The Delhi High Court on Monday sought a status report from the Delhi Police seeking details on how they had preserved two volumes of case diaries in the probe against activist Devangana Kalita, an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots, by the Jafrabad police station.
The Delhi High Court on December 2 directed that the police preserve the case diaries in the Jafrabad case, particularly two specific volumes of it, volume No. 9,989 and volume No. 9,990. The direction by the Delhi High Court had come in a plea by Kalita, who also stands as one of the accused in the larger conspiracy case of the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
Kalita and activist Natasha Narwal are accused in an FIR registered at the Jafrabad police station for being among those who organised an anti-CAA protest and road blockade under the Jafrabad Metro station on February 22-23, 2020. The protest prompted a pro-CAA rally by the BJP’s Kapil Mishra and his supporters on February 23, and a day later, riots broke out in the district.
Kalita, in her plea, is seeking setting aside of a judicial magistrate first class (JMFC) order of Shahdara, Karkardooma court in Delhi from November 6, 2024, where the court refused to delve into allegations by Kalita of the police tampering and antedating Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) section 161 statements (examination of witnesses by police) which were part of the case diary and which were filed with the main as well as supplementary chargesheets in the case. Kalita also sought the preservation and reconstruction of the case diary.
Kalita’s counsel Adit Pujari relied on CrPC section 172 (1-A), an amended provision of the earlier provision of CrPC section 172 (1), which states that statements of witnesses recorded under CrPC section 161 during the course of the investigation should be inserted in the case diary. Kalita told the court on Monday that with antedated statements, the police were “trying to get over the bar” on the statements recorded later, as not being relied on and instead to use the same as part of the case records.
On January 10, Kalita, before a magistrate court in Shahdara, questioned whether the police had complied with the Delhi High Court’s December order. Special Public Prosecutor Anuj Handa submitted that the JMFC court in Shahdara had already retained the case diary in the form of a police file.
On Monday in the high court, Justice Vikas Mahajan, however, noted that the “SPP has not clarified in what manner the two volumes have been preserved in their entirety”. The high court directed the police to file a status report to this effect by the next hearing date, January 31.
Kalita had first raised the allegations of tampering with records before the magistrate court and sought that the court secure the complete booklet pertaining to the relevant case diaries. The JMFC court had opined that while the allegation “raises suspicion on the version of the investigation agency” and “while there may be merits” in the allegations raised by Kalita, it had, however, ruled that the court “cannot go into the truthfulness and veracity of the allegations”.
The magistrate court had further recorded that the issue raised pertains to procedural aspect and that CrPC section 161 statements are “not even substantive piece of evidence,” and thus ruled that there was “no requirement” of calling for the booklets. If tampering is proven in the case diaries, it may be an available ground for Kalita to seek discharge from the offences.
Discover the Benefits of Our Subscription!
Stay informed with access to our award-winning journalism.
Avoid misinformation with trusted, accurate reporting.
Make smarter decisions with insights that matter.
Choose your subscription package