Court raps police over ‘haphazard’ theft case diaries

[related-post]

The case dates back to March 6, 2013, when the complainant Dharambir, a resident of Rohini, had alleged that he was robbed by four persons. Dharambir, who works as a driver, claimed that the four accused stopped his car on some pretext and robbed him of Rs 1.7 lakh, which belonged to his employer.

Days later, policemen from the Mianwali Nagar police station arrested four men — Mohit Kumar Singhla, Damandeep Chawla, Punit Sahni and Gautam — in connection with a separate case of criminal conspiracy.

According to police, during questioning, the four accused disclosed that they were also involved in the robbery — which was being probed by South Rohini police station.

During trial, the court questioned police over its “failure” to establish the identity of the accused and the manner in which they carried out the recovery of material evidence.

The judge also rapped police for seeking the court’s permission to take fingerprints of the accused, albeit after the investigation.

How the case fell apart:

1. Inconsistency in complainant Dharambir’s statement:

During the initial deposition before the court, he identified only three of the accused and failed to identify the fourth, who was also in court. In his first deposition, his version of the events, especially about the role played by each of the accused, differed from his earlier statement to police.

However, when put on the stand a second time, his testimony fell in line with the case being presented by the prosecution, leading the court to observe, “When prosecution grilled him, wisdom dawned upon him from somewhere and was able to specify and narrate each fact with complete precision. I’m not ready to believe that he had a poor memory…”

2. Inconsistency about the time of identification of the accused by the complainant, contradictory versions by policemen:

Police claimed that on the afternoon of April 4, 2013, Dharambir had visited the police station and identified all the accused, who were in police remand. But according to the investigating officer (IO), all the accused had been taken out of the lock-up in the morning, in an effort to recover the cash they had allegedly robbed, and brought back only at 10.30 pm. But another constable at the station, Praveen, claimed that the accused were back in lock-up by 9 pm, while head constable Balraj Singh said the police team had returned by 7 pm.

The court also pointed out that while the complainant claimed he had not visited the station between March 6, the day of the alleged incident, and April 4, police records show his statement was recorded on March 7. “…This clearly shows that this statement dated March 7 is sort of a self-created document,” stated the court.

3. The investigation officer kept the ‘seal’ of the case property

The possibility of evidence tampering could not be ruled out, said the court, asking why the IO had kept the ‘seal’ of the case property. “Interestingly, the IO has himself admitted in his cross-examination that he had not given his seal to any police officer after sealing the case property at respective places… He was the custodian of the case property and was also carrying the seal with him all along. Therefore, the possibility to tamper with the case property was there with him,” observed the court.

4. No registration of the case property

“For reasons best known to the investigating agency, no entries regarding the ‘malkhana’ (case property) register have been produced before the court…. The concerned ‘malkhana’ in-charge has not even been cited as a prosecution witness.”