New Delhi, January 7: TEN months back, a Sessions Court acquitted the five accused in the murder of Outlook journalist Irfan for lack of evidence, pointing out that there had been lapses in the investigation. Till now, even as a fresh appeal in the case awaits admission in the High Court, no steps have been recommended against the three police stations connected to the case.
The case dates back to March 8, 1999, when Irfan was killed during a robbery near Ghazipur. On March 31 last year, all five accused were acquitted for lack of evidence. The prosecution, as per the verdict, had “not been able to link the accused with the commission of the crime beyond reasonable doubtâ€. The court had then blamed the police stations for botching the case, suggesting one police station should have taken up the case and carried out the investigations.
All five accused had criminal records and numerous cases registered against them. Four of them were even co-accused in two similar robbery and murder cases in South Delhi. One of the cases is under trial.
Shortly after the verdict, the prosecution directorate refused to contest the case, saying it did not merit an appeal in the High Court. The Chief Prosecutor in-charge at Karkardooma, Y P Singh Ahluwalia, said, “The case has been weakened considerably at the investigation stage itself. There is little left for the prosecution to contest.’’ Undeterred, Irfan’s family and the magazine he worked for went for an appeal, which is yet to be admitted in the High Court.
Meanwhile, the role of the three police stations, which investigated the case independently — and, as the court and the prosecution agreed, messed it up — was never probed
The day following Irfan’s disappearance, the Sarojini Nagar police station filed a missing person complaint lodged by his wife, but later changed it to kidnapping. The Kalyanpuri police filed a murder case after the cartoonist’s body was found near Ghazipur Dairy on March 13. Meanwhile, the Krishna Nagar police also filed a robbery and murder case.
All the three investigations proceeded separately and produced conflicting evidence, which not only complicated the trial but also weakened the prosecution’s case. The confusion led to key witness Banwari Lal denying in the court that the journalist’s bag, allegedly abandoned by the murderers in a field, was found by the police in his presence.
During the investigation, the case records were transferred from one police station to another, and the accused, in the meantime, allegedly took the victim’s stolen car to Anantnag, in Jammu and Kashmir. Later, though the car was traced, the police failed to establish that the accused had committed the crime. Only on December 14, 1999, more than nine months after the murder, the accused were arrested. During the trial, the prosecution and also the court questioned this delay in investigation and arrests, but no action was taken against the involved police stations.
The absence of eyewitnesses played a major role in weakening the case. The police based their investigations solely on circumstantial evidence and the confession of the accused, as well as the statements of witnesses at the spot at the time of seizures. These witnesses, however, later retracted their statements.
