The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the Delhi Police why it has not filed a chargesheet in the death case of a 23-year-old man, who was forced to sing the national anthem during the 2020 northeast Delhi riots and for conducting it. said. Examine it without effect or fear.
Justice Chandradhari Singh, who was hearing a petition filed by Faizan’s mother Kistun, seeking a speedy and proper investigation, said the matter should be taken seriously and the probe agency should take into account the suggestions of the petitioner. should keep. His argument.
The incident pertains to a video that went viral during the February 2020 riots in which Faizan and others, who were apparently injured, were beaten up by policemen and forced to sing the national anthem and ‘Vande Mataram’.
Kistun has demanded a SIT probe into his son’s death. She has claimed that the police detained her son illegally and denied him critical health care, due to which he succumbed on February 26, 2020.
The concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) told the court that technical evidence is involved in the case and the investigation has not traced a head constable who made the video but those who beat up the victim and “no stone is being left unturned in the investigation”. . ,
The judge, who remarked that there was no ground to distrust one of the highest officials in the police machinery, Delhi Police’s counsel Amit Prasad, further pointed out that he has identified some people, but confirmation is required from all angles.
The court was told that it would take another eight weeks for the agency to complete the investigation. Accordingly, the matter was posted for further hearing on May 11.
The court clarified that it was not interfering in the manner of investigation and said, “A mother’s son has died. I am not commenting on how and when (but) it should be taken very seriously and dealt with in accordance with criminal law.
The judge said, “This court has no ground to disbelieve one of the highest ranking officers… (I am telling you) without any effect from the orders of CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) and Delhi Police Manual. Please investigate the matter accordingly.” said.
“The petition has been filed without any effect for proper investigation. Whatever important person is involved, you must complete the investigation without any effect. That is the purpose of keeping the petition pending. I am not here to interfere in any way with the investigation being conducted by the investigating agency. If I find anything strange in the status report, I can intervene,” the court observed, according to Live Law.
Delhi Police said the statements of witnesses have been recorded and one of the survivors, who accompanied the deceased, has not alleged any violence and the probe agency is awaiting the results of some other technical tests.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that there was no arrest in the case and the police had earlier made a false statement about the status of CCTV in the concerned police station and the investigating agency was not investigating the second scene of the crime. That is, going to the police station and seeking permission to file a reply on the police status report.
According to Livelaw, “why would a police station be misleading [investigation] what they are looking at now,” she argued.
On this, the lawyer of Delhi Police said, ‘We have identified some people. This has to be confirmed. The reason we don’t make arrests is because once there is confirmation from all angles. ,
The court asked the petitioner to raise objections after the charge sheet was filed and asked him to have some faith in the investigating agency and said that there was no reason to disbelieve his stand by invoking the writ jurisdiction.
“The suggestions in the writ petition may be taken into consideration for the purpose of investigation,” the court said, asking the Delhi Police to investigate the victim without any fear or influence for the purpose of justice.
The court further said, “Please do (investigation) without any fear or influence and you may take for the purpose of investigation whatever they have suggested in the writ petition or status report for the purpose of providing justice to the victim.”
Last month, the HC had pulled up the police for its probe and said its status report, which was filed in a sealed cover, was neither here nor there.
Justice Mukta Gupta had questioned the police on the increase (20) in the number of injuries (20) recorded in the post-mortem report of the deceased Faizan as compared to the medical report prepared before his custody in police custody, where only three injuries were recorded. Had gone