Introduction
In a strongly worded judgement delivered by the Delhi High Court Justice Anup Bhambhani on July 23, the court minced no words as it questioned the investigation done by the Delhi Police and ordered the transfer of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) citing tardy and sketchy conduct of the former. In a case relating to the death of one Faizan, the victim of 2020 Delhi violence, who was beaten by a mob dressed in police uniform and later alleged to have been tortured in police custody at Jyoti Nagar police station, the case now stands transferred out of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Delhi Police, and has been handed over to the CBI for further investigation and prompt action. The petition was filed by the mother of the deceased, Kismatun, and was argued by advocate Vrinda Grover for the petitioner.
Notably, Faizan had succumbed to his injuries on the intervening night of February 26 and 27, 2020 while being treated at Lok Nayak Hospital in New Delhi. An FIR (No. 75/2020) was registered against his death at Bhajanpura Police Station on February 28, 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against unknown persons. Furthermore, while the FIR was registered on February 28, the Crime Branch took the statement of her mother almost 3 weeks later, on March 18. The case became sensational in the backdrop of 2020 Delhi Violence after a video went viral on the social media, in which a group of men dressed in police uniform could be been beating Faizan with their batons and forcing him sing National Anthem even as they questioned his patriotism.
The High Court observed that “the Crime Branch of Delhi Police examined the petitioner for the first time only on 18.03.2020. More than 4½ years have elapsed since. However, not even one of the policemen involved in the abuse and assault has been conclusively identified in the course of the investigation so far. The perpetrators of the crime are therefore still at large, though they are all members of the police force in Delhi.”
Facts of the case
Faizan, a 23-year-old young man, had left his home on February 24, 2020 to search for his mother, Kismatun, who had been protesting along with other women against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). When his mother retuned back home, she did not find Faizan around, and in the meantime, the communal violence had broken out in their area. Later, it was learnt that Faizan along with other Muslim men had been beaten and dumped near the street by the police forces who forced them to sing National Anthem (though the prosecution version alleged that they had rescued Faizan as he was injured due to stone pelting when the riots broke out in the area). Subsequently, the police personnel from Jyoti Nagar police station took the men, along with Faizan, to GTB hospital for medico-legal check-up (incidentally, the men were under the jurisdiction of Bhajanpura Police Station when they were taken away by the Jyoti Nagar police personnel).
While at GTB hospital, Faizan received basic medical aid, including stitches on his head and ear, and was referred by the hospital for a further specialised medical treatment. His mother alleged that on the same day, i.e., 24.02.2020, upon receiving the information that Faizan had been at GTB hospital, they visited the hospital at 8PM but were informed that the police had taken back the men to Jyoti Nagar police station after ensuring basic medical treatment. What happened to Faizan at the police station is a matter of dispute, with the petitioner alleging that Faizan had been tortured at the station by men in uniform even while denying him urgent special medical treatment as was recommended by GTB hospital due to which his son succumbed to his injuries later on. The police version claimed that Faizan had voluntarily stayed at the station as the situation was communally tense in his area after the outbreak of the riots, and no harm was done to him at the station; nonetheless, it did not deny the video in which Faizan was earlier shown being beaten up by the men in uniform before being taken to the hospital and subsequently to the police station. The mother had questioned the police claim about his son allegedly voluntarily staying at the police station and said that she had visited the Jyoti Nagar police station on February 24 itself, but was not provided any helpful response. Importantly, all the CCTVs were out of order in Jyoti Nagar Police Station during the time of Faizan’s custody, the fact which both the petitioner and the court found suspicious. While Faizan was finally handed over to his mother on February 25 late night, he was found severely wounded, with torn trousers, blood-soaked clothes, and multiple stiches around his head and ear. He was admitted to Lok Nayak hospital the very next day, i.e., on February 26, where he later succumbed to his injuries.
