Court seeks clarification from DCP about prosecution's conflicting stand

New Delhi: A court here while hearing a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots sought clarifications from the northeast district deputy commissioner of police (DCP) regarding a "conflicting stand" taken by the prosecution on the number of accused people.

It also asked several questions to the DCP, including what action was contemplated for mentioning wrong names of the accused in the FIR.

The court was hearing an application moved by the investigating officer, seeking the return of 30 complaints that were clubbed in the case against accused Raj Kumar and four others along with the charge sheet.

"Before proceeding further, it is necessary to get a clear and clean picture with support of relevant evidence and hence, the matter is referred to the DCP, northeast district, to look into the scenario and questions and to come up with clarifications," Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said in an order dated November 1.

The court noted that according to the investigating officer, none of the complainants could identify or name any of the people accused of damaging their properties during the riots, and probe is on.

Initially a complaint was filed by Azad Singh regarding a riotous mob, equipped with rods and blunt weapons, looting and burning articles of two of his tenanted shops on February 25, 2020, at New Sabhapur in Karawal Nagar, it said.

But, out of the four names mentioned in the complaint, one was subsequently "cut with ink", the court noted.

The record of the case also contained complaints made by 19 people regarding damage and loot of their properties by a riotous mob on February 25, 2020, it said.

The court noted that though the charge sheet was filed against five accused, the DCP concerned mentioned 14 accused in his complaint.

"All the above-mentioned scenarios lead to conflicting stand on the part of the first complainant as well as the prosecution (on the basis of difference of accused persons charge-sheeted and mentioned in the complaint)," the judge said.

"Several questions arise as to why the fourth name in the complaint of Azad Singh was cut with ink and how it was ensured that which statement of this witness was correct and what action was contemplated for mentioning the wrong names of the accused in the FIR?" the judge said. The court then directed the DCP to submit the report on December 24.