www.expressindia.com - Weather | Horoscope | Stocks | RSS
expressindia web city
HomeBlogsCricketAstrology TendersClassifieds Reader Comments Hotels
Sign In / Register | Archive
Expressindia » Story

Accuser accused, policemen punished, case goes on

Font Size

Sahim Salim

Posted: Feb 04, 2008 at 2332 hrs IST

New Delhi, February 3 This has all the makings of a Bollywood comedy: a convict allegedly complains against the complainant; the latter demands a probe; on basis of the probe, a police officer and his three men are transferred; still, the police give contradictory statements and the case drags on in courts.

The court concerned is the Delhi High Court and the matter is anything but comic — at least for the one at the receiving end.

It all began on an October evening in 2002, when two shopkeepers caught a man trying to make off with a can of juice. One of them was Mohinder Singh, a retired government servant.

When Newsline visited him, 69-year-old Singh was sitting in his D-55, South Extension 1 shop — the very site, where he had caught the thief six years ago.

Wrinkling his face in thought, Singh recollects: “We were at the shop, when I saw this shady looking man, with his hands behind his back. I confronted him, found the can in his hand and asked him for an explanation.”

The man, Anirudh Chakraborty, tried to flee.

Police say that Singh, along with some residents, forcibly stopped him. In the process, Chakraborty tripped and hit his head on a bench. He was taken to a local court, fined and sentenced to six months in jail.

But a surprise was in store for the Singhs. His son, Manjeet Singh (33), was shocked when he came to know that Chakraborty had accused him of hitting him on the head with an iron rod.

Though a medical examination revealed it was an “injury due to accident”, the Kotla Mubarakpur police went ahead anyway and registered a case under Section 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) against Manjeet.

Manjeet Singh immediately filed a complaint with the Delhi Police Vigilance Branch against then SHO of Kotla Mubarakpur, Ashok Kumar and three Sub-Inspectors, including the Investigating Officer of the case, SI Sandeep Sharma.

“I had earlier filed a complaint against SI Sharma with the Vigilance and he had a grudge against me,” he says.

The report of the Vigilance inquiry that followed also observed this. “The direction issued by then SHO, Ashok Kumar, points a finger of suspicion towards him because he knew Singh had made a complaint against SI Sharma,” it said.

The report recommended that the case against Manjeet Singh be withdrawn and accordingly it was placed before the Screening Committee.

But before the Screening Committee issued a directive, the Limited Trial Court fined Singh junior to the tune of Rs 500 under Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt).

Singh immediately appealed in the High Court.

While the hearing was on at the High Court, on April 1, 2004, on basis of the Vigilance inquiry report, the Commissioner of Police ordered the transfer of Ashok Kumar and ordered that the case against Singh be withdrawn.

But the case is still pending in the Delhi High Court.

Singh senior, who retired from government service in the early ’90s, says: “My son has been going to the High Court for the past four years. The police sent us letters saying that the SHO did not carry out the investigations properly and was even transferred. But even so, the case is dragging on.”

Almost as an afterthought he adds, “But what has to be done will be done. We have to clear our good name.”

Discuss this story on expressindia forums
Post Comments
Name* Email ID*
Subject* Country*
Message*
Characters remaining
 
TERMS OF USE: The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
I agree to the terms of use.

Latest News

Business

Showbiz

Sports

Rushdie cancels India visit, says 'paid assassins' out to kill him

Narendra Modi takes Sadbhavna Mission to Godhra

Age row: SC dismisses appeal supportive of Army chief's view

Law Commission for making honour killings non-bailable offence

Oz MP tells immigrants to learn English to stop racism

Uma Bharti's comments on Rahul not important: Azad

Digvijay rubbishes reports of quitting as UP poll in-charge

More
© 2011 The Indian Express Limited. All rights reserved
Advertise With Us | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Express Group | Site Map