Court baffled by police’s attempt to charge two persons when the victim himself is missing from investigation
Completely baffled by Delhi police’s attempt to charge two persons for offence of attempt to murder of a man during the north-east Delhi riots, when the victim himself is missing from police investigation, a Delhi Court remarked “presumption can’t be stretched to take the shape of proof/evidence”.
Discharging both accused persons — Imran alias Teli and Babu — from the charges of attempt to murder, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat quoting from Russian classic Crime and Punishment said, ‘From a hundred rabbits you can’t make a horse, a hundred suspicion don’t make a proof’.
Delhi police had charged both Teli and Babu of being part of a mob near Maujpur Red Light during the riots which caused the alleged death of one Rahul who had suffered a gunshot injury.
The police had claimed that the accused persons were part of the rioting mob and thus, “it must be presumed that they committed the offence or Section 307 (attempt to murder) IPC”.
“The gunshot injury is stated to be caused to Rahul, but where is he? His statement is not on record. The police have, after long investigation, concluded that Rahul, who is stated to have been shot by the mob/rioters comprising the accused persons, had given a wrong address as also a wrong mobile phone number in his Medico Legal Case (MLC),” the court said.
The court pointed out that, “by the time, police arrived at the hospital, the alleged victim Rahul had vanished. It is not as if Rahul gave any initial statement and then vanished. The State is categorical in saying that the police never saw Rahul”.
“That being the case, who is going to say that who shot whom and by whom and where,” Judge Rawat questioned the Delhi Police.
“The alleged victim has never been seen by the police. He has never given any statement about any gunshot injury or about any mob/rioters. So how is Section 307 IPC made out against the accused persons when the victim is absent from even the police investigation,” the court asked.
The court also noted that even the police witness, a constable, has not made any “direct or even tangential reference to the firing by rioters or gunshot injury caused to alleged victim Rahul or even to the accused persons firing causing injury to the victim”.
The court also discharged both accused persons of the charges under the Arms Act as no recovery of any weapon was made from them.
Judge Rawat, however, said that there was ground for presuming that the accused persons had committed the offences of unlawful assembly and rioting. The court transferred the case back to the designated Magisterial Court concerned on issue of framing of charges related to unlawful assembly and rioting against the duo.
Source: Read Full Article