‘Investigation officer not serious from day one’: Delhi court acquits 3 men in 2009 acid attack case, flags ‘shoddy probe’

Speaking to The Indian Express last week, the woman, who is now 40, had said when she heard the verdict: “Tears started rolling down my eyes. I told the judge I don’t want your sympathy, I want justice.”

“This is a mockery of the justice system. My statements were completely ignored. I was so hopeful… I waited for 16 years,” she had said.

Pointing out various lapses in the investigation, ASJ Singh said, “It has emerged during trial that the IO (investigation officer)… was non serious from day one in investigating the matter. So much so that initially, in such a serious matter as acid attack, an untrace report was filed by the IO.”

The Judge added: “… for four years, the IO took no interest in finding the culprits and arresting them”.

The court also pulled up the police for not examining the purchase of the acid which was allegedly used in the acid attack. “No effort was made by IO to examine whether the acid was purchased (by the accused)… from Chopra chemical store,” ASJ Singh said.

Prem Kumar Chopra, owner of Chopra Chemicals, was identified by the prosecution as a witness who had allegedly sold acid to one of the accused persons. Chopra’s testimony couldn’t be recorded as he had passed away.

The court further said police made no effort to collect call records of the accused persons, which could have proven whether a conspiracy was in place.

“No effort was made by the IO to collect call detail records [of accused persons]… to seize their mobile phones to find out whether any electronic evidence existed in the form of audio call recording or location of the accused to show meeting of minds between them in alleged conspiracy… to throw acid upon the prosecutrix,” ASJ Singh said.

After pointing out these lacunae, the court directed Superintendent of Police, Panipat, to conduct an enquiry and to “fix the responsibility of erring police officials and to take action” against them.

In 2009, the victim had moved to Panipat after getting a job as a student counsellor at a college. She also enrolled in an MBA course. According to the prosecution, she was harassed at her workplace by the owner of the college and was subjected to threats.

She finally put in her papers on November 1, 2009, and was set to leave a month after serving her notice period. She was attacked just 11 days prior to her last working day at the college.

According to the prosecution, the owner of the college, his wife and two students planned and carried out the attack. One of the four accused, who was a juvenile, was convicted on December 18, 2015.

Other than admonishing the police, the court also pointed out the victim’s alleged reluctance to leave the job despite receiving threats. “… it is amply clear that despite the above possessive and aggressive behaviour of the accused… she continued to work (in the college),” said ASJ Singh.

He further said as per the victim’s own testimony, she was tolerating the extremely aggressive behaviour of the owner of the college who had allegedly resorted to beating the victim and injuring her.

“However, as per her own admission in the cross-examination, she did not complain nor disclose about the same to anyone… It is amply clear to the court that the accused… and the prosecutrix shared a deeply emotional relationship which was also complicated to say the least,” ASJ Singh said, calling the relationship of the two “beyond the arena of normal employer-employee relation”.

The victim had also alleged that the accused tried to rape her in 2009. “… In the considered opinion of this court, the prosecutrix had every opportunity to leave the job as well as leave Panipat City immediately after the alleged incident of attempt to rape. However she did not do so,” the court said.