New Delhi: It is a mistake that could cost careers, if not lives. The Delhi Police Special Cell has (inadvertently?) Included in its voluminous charge sheet in the Delhi riots ‘conspiracy’ case providing the full names and addresses of 15 ‘public witnesses’ whose identities Police say they require protection. In fact, the charge sheet uses pseudonyms whenever their statements are quoted, allegedly because they perceive a threat to their lives.
The 15 public witnesses, four Hindu and 11 Muslim, as it now appears based on their disclosed identities, have been copiously cited in the “final report” section of the charge sheet at FIR 59/20 using what the police call “pseudonyms” . : Beta, Range [sic], Delta, Eco, Golf, Hector, Jupiter, Leema [sic], Mike, Oscar, Alpha, Bravo, Omega, Victor and Charlie.
If indeed the witnesses have reason to fear the accused so much, the Delhi police officers who have revealed their names Y The addresses to the defendants, all of whom were given copies of the charge sheet, after they insisted on secrecy themselves have a lot to answer for.
The revelation, which causes consternation and joy, also raises questions about the credibility of the Delhi Police investigations and the quality of security it must provide in the national capital.
It is unclear whether the trial court has noticed this flourishing.
The February 2020 riots in Delhi lasted four days and resulted in the loss of 53 lives, including a police officer. Among the civilians killed, 40 were Muslims and 12 were Hindus. Most of the properties and all the places of worship that suffered severe damage from the violence belonged to Muslims.
Despite the clearly targeted nature of the violence and the role of Hindutva politicians in delivering inflammatory speeches in the run-up to the riots, Delhi police arrested several activists (mostly Muslim) involved in the peaceful protest against the citizenship (amendment) Act. In a 17,000-page charge sheet filed last month, he charged them with conspiracy to defame the country during US President Donald Trump’s visit to India.
In a request submitted to the Patiala House court in June, the Delhi Police Special Prosecutor said these witnesses “testified facts related to the broader conspiracy hatched by the arrested defendants and testified about [sic] the participation of some other people in addition to the detained defendants ”.
Delhi police request to the Patiala House court requesting that the identities of 15 public witnesses be kept confidential.
The court was informed that these witnesses “have expressed fear for their lives on the part of the accused, since they reside / work in the same locality or know each other, some of them expressed in writing about threats to their safety. For the purpose of their safety, these witnesses have been given pseudonyms to conceal their identity. “
Some of these witnesses have recorded statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while others have recorded Section 164 statements before a magistrate.
The police request, listed in the charge sheet documents, lists the witnesses in need of protection with their full names and addresses and the corresponding “pseudonym”.
Although the request says that “therefore, it is requested that the identity of the public witnesses mentioned above with pseudonyms, as mentioned with their names, be kept confidential during the proceedings of this case in accordance with article 44” of the Law (Prevention) of Illegal Activities.
The list of the 15 public witnesses. The wire has written up their names and addresses.
Although the charge sheet is a public document and copies are with all defendants and their attorneys, as well as the media and others, The wire it has redacted the names and addresses of the 15 ‘public witnesses’ to protect their identity and is also withholding information on the section of the charge sheet where the Delhi police special cell list has been reproduced.
Given the importance that the Delhi Police have attached to this case, the casual manner in which the identity of the secret witnesses was leaked is likely to raise questions not only about the competence of their investigation, but also about their direction.
If witnesses are so crucial, why have the police allowed their lives to be put at risk by revealing their identity on the charge sheet, which is essentially a public document? Or could this official disregard for the safety of these ‘witnesses’ be the product of the police’s belief in their limited usefulness, that their testimony is unreliable and will not stand up in a court of law?
Either way, the top commanders of the Delhi Police have to answer many questions.
Earlier on Wednesday The wire He drew the attention of Delhi Police Commissioner SN Shrivastava to what his force had done and asked him four questions:
1. Are you aware of the fact that … information [about the witnesses] Has it been released to the accused / made public by the Delhi police?
2. Is it the position of the Delhi Police that the 15 witnesses are no longer facing any threat and therefore this disclosure has been made?
3. In the event that the Delhi police still believe there is a threat, what steps do they intend to take to ensure the safety of the 15 public witnesses?
4. In the event that I still believe there is a threat, will the Delhi Police take disciplinary action against all police officers and prosecutors who approved the submission of this information on the charge sheet?
This story will be updated with Shrivastava’s responses as they are received.
.
