Raising serious questions over the “discrepancies” and “contradictions” in the investigation carried out by police in an alleged recovery of illegal arms and ammunition case, a Delhi sessions court has quashed a trial court order and directed the police commissioner to conduct an inquiry against the policeman in charge of the raid as well as the other members and take appropriate action against the erring officers.
Observing that the trial court has “committed serious error of law” by “ignoring glaring discrepancies in the prosecution case while recording a judgment of conviction”, Additional Sessions Judge Sanjay Sharma quashed the trial court’s order and acquitted Kharak Singh, resident of Ghaziabad, facing trial in an October 2012 Arms Act case. The trial court had earlier held Singh guilty of illegally possessing arms and ammunition and had sentenced him to five years’ jail.
- Punjab HC rejects Khaira’s plea against summons in drug smuggling case
- PMLA case against Shabir Shah; Delhi High Court denies bail to middleman
- Junaid Khan murder case trial: Rapped for helping lawyer of accused, Additional AG resigns
- Faridabad lynching: Junaid Khan case judge says senior law officer helping accused, seeks action
- Aarushi case: Allahabad HC castigates CBI on theory on Hemraj's murder
- From tutored witness to motive, Allahabad HC has many questions for CBI in Aarushi-Hemraj murder case
Stating that the recovery of the arms and ammunition “had not taken place in the manner and on the date, time and place as alleged by the prosecution” and that it “appears” to be a “planted case”, the court has also questioned the action of additional DCP, Crime and Railways, over granting of sanction for the prosecution of Singh “without applying his mind”.
“It was expected from him (Sanjay Bhatia, Addl. DCP, Crime & Railways) that he should have applied his mind to the broad features of the case of the prosecution before granting sanction for the prosecution of the appellant,” the court said.
ASJ Sharma has now directed the commissioner of police to file an Action Taken Report (ATR) regarding the matter and file it before the court within 30 days from the date of order. “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.this Court directs the Commissioner of Police to conduct an enquiry against HC Pawan Kumar Malik (In-charge, Raiding Team) and other members of the raiding team and appropriate action be taken, after fixing their responsibility,” the court said, adding that till the continuance of the enquiry, no case should be assigned to HC Pawan Kumar for investigation.
The directive comes in the case where Delhi Police in a raid had nabbed Singh from Ambedkar College in northeast Delhi. Police had alleged Singh was found possessing eight country-made pistols and 38 cartridges.
However, the sessions court has observed that there is “there is nothing on record to show that reasonable efforts were made to associate public persons” in its investigation. “He (raiding officer) did not make any effort to associate any guard/watchman or official/employee of Ambedkar College..he preferred stray passersby over the watchman/guard.. It casts doubt on the genuineness of the efforts made by him,” the court observed.
The court has also raised serious questions over naming of the prosecution witnesses in the case. “Inspector Manoj Pant has not been examined by the prosecution. He was not cited as a prosecution witness. No explanation was put forth for his non-examination,” the court said.
The session court has also rapped the police for the assigning the investigation of the case to the cop, who was part of the raiding team.
1. The vehicle, weapons and bag used in raid not mentioned in Daily Dairy Entry
2. No public witnesses examined
3. Cop part of the raiding team made the investigation officer
4. Nearest police station was not informed