Delhi Riots: Police Arrest 5 Based on One Confession, Register 4 Identical FIRs on One Incident

A lawyer privy to the case has raised questions about how the person giving the confession was arrested after two others who were named in the confession.

New Delhi: While many complainants have struggled to file or have the accused named in First Information Reports, in connection with the riots that occurred in North East Delhi, an analysis of the charge-sheets and FIRs by a national daily on the other hand, has revealed that four of them were identical and allegedly pertained to just one incident.

report in The Hindu said that four FIRs and their corresponding charge-sheets were found to be identical and pertaining to a case of rioting and damage to property in Jafrabad. The police, in connection with these cases, also arrested five persons – Gulfam alias Sonu Chikna, Osama, Atir, Shan Mohammed alias Shanu, and Zarif alias Mota – on the basis of a “confession” by just one person, Gulfam, who himself was arrested in a case of rioting.

Going into the details of the FIRs, the report said in one of them, No. 112, the complainant, Balbir Singh of Ghonda village, said that he found his T-210 Maujpur Main Road property near Victor Public School burnt down when he returned to it after a day’s gap on February 25. He estimated the loss to be around Rs 8-12 lakhs.

Similarly, in FIR No. 113, the complainant, Lalit Kumar, claimed that he had suffered a loss of Rs 8-10 lakh arising from damage caused to his property, No. T-209B; in FIR No. 107, the complainant Sheesh Pal, claimed an estimated loss of Rs 7-10 lakh for damage to his property at T-209B; and in FIR No. 106, complainant Rakesh Kumar stated the loss was Rs 8-10 lakh. The report said all these complaints were related to each other.

Watch | Why a Lawyer Representing Delhi Riots Victims Has Questioned Police Probe

Going into the charge-sheets, the report said one of them had quoted complainant Lalit Kumar as having said that while leaving the street on February 24 he saw and heard some of the rioters discussing how they would commit arson and that he could even identify them. The charge-sheet also spoke about how a sub-inspector, who was investigating FIR No. 50, that pertained to riots near Cresent Public School, had arrested Gulfam.

It stated that Gulfam in his “confession” said he, along with Osama and Atir, was involved in riots and arson near the Victor Public School. The charge-sheet also stated that he led the police to a Jaffrabad street where Atir and Osama were standing, leading to their arrest.

The police claimed that Atir and Osama had further disclosed the involvement of Shan Mohammed and Zarif in the violence. The charge-sheet said Shan and Arif were arrested by the Welcome Police Station personnel in another case on April 7 and were subsequently arrested in this case on April 8 and 9 respectively, when they were in judicial custody.

Lawyers privy to the case have already pointed out the discrepancies in the police’s theory. As per the report, one lawyer questioned as to how the police in FIR No. 50 had stated that Gulfam was arrested at 7.10 pm and in earlier charge-sheets noted that the other two – Atir and Osama – were held at 6.10 pm. “If Gulfam was arrested at 7.10 p.m., how could Osama and Atir be arrested on his instance an hour earlier?” he told The Hindu.

However, the report said that in the four charge-sheets, Gulfam’s time of arrest has been shown to be 4 pm.