'Can't make new case based on supplementary statement'

New Delhi: Observing that the Delhi Police cannot introduce a new case altogether by simply recording a supplementary statement of one of the complainants in the matter if the same hasn't been made in the initial written complaint to the police, a Delhi court has discharged a man of an offence pertaining to the Northeast Delhi riots that occurred last year.

In his order, Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav discharged 30-year-old Sandeep Kumar, a riots accused, of an offence under section 436 of IPC which pertains to mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house etc. While questioning the supplementary statement made by one of the complainants in the case, the court stated: "I am afraid the investigating agency cannot introduce all together a new case by recording a supplementary statement of one of the complainants, if the ingredients of section 436 IPC were not there in his initial two written complainants made to the police".

Pulling up the police, ASJ Yadav stated that the court was conscious of the fact that cases of communal riots have to be considered with utmost sensitivity, "but that does not mean that the common sense should be given goby."

The FIR, which is the result of clubbing 23 similar complaints, was registered on the basis of a written complaint made by one Mohd. Zakir who alleged that his house was vandalised and subsequently looted by a riotous mob during the communal carnage.

Moreover, while discharging Kumar of one IPC section, the court stated that a fine tooth-comb analysis of the said complaints reveals that there were no allegations of arson in any of the complaints and that, as such, ingredients of Section 436 IPC are not at all made out therefrom. "Even from the photographs filed on record, no incident of committing mischief by fire or explosive substance is borne out," the court order read.

ASJ Yadav also pointed to the fact that Zakir had "all of a sudden", during the course of recording of his statement under Section 161 CrPC in May last year, had stated about "traces of smoke" inside his house. "...it is only when his statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded by the IO on 1.05.2020 that ingredients of Section 436 IPC for the first time came into fore and same were accordingly invoked in the chargesheet," ASJ Yadav stated, while asking the CMM to either try the matter himself or assign it to some competent court or MM.