Act against probe officer for destruction of evidence, court tells police chief

A SPECIAL court has directed the commissioner of police to initiate action against an investigating officer of the Delhi Police for alleged “destruction of evidence” in a case where two persons were accused of assaulting a man with a sharp-edged weapon.

Ordering the commissioner to take action, special judge Parveen Singh said there had been “dereliction of duty” by the IO, “who had collected call detail records” of suspects in the case “but did not attach them with the case files as if they were his personal property”.

“I direct that a copy of this order be placed before commissioner of police, Delhi, who shall take action against IO, Inspector Satyapal Singh, for mishandling/destruction of evidence,” Singh said.

Thedirectioncomesina2005 case, wherein a resident of south Delhi, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, had moved the sessions court challenging a trial court order, which had rejected his plea for further investigation in the matter.

According to police, Gupta, his younger brother and his daughter were “attacked with a sharp-edged weapon” near Tilak Marg police station by “two unknown persons”. Gupta had claimed he chased the attackers’ motorcycle but could not catch them. Gupta’s brother was rushed to AIIMS, where he was declared brought dead.

Gupta had moved the sessions court on the grounds that the trial court “failed to appreciate the fact that the IO had investigated the matter without collecting all evidences, and further that the IO had not carried out investigation properly”.

Gupta claimed that his family had received threats from a subtenant, to whom they had earlier rented out a shop. He alleged he had given the suspects’ name to the IO, but he “did not investigate about the suspects and filed an untraced report”.

Gupta also argued that the IO did not collect CDRS of the suspects from 2005, and had only collected CDRS from 2012, which “would not reveal anything”.

While the sessions court rejected Gupta’s plea for further probe, it also noted, “I find that there there is dereliction of duty by the IO, who had collected the CDRS but did not attach them with the case file as if they were his personal property.”

Itsaidthatthe“cdrshadbeen collectedandanalysed,asisvisible fromthecasediary”but“thecomplainant cannot seek further investigation on this ground”. “Secondly, even if the matter is remanded back for further probe, it will not be possible to obtain CDRS of 2005,” the court said.

“Just because the complainant feels that investigation had not been done in the manner which the complainant had wanted, and unless the complainant shows something more than mere suspicion against any of the suspects which would warrant the court’s intervention, I do not find that the matter can be remanded back for further probe,” the court said.