How 2 riot incidents clubbed into 1?: Delhi court

NEW DELHI: Noting “glaring” discrepancies in the complaints that were clubbed into a single FIR in a northeast Delhi riot case, a court said on Wednesday that police would have to explain them during the course of trial.
The court said it couldn’t comprehend how one of the complainants, Diwan Singh, was aware of alleged looting that took place on February 24 last year when he himself visited his shops the next day.
It further said when two complaints were submitted by Singh to police on February 25, why the FIR was lodged on a third complaint dated March 1, 2020. Brij Pal’s complaint was in connection to alleged vandalism of his shop on February 25.
“No explanation in this regard has been provided by the investigating agency in the entire chargesheet,” additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav said in the order. This court, he said, can’t understand how an incident that took place on February 24 can be clubbed with an incident that happened the next day “unless and until there is a clear evidence to the effect that same unlawful assembly of rioters was operating on both dates and there has to be specific witnesses in this regard”.
The court dropped charges of arson against 10 people in the case related to the alleged vandalism and said a careful reading of the complainants had not revealed a single word regarding committing mischief by fire or explosive substance (IPC 436) by the riotous mob in the shops.
“I am afraid that the investigating agency cannot cover up the said flaw by way of recording the supplementary statements of the complainants if the ingredients of Section 436 IPC were not there in their initial written complaints made to police,” the judge said.
Section 436 cannot be invoked merely on the basis of the statements of police witnesses who were beat constables in the area during the riots, the court pointed out, adding that their statements had no significance when both the complainants had stated nothing in this regard. “There is also a considerable delay in recording of their statements,” it observed.
Police had called the accused “active members of the riotous mob” on the day and time of the incident. They further claimed that complainant Singh had had, in his supplementary statement, categorically identified four accused and all accused were also involved in other cases during the riot.