Court pulls up Delhi Police for dog fight at suspect’s house

New Delhi, December 24

A court here pulled up the Delhi Police over an alleged incident of dog fighting by police officers at the residence of a robbery suspect in the city’s Rohini area, in which their pet dog was seriously injured and later killed. died, and asked for directions to register an FIR against the officials concerned

The family of the suspect had released a video of the incident on December 8 which went viral on social media. When the matter reached the higher level, an inquiry was ordered.

Later, the Metropolitan Magistrate of Rohini Court also ordered a probe by the Joint CP of Northern Range of Delhi Police.

In the latest order, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Babru Bhan said that the court has found truth in the allegations of the complainant against the accused.

Further, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) of Rohini district to register an FIR under sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 342 against the station house officer (SHO) concerned and the erring police personnel. (wrongful confinement), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (intent to outrage the modesty of any woman), 354 (assault or criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 429 (killing or crippling an animal) 166 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other relevant provisions (public servant disobeying law).

“Since it has been directed to register an FIR against the SHO concerned, the concerned Joint Commissioner of Police (CP) shall ensure that the investigation is conducted by such agency and officer so as to ensure fairness in the process of investigation.” The court said.

The matter has been listed for filing of compliance report on January 3, 2022. The order said that it is clear that neither the accused was arrested at that time nor in the manner alleged by the police. “Moreover, the injuries are clearly the result of a well-planned assault on the accused,” the court said.

The audio-video clip shared by the wife of the accused categorically refutes the theory of a stray dog ​​entering the accused’s house and fighting with his dog, the court noted and pointed out that the video shows a raging dog by some persons. is being provoked. Police uniform.” Some women of the house can be heard begging for mercy. Therefore, the explanation given by the police is not in line with the material furnished by the complainant i.e. the accused’s wife and the scene in the video and medical records,” the order said. he said.

“Whatever the argument, if the police resort to violence to nab the accused and commit custodial torture to collect evidence, it amounts to violation of fundamental rights as the law is nowhere near to collect evidence during investigation. does not allow custodial torture for the purpose of,” it argued.

The court observed that the injury marks on the limbs of the accused were so severe that he was present even on December 16. She said such injuries could not have happened in a free fight, as alleged by the police.

“Such injuries are possible only when one is completely dominant and the same point is repeatedly hit with a blunt object, which is not possible in a face-to-face fight,” the court said.

According to the police, they reached the suspect’s house at around 10:11 pm on December 8, but the family did not even answer the door to let them in. “The robbery suspect was present inside the house but the family was repeatedly denying it,” police said. Later, after much effort, they entered the house and caught him.

Meanwhile, a stray dog ​​also entered the house and the dogs started beating and after that the dogs ran away. After all the efforts, the accused was caught at 3 in the morning and brought to the police station and arrested at 6.30 in the morning.

However, the court noted that the SHO had admitted to the fact before the duty MM during the judicial proceedings that the accused was arrested on December 8, 2021 at 11.00 pm. At this stage, this Court has no reason to ignore the said judicial record. Read the order copy.