‘Custodial murder’: Mother of man forced to sing anthem during Delhi riots

When the court queried about the status of the investigation, Prasad submitted that it is ongoing and the reason for this is that the "video footage retrieved from social media the pixel quality is very bad", hence it cannot be enhanced as much.

delhi Custodial murder, custodial deaths, custodial killing, delhi high court, Delhi news, New Delhi, Indian Express, current affairs Delhi riots 2020, Northeast Delhi riots

Grover also argued that the CCTV cameras on the given dates were not working in the police station. She sought preservation of CCTV footage for the areas that the police gypsy took while transporting Faizan and other men who were picked up from Kardampuri.

Written by: Malavika Prasad

5 min readNew DelhiMar 23, 2023 09:08 AM IST First published on: Mar 23, 2023 at 06:20 AM IST

The mother of 23-year old Faizan, who was seen in a purported video lying injured on the ground as security personnel forced him to sing Vande Mataram and the national anthem during the 2020 Delhi riots, told the High Court Wednesday that her son was targeted for his religion, drawing parallels with George Floyd’s death.

Appearing for Faizan’s mother, Kismatun, senior advocate Vrinda Grover before a single judge bench of Anup Jairam Bhambhani said, “It is an incident that one would expect as a citizen of the country that the police leadership of Delhi Police would have said, who are these men? This is a targeted hate crime. I have been targeted for my religion and that is visible in the video. We have seen what has happened in other jurisdictions. We know what has happened in the George Flyod case, we know what has happened in the Tyre Nichols case. The metropolitan police had done its own review and said that there is misogyny and racism. And here we are told that we can’t find the CCTV so we really don’t know. And here we are told that we can’t find the CCTV so we really don’t know.”

Kismatun has sought for a court-monitored SIT probe