Questioning the police for putting a wrong man on trial in a rape case,a Delhi court has asked the city’s North West district deputy commissioner of police (DCP) to take action against the erring officials for it.
Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau also directed the DCP to hold an in-house inquiry to ascertain as to how a wrong man was booked for the offence of rape instead of the actual culprit.
“The DCP concerned is directed to take necessary action against the erring officers for their failure to get the identity of the accused cross-checked / established from the victim before filing the charge sheet in the court,” the judge said.
The matter came to light at the time of recording of the statement of the victim who refused to identify the person facing trial as the real accused and told the judge that the one who had raped her was standing outside the court room and had threatened her not to depose in the case.
The court pulled up the investigating officer (IO) in the case for not cross checking the identity of the accused through the statutory Test Identification Parade (TIP).
“On the face of it,either Jai Kumar has been falsely implicated on mistaken identity perhaps only to work out the case or a deliberate attempt has been made to divert the allegations from Dinesh to Jai Kumar and perhaps it is for this reason that no identification was got conducted. It is this which makes the court suspect the intent of investigating agency and the fairness of the investigation,” ASJ Lau said.
The police had produced before the court one Jai Kumar who was in jail since December 2011 and was facing trial in the case instead of another Jai Kumar alias Dinesh.
Dinesh was arrested after the last hearing of the case when the victim apprised the court about the identity of the accused.
The court said it was necessary for the IO to have Jai Kumar’s TIP done before the victim but the record revealed that at no point of time the officer bothered to get it done.
“A million dollar question which now arises is as to why was it that the IO did not bother to cross check the identity by putting the accused to the victim for identification,” it
The court observed that life and liberty of an individual is most “sacrosanct” and cannot be taken away by the state in the manner as done by the police in this case.
The judge also noted that Jai Kumar was arrested by building pressure on him by getting coercive process issued against him from the court. Due to this pressure,Jai Kumar had surrendered before the police.
The court granted bail to Jai Kumar who said he was implicated in the case by police and the victim had not identified him as one of the assailants.