Court asks police authorities to check malpractices in force

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Jan 24 2014 | 5:23 PM IST
Unhappy with the probe in a robbery case, a court here said it had put a "serious question mark" on functioning of Delhi Police and asked senior officials to take steps to check any "malpractices" in the force.
The court's observation came in a judgement acquitting two persons of charges of voluntarily causing hurt to a man and robbing him here in April 2011.
It said victim Lalu Gautam did not identify the accused -- Aftab and Sanjay -- and also testified that the mobile phone, allegedly recovered from them, did not belong to him.
"When victim (Gautam) neither identified the accused as the assailants in this incident of robbery and nor did he identify mobile phone allegedly recovered from accused Aftab ..., the entire prosecution story becomes doubtful and rather it creates serious question mark on functioning and proceeding of Police," District Judge J R Aryan said.
"It needs to be taken care by senior police authorities. Accordingly, copy of this judgement be sent to DCP/ Additional CP, North East District to take steps to check any malpractice if prevailing in police force," the court said.
According to police, on April 5, 2011 Gautam was robbed and assaulted by three persons, including a juvenile, at Yamuna Vihar here.
The police claimed that while on night patrolling in the area on April 5, 2011, they heard noises from the spot and saw that three boys, including a juvenile, were assaulting Gautam.
Gautam's mobile phone was found in possession of Aftab, it said, adding, proceedings against the juvenile were referred to the Juvenile Justice Board.
During the trial, Gautam did not support the prosecution's story and told the court that three boys had robbed him on April 5, 2011 and he had gone to Gokalpuri Police Station here and had lodged a complaint in this regard.
However, recording of Gautam's statement could not be concluded by the court as he did not appear before it later.
The court acquitted both the accused saying, "testimony of victim falsify the prosecution case itself".
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jan 24 2014 | 5:23 PM IST

Next Story