Court pulls up Delhi police for shielding errant cop
The SI had falsely implicated, beaten up a mechanic in a theft case, in 1997
Even after a Delhi court ordered the Delhi Police to punish one of its own for beating a person in custody and falsely implicating him, the department is yet to take any action. After two such orders, the court has now pulled up Commissioner of Police, and asked him whether the department intends to take any action against the errant police inspector or not.
Tainted: The accused, sub-inspector Ram Phool, was then posted at
Defence Colony police station. Pic/Mid Day
In an incident that took place on 11 April, 1997, police received a call of theft from one Rakesh Kumar in Defence Colony area of south Delhi. A compressor had been stolen from an Ambassador car. Kumar, a mechanic, had a shop in Andrews Ganj market. Ram Phool, the then Sub-Inspector posted with the Defence Colony police station looked into the matter and arrested one Rahul Dev, a resident of Sangam Vihar, the same day. Police claimed to recover the compressor from him and that Dev had broken down during interrogation and confessed to the theft.
Cat out of the bag
Reportedly, during the interrogation, Dev was brutally beaten up by Ram Phool. He was then admitted to the AIIMS trauma centre with severe injuries. The police, however, failed to mention any injuries in the arrest memo and the sub-inspector denied Dev's allegations tooth and nail. Also, Ram Phool had gone with constable Fateh Khan to arrest Dev. Both the cops, however, gave contradictory statements regarding the arrest later. They couldn't even agree on the exact time of the arrest, in the court.
Later, the court acquitted Dev and castigated Delhi Police officials for trying to frame an innocent man. It then asked the police department to take appropriate action against Ram Phool. "Action should be taken against Ram Phool. It is a very serious matter, one which ought to be dealt with sternly by the Commissioner of Delhi Police, so that public at large doest not lose faith in the police administration," said the court in its order and demanded a status report within 10 days. No action was, however, taken.
Another order was then passed by the court, but to no avail. Finally, the court sent an order stating, "DCP Legal Cell seems not to be interested in punishing the guilty. Nonetheless, it is for the office of Commissioner of Police to decide whether they intend to take any action against the erring official or not." DCP legal Cell, Rajbir Singh Chauhan, was contacted but he was not available for the comments.