In the order, the bench of Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala stated that “It is worth to mention here that this order of discharge is being passed on account of realizing that the reported incidents were not properly and completely investigated and that the charge sheets were filed in predetermined, mechanical and erroneous manner, with subsequent actions to only cover up the initial wrong actions.” (Para 34)

As a result, the court discharged Akil Ahmad, Rahis Khan and Irshad, who were chargesheeted for offences under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly with a common object), 188 (disobedience to public order), 436 (mischief by fire), 120B (criminal conspiracy), among others of the Indian Penal Code.

It is essential to note that the matter was sent back to the police department for assessment of the investigation carried out in this case and subsequent action as per law. Delhi Police has been required to bring the complaints to a legal and logical end.

Observations of the Court on the alleged role of three accused in rioting and vandalism:

As per the allegations made by the prosecution, a mob had vandalised and set vehicles on fire around Victoria Public School in North-East Delhi. The police stated that the mob, which the accused were allegedly part of, was carrying stones, rods, sticks and blocked roads in the area. As per the order, the court found the existence of inconsistencies in the charge sheets and subsequent statements, suggesting an attempt to cover up flaws in the prosecution’s case.

In accordance to the above-mentioned, the court found contradictory statements given by the complainants in the case and pointed out that the investigating officers (IO) had ignored the fact that there were mobs sloganeering both in favour of and against the Citizenship Amendment Act/National Register of Citizens. 

“This fact is very important to realise that they were two different and rival mobs. IOs remained silent over the question as to which particular incident was caused by a particular mob. If several incidents took place in and around Victoria Public School at the hands of riotous mob, the job of IO was to ascertain the composition of such mob during each of such incidents.” the order stated. (Para 32)

Continuing with this, Judge Pramachala further stated,

” If a person ceases to be member of an unlawful assembly, then he cannot be made responsible for any act done by that mob in absence of such person.” (Para 32)

Instead of suspecting the accused persons for their involvement in the alleged incidents, the court came down to the suspicion that the IO manipulated the evidence in the case, without actually investigating the reported incidents properly.

Observations of the court on cover-up by investigation officer

On February 28, 2020, a first information report (FIR 71/2020) had been registered at the Dayalpur police station on the basis of a rukka (complaint copy from which the contents are taken for filing FIRs) prepared by an Assistant Sub-Inspector. As reported by Livelaw, the Investigating Officer of the said case late clubbed several complaints made by Farooq Ahmad, Shahbaz Malik, Nadeem Farooq and Jai Shankar Sharma.

On July 14, 2020, a charge sheet was filed against the three persons, and cognisance of the same was taken on December 9, 2020. Thereafter, two supplementary charge sheets had also been filed on February 15, 2022, and February 16, 2023, along with certain documents and fresh statements.

Referring to the same, in its order, the judge noted that in the first supplementary charge sheet, the investigating officer (IO) included three individuals as accused who were not mentioned in a constable’s statement.

The court further highlighted that until the court began questioning the timeline of events mentioned in the case, the IO consistently maintained in both the main and the first supplementary charge sheets that, except for one incident, all other reported incidents by various complainants occurred during the night between February 24 and 25, 2020.

The court further noticed that when the complaints were clubbed together, there was no record of the police being informed that the same group had been involved in acts of vandalism and arson from the night before until the information was recorded on the morning of February 25, 2020.

Additionally, the court also stated that the subsequent statements from the complainants were documented primarily to hide the gaps in the prosecution’s case and to provide a basis for charging the accused individuals. The court also pointed out that the investigating officer failed to present any evidence demonstrating the accuracy of these subsequent statements.

“The subsequent statements of the complainants were thus, recorded, only to cover up above mentioned lacuna in the case of prosecution and to justify charge sheeting the accused persons in this case.” (Para 31)

The complete order can be read here:

Related:

Brinda Karat on the Third Anniversary of Delhi Riots- “Cannot Abandon Struggle for Justice”

Charges framed against Tahir Hussain and others, discharge from graver offence in the North-East Delhi riots

Did Nand Kishore Gurjar admit to role in North East Delhi riots?

Hate speeches amplified by television, incited targeted violence against Muslims: CCR Report, Feb ‘20 Delhi riots

Umar Khalid bail: Prosecution claims Delhi riots were successful due to synchronisation and mobilisation

Umar Khalid Bail: Prosecution equates NE Delhi riots ‘conspirators’ to 9/11 culprits

The post “Predetermined, mechanical and erroneous charge sheets”: Delhi Court discharges 3 in North East Delhi riot case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For the second time, human rights defender Dr. Umar Khalid has moved court, complaining of a leak of information and media trial. Accused under draconian anti-terrorism provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Dr. Khalid and his lawyers moved court on January 4 and put on their record concerns regarding a ‘vicious media campaign’ against him.

According to a report in The Quint they have stated that while the media continues to report from Delhi Police Crime Branch’s supplementary charge sheet under FIR 101, the accused Khalid and his legal team are yet to be supplied a copy of it, even till January 4. However, they stated that the media has been reporting on it regularly, according to the news report, Umar Khalid told the court, “I am saying with absolute dismay that this pattern of media reporting on the charge sheet before the accused get a copy of it, is prejudicial to the trial. Please ask the prosecution and the investigating officer how is it that the media is getting a copy of the charge sheet before the accused is. The media says that in my confessional statements (disclosure statements) I have admitted to my role in the riots, how does that make sense when I gave it in writing that I had not signed any statement while in police custody on 4 October. I am well aware that these confessional statements are not admissible in court, but there is an obvious pattern of selected disclosure statements being leaked, so keeping that in mind I request you ask the Investigating Officer how this is being leaked again and again. This is affecting my right to a free and fair trial.”

His friend Banojyotsna had shared a copy of the FIR in October.

Khalid’s advocate Trideep Pais, told the court, “I submitted to the learned duty magistrate that immediately upon the charge sheet being filed, we have experienced that a vicious media campaign starts. Immediately after the charge sheet the media started saying that Umar Khalid had admitted to the riots, to mobilising people, to bring in women as a front, arranged guns etc. However, when you read the same charge sheet you will know that the accused they talk of was not even present in Delhi,” reported TQ.

Umar told the court, “I am repeating this, I have already told the court I did not sign any statement. These attempts show that the prosecution is themselves not confident of the evidence against me and want to start a media trial.” The application was submitted on January 3 to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dinesh Kumar’s court, the next hearing is  listed for January 5. 

Khalid had earlier moved court with the same concern on November 28, when FIR 59 the police’s supplementary charge sheet, against Khalid’s alleged role was reported on by several media houses. According to the report, Khalid’s lawyers were given a copy of that charge sheet on November 28. 

Related: 

2020 List of Honour: 10 Anti-CAA-NPR-NRC protesters vilified in Delhi
Why did Delhi Police detain Umar Khalid’s mother and sister at night?
Why are Delhi police calling Umar Khalid’s atheism a ‘pretence’?

The post How’s the media getting copy of charge sheet before the accused: Umar Khalid appeared first on SabrangIndia.