police for its shoddy investigation into the Delhi riots case.

Vinod Yadav, Additional Sessions Judge at the Karkardooma District Courts, was quoted by Bar and Bench as saying, “I am not able to restrain myself from observing that when history will look back at the worst communal riots since partition in Delhi, it is the failure of investigating agency to conduct proper investigation by using latest scientific methods, will surely torment the sentinels of democracy.”

The court discharged Shah Alam, Rashid Saifi and Shadab who were accused of rioting, unlawful assembly and theft. The court observed that the case was being solved only on the basis of the chargesheet and no real effort was being made by the police to trace the eye witnesses or the real accused or any technical evidence. The court pointed out that for over a year and a half, the accused have been languishing in jails as their trials had not begun, and the police keep filing supplementary chargesheets.

The court, further commenting on the investigation said that no effective investigation was being carried out and there was lack of supervision from the senior officers. “After investigating this matter for so long, the police has shown up only five witnesses in the matter; one is the victim, other is Constable Gyan Singh, one Duty Officer, a formal witness and the Investigating Officer,” observed the judge as per Bar and Bench.

The court even went on to comment that the case was a “colossal wastage of tax payers money, without there being real intent of investigating the matter”. The court also questioned how only these three accused were identified amidst a mob of 150-200 people.

The court relied upon several precedents before observing that if the court is satisfied that the evidence does not give rise to grave suspicion against the accused, the Court is within its right to discharge the accused.

Further, the court also questioned why the police witness constable Gyan Singh did not report the matter diligently, and waited until March 3 to give his statement against the accused. The court pointed out that Gyan Singh’s delay is fatal to the investigating agency and it gives an impression that he was planted to solved the case in hand, reported Bar and Bench.

The court added, “This court cannot permit such cases to meander mindlessly in the corridors of judicial system, sweeping away precious judicial time of this court when the same is open and shut case”.

Giving a holistic view, the court also pointed out that in the aftermath of the riots, about 750 cases were registered and around 150 cases have been received by this court for trial and out of these in 35 cases only charges have been framed. “A lot of time of this court is being consumed by the cases like the present one where there is hardly any investigation carried out by the police,” the court said as per LiveLaw.

Observing, the shoddy investigation and lack of supervision in the same, the court found it prudent to discharge the three accused in the case of their offences registered under FIR 93/2020.

The complete order may be read here:


Sharjeel Imam tried to create complete anarchy: Gov’t tells Delhi court
Delhi Court questions Police for alleged refusal to file FIR against right-wing hate mongers
National security laws being misused by State to establish executive supremacy: Gautam Bhatia



Related Articles