High Court Judgement
Justice Anup Bhambhani posed multiple queries on the conduct of investigation and countered the claims made by Delhi Police on several fronts. The court said that it took almost 3 weeks upon registration of the FIR for the police to record the statement of the petitioner (victim’s mother) and collect the blood-stained, torn clothes worn by Faizan at the time of the incident. Further, the police have failed to take the statement of the witness, Kausar Ali, who was another injured victim and eye-witness to the incident. As per Ali, the police had started beating Faizan and other men without any provocation, and mocked at the victims while questioning their patriotism merely on the basis of their religious identity even as they laid severely injured on the roadside. Significantly, the Delhi Court High pointed out that “the police have failed to even identify the policemen who had humiliated and brutally assaulted Faizan (and four other young men), as plainly visible in the video-footage available in the public domain.” The verdict also observed that no action has been taken against police personnel at Jyoti Nagar police station where Faizan was illegally detained and denied urgent medical intervention, which resulted in his death.
The judgement further brought attention to the issue raised by the petitioner, which questioned the claim of the police that no CCTV footage is available to trace gypsy in which Faizan was picked up, even though the route in question would have several commercial establishments, petrol pumps, and DMRC metro stations. On the malfunctioning of the CCTVs inside the police station premises, the court cited Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Ors., which says that “It shall be the duty and obligation of the SHO to immediately report to the DLOC any fault with the equipment or malfunctioning of CCTVs. If the CCTVs are not functioning in a particular police station, the SHO concerned shall inform the DLOC of the arrest/interrogations carried out in that police station during the said period and forward the said record to the DLOC”. In this regard, the verdict notes that the police took a very convenient stand, presenting a fait-accompli, which does not inspire confidence and cannot be countenanced. Moreover, the claim made by the police that Faizan stayed at the station at his own will was found counter-intuitive, and the court reasoned if that was the case, he would have at least informed about his whereabout to his family. The verdict also commented that if Faizan was already severely injured why would he be kept at the police station, even at his own request and safety?
Significantly, Justice Bhambhani countered the narrative of the Delhi Police, which claimed that it has not been able to identify the guilty personnel. The judge said that, as per the narrative, “SHO, P.S.: Jyoti Nagar took the injured young men to GTB Hospital in a police Gypsy but that the said police officer has been unable to identify any of the policemen who were involved in the abuse and assault.” He further said that putting the said SHO to polygraph test only now, after 4 years, is not suggestive of the investigation and promptitude. The verdict emphasised that none of the accused have been identified till date even though the Investigating Officer “informs the court that they have identified a head constable and a constable who were present at the spot, as possible suspects, it is their case that the said two policemen have given deceptive responses in their polygraph tests…”.
The judgment recognised the present case as an instance of hate crime and citing the judicial precedent in Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India &Ors, it remarked, “It must be understood that mob-vigilantism and mob-violence do not cease to be so merely because these are perpetrated, not by ordinary citizens, but by policemen themselves. If anything, the element of abomination gets aggravated if hate-crime is committed by persons in uniform.” The verdict further underscored the importance of fair investigation, and said that “a fair investigation, and not just a fair trial, is now considered part of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Relying on the judicial precedents concerning fair trial and investigation in Bharati Tamang vs. Union of India, Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, and Awungshi Chirmayo & Anr. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court transferred the case registered under FIR No. 75/2020 at Bhajanpura Police Station to the CBI as it reasoned that the perpetrators of the offence are themselves members of the agency that is investigating the crime, and this does not inspire confidence.
Today, the court rejected Delhi Police’s plea to put the order in abeyance but it extended the time for transfer of the investigation to CBI from 7 days to 14 days.
The High Court judgement may be read here:
Related:
With Delhi Violence Cases Caving in, Who Will Fix Police Accountability for Lying on Oath?
Delhi violence 2020: 4 years on, the shadow of violence lives on
Delhi violence hate platforms? TV channels ‘incited’ communal strife, alleges report