Delhi riots: 'Cops had to play double role of restorers of peace and investigators'

New Delhi: Framing charges of arson and rioting against two accused in a case related to the north-east Delhi riots of February 2020, a local court has decided to ignore the delay in recording witness statements — saying that the police were at the time playing a "double role" of having to keep the peace and investigate the cases.

"The police had to play double role i.e. restorers of peace as well as the investigators. On one hand they were engaged in controlling the riots, restoring peace in the area, instilling sense of security in the public; and on the other hand they had to conduct investigation in hundreds of FIRs which were registered in the aftermath of the riots. Locating the witnesses and tracing culprits was an uphill task for the police. In these circumstances, it would be travesty of justice to discard the statements of the witnesses only on account of delay," the court said in its order of framing charges.

Charges under sections 147/148/427/435/436 r/w section 149 IPC were framed against the two accused Raj Kumar @ Goli and Raj Kumar @ Raju but the court at the same time refused to frame conspiracy charges against them noting that the prosecution had "failed to point out any evidence on record suggesting that the two accused had committed the crimes in question in pursuance to any criminal conspiracy".

The case pertains to an FIR registered at the Dayalpur police station based on a complaint from one Mahendra Kumar, who had alleged that rioters had pelted stones at his house, broken into it, stolen his possessions and then set it ablaze.

The police had found during its investigation that a riotous mob had set fire to several shops and houses in the area that day in their spree, following which more complainants were identified and their statements were recorded.

The court noted that while the chargesheet against the accused did not cite any photograph or video placing them at the crime scene, it gave credence to the fact that the Constable who arrested them had identified them at the time of their arrest.

Furthermore, the chargesheet in the case had cited the statements of to public witnesses, who had also identified the two accused at the

scene of the crimes. The court thus rejected the argument of the accused that the statements cannot be considered because they were recorded more than a year after the case was registered.

While the court noted that the delay is plausible given that the police had their hands full, it also acknowledged that the victims of the riots and witnesses were traumatised by the unprecedented riots and needed time to come forward as they were also afraid of repercussions.