A court here has pulled up Delhi Police over an alleged incident of dog fight staged by police officials at the residence of a robbery suspect in Rohini area of the city, in which his pet dog was severely wounded and later succumbed to its injuries, and asked to file an FIR against the officials concerned.
The suspect’s family had released a video of the incident that took place on December 8 which went viral on social media. As the matter reached the higher-ups, a probe was ordered.
Later, the Metropolitan Magistrate of Rohini Court also ordered an inquiry to be conducted by Joint CP, Northern range of the Delhi Police.
In the latest order, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Babru Bhan noted that the court has found truth in allegations of the complainant against the accused.
Further, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) of Rohini district to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) against the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) and erring police personnel for offences under sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 342(Wrongful confinement), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (intending to insult the modesty of any woman), 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 429 (Mischief by killing or maiming cattle), 166 (Public servant disobeying law) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other relevant provisions.
“Since the FIR is directed to be registered against the concerned SHO, therefore, the concerned Joint Commissioner of Police (CP) shall ensure that investigation is conducted by such an agency and officer that fairness in the process of investigation can be ensured,” the court said.
The matter has been listed for filing a compliance report on January 3, 2022. In the order, it was stated that it is apparent that neither the accused was arrested at the time nor in the manner alleged by the police. “Further, the injuries are apparently a result of calculated assault after overpowering the accused,” the court said.
The audio-video clip shared by the wife of the accused clearly belies the theory of a stray dog entering the house of the accused and fighting their dog, the court noted and pointed out that the video shows a furious dog being incited by some persons in police uniform.”
Some females of the house can be heard begging for mercy. So, the explanation put forth by the police is not in consonance with the material produced by the complainant i.e. the wife of the accused and the visuals in the video and medical records,” the order said.
“Whatever may be the argument, if police resorts to violence to apprehend the accused and adopts custodial atrocities to gather evidence, it is accountable for the violation of fundamental rights as law nowhere permits custodial atrocities for the purpose of collection of evidence during the investigation,” it contended.
The court noted that the bruises on parts of the accused were so serious that the same was present even on December 16. It said that such injuries cannot be caused in a free fight, as alleged by the police.
“Such injuries are possible only when someone is completely overpowered and blows with a blunt object are repeatedly given at the same spot, which is not possible in one-to-one fight, ” the court said.
According to police, on December 8, they reached the house of the suspect at around 10:11 p.m., but the family was not even answering the door to let them enter. “The robbery suspect was present inside the house but the family was repeatedly denying it,” police said. Later, they entered the house after much effort and apprehended him.
In the meanwhile, one stray dog also entered the house and the dogs started fighting, and thereafter, the dogs ran away. After all the efforts, the accused was apprehended at 03.00 a.m. He was brought to Police Station and arrested at 06.30 a.m.,” the police stated.
However, the court noted that the SHO had admitted the fact before the Duty MM during judicial proceedings that the accused was apprehended at 11.00 pm on December 8, 2021. At this juncture, this court has no reason to ignore the said judicial record,the order copy read.