Court re-condemns police for filing two separate indictments, calls investigation a mockery

Days after a Delhi court arrested Delhi police officials for filing two separate sets of indictments in a minor rape case, the court again raped the police upon observing that the the investigation so far into the case is nothing but a travesty.

The Court had previously ordered the Police Commissioner to initiate an investigation and register a case under the appropriate provisions against the officers for committing fraud against the Court.

Leaving absolutely to the police commissioner the question of the measures to be taken against the lost officials, Additional sessions Judge Gaurav Rao observed as follows:

“… But it’s a big slap on the Delhi Police logo of“ Shanti, Seva, Nyay ”“ Nyay ”was taken for a ride by them, twisted and twisted according to their whims and fancies. If this continues, and officials are not treated severely, the public will lose confidence in the police system. Not only did they make fun of the judiciary / judiciary, but they also abused their power as the people they hired to serve and protect. ”

The court was hearing a case concerning the rape of a 14-year-old minor.

While one set of the indictment in the case was filed with the court and the lawyer for the accused, the other was filed with the public prosecutor and the lawyer for the plaintiff, in which important facts have been omitted.

“Court obviously, although already circumspect on their approach in certain matters, would be much more careful and would think twice before believing their assertion ”, added the court.

In addition, the Court held that:

“Most importantly, and what the DCP did not justify and explain, is the omission of two full paragraphs of 20 to 25 lines from the indictment. person namely Umer whose name was completely removed / omitted from the indictment filed in court. How can this action be justified and what more is needed to conclude that it was deliberate, motivated and dishonest. “

The Court took note of the fact that although in an indictment it was mentioned that the location of The accused’s cell phone was not found at the crime scene, however, this fact was omitted from the indictment filed in court.

In addition, it was noted that the fact that the victim went to the scene of the crime with a Umer was omitted in the indictment filed in court.

“The investigation carried out so far is a travesty which follows from the fact that the prosecution recorded the statement of private persons and presented them as witnesses, although their testimony proves the accused who was charge sheet, “ added the court.

The accused was arrested in March for allegedly raping and kidnapping the minor. The FIR was registered under Articles 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping, kidnapping or instigating a woman to coerce her into marriage), 376 (rape), 342 (wrongful confinement) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and Article 6 of the POCSO Act.

Title: State c. Shake

About Leah Albert

Check Also

Reviews | This mining law is 150 years old. We really need to modernize it.

Last year, the bipartisan Infrastructure Act created the first-ever abandoned hard rock rehabilitation program. But …