Kozhikode: Vadakara police, investigating the 'kafir screenshot' case, told the High Court on Friday that they have invoked charges of forgery in the case registered based on the complaint filed by MSF leader Muhammad Khasim P K.
Khasim's counsel, Adv Mohammed Shah, said the police incorporated the relevant charges after four months because of the court's intervention.
On April 25, the eve of the Lok Sabha election, the screenshot of a communal message was spread on pro-CPM Facebook pages and WhatsApp groups calling CPM candidate K K Shailaja an infidel (kafir) and sought votes for Congress candidate Shafi Parambil saying he "offered prayers five times a day". The message was purportedly authored by Khasim, the Kozhikode District Secretary of the Muslim Students Federation (MSF), the students' wing of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), and an ally of the Congress.
As soon as Khasim saw the message on a pro-CPM Facebook page, he approached the police with a complaint of forgery and an attempt to create hostility in society. However, the police did not register an FIR based on his complaint till a case was registered against Khasim based on a complaint filed by the CPM.
After a month, Khasim moved the High Court seeking a fair probe.
The police investigation has now reached the phone of Ribesh R S, the Vadakara Block Committee president of DYFI, the youth wing of the ruling CPM.
Despite a preliminary investigation finding that Khasim did not create the communal post, Vadakara Police did not invoke Section 468 (forgery for cheating) and Section 471 (using a forged document as genuine) of the IPC in the FIR for four months.
If convicted under these sections, the accused would face up to seven years in prison.
Khasim's counsel, Adv Shah, pointed out these lacunae in the investigation to the High Court on August 29, when his petition last came up for hearing.
The bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas asked the government to explain why the sections were not incorporated. The judge also asked the police why the stringent Section 153 A of the IPC (for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion) was not added in the FIR registered on Khasim's complaint. But the judge did not press it.
However, the judge pointed out that the police slapped Section 153 A of the IPC on Khasim in another FIR registered on a complaint filed by a CPM leader. "Based on a complaint by another person related to the same issue, you added Section 153 A," Justice Thomas told the Additional Public Prosecution P Narayanan.
The prosecutor tried to wriggle out by saying that Khasim's original complaint did not mention crimes that warranted these sections. The judge then read out the complaint filed by Khasim in court, and Khasim had raised the issue of spreading communal disharmony in society.
The judge also hinted that the police did not question a key person during the investigation. "One thing I will point out to them (the prosecution/police). They have not questioned one person. A person who could possibly give some more information. But he is not questioned," said Justice Bechu.
After going through the case diaries, he pointed out that the police also did not impound the phone of a key person. "There is one phone which I think should have been sent for forensic examination, which they have not done. I don't want to say that now," the judge told in the court on August 29.
Adv Shah pressed the court to direct the police to invoke sections related to forgery and attempt to destroy the communal harmony in society.
He also told the court that the police did not register an FIR on Khasim's complaint even though he was the first to report to police that his name was being misused in the purportedly forged screenshot. Police later registered a second FIR on the same issue based on a complaint similar to Khasim's, but Khasim was not given the benefit of being the complainant.
On September 6, the police submitted a report saying they had added charges of forgery to the case registered on Khasim's complaint. However, the judge asked the prosecution why Khasim was not shown as the complainant in the case. The case will come up for hearing on Monday, September 9, when the petition will likely be closed.