Panipat court holds cop guilty of ‘hiding evidence’ in murder case

Panipat additional sessions judge Amit Garg has recommended “action” against Haryana police inspector Ankit, who as the investigating officer (IO) of a murder case, had attempted to hide electronic evidence of the crime scene with “mala fide intention”.

While passing strictures on inspector Ankit, who was posted as the station house officer (SHO) of Chandnibagh police station of Panipat in September 2020, the additional sessions judge, Panipat, in an August 16 ruling recommended “suitable action” against the cop so that he may “perform his duties in a better way” in future.

The court exposed the IO’s role while convicting Harish and Suraj and awarding them seven-year jail in the case registered under Sections 148, 302 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC at Chandnibagh police station on September 21, 2020.

“This court feels the pain for the cause of justice when important investigation in death cases, like the present case, is assigned to the IO like PW-12 (inspector Ankit) who try to change the truth with their high-handedness and mala fide intention,” the judge stated in the 36-page ruling.

The order stated that the “gross negligence, carelessness or mala fide intention, whatever it is,” on the part of IO inspector Ankit “cannot be described in words.”

As per the ruling, the allegation of the accused was that the IO was supplied a copy of a CCTV footage that had captured the crime. The electronic evidence proved involvement of only two accused, Suraj and Harish, in the incident.

“...but the IO intentionally did not make the footage part of the challan so as to implicate the other accused in the present case,” the court has ruled.

“This allegation seems to be true as inspector Ankit gave evasive and illogical replies during his cross-examination when he was asked whether he obtained the CCTV footage of the incident or not...”

The court stated that it was unbelievable that the IO was not in the knowledge of the footage of the incident captured by CCTV cameras whereas the same was produced on record by the accused and admitted to be true by the complainant.

THE CASE

All the accused were residents of Jagjiwan Ram Colony, Panipat, and the victim Sameer, son of Hanif, had succumbed to stab injuries, inflicted using a screwdriver, in a scuffle.

The prosecution examined 17 witnesses who said that one of the accused Suraj was carrying a screwdriver with him. Inspector Ankit was examined during the trial and stated that complainant did not bring to his knowledge that CCTV cameras were installed in their house.

The allegations against the accused were that they caused bodily injuries to Sameer with sticks and sharp-edged weapons and caused his death.

However, as per the ruling, one of the witnesses admitted that CCTV cameras were installed at their house and that the incident was captured in CCTV cameras.

“The careful perusal of footage...captured by the CCTV cameras installed in the house of complainant, reveals that the incident did occur but not in the manner as alleged by prosecution...It is evident from the footage...that accused Suraj and Harish are seen coming in front of the house of deceased Sameer armed with sticks but the presence of the other accused at the place of occurrence...is highly doubtful....the deceased was caught hold by accused Suraj and Harish and a scuffle took place between them,” reads the ruling.

The court stated that the footage further clarified the fact that the motive of accused was to beat Sameer and not to cause his death.

“Even the accused Harish and Suraj were not armed with a screwdriver,” the ruling says, adding it was deceased Sameer, who after rescuing himself from the clutches of the accused, took a screwdriver from one shop and tried to inflict injuries upon the accused with the said screwdriver.

“When again a scuffle took place, the deceased received injuries with that screwdriver in his chest which ultimately proved fatal,” the court held, adding the prosecution exaggerated the story and falsely implicated other accused in this case despite the fact that none of them was seen in the footage while beating or causing any injury to the deceased Sameer.

“...witnesses also told lies that the accused were armed with sharp-edged weapons whereas no sharp-edged weapon is seen in the hands of accused Suraj and Harish in the footage.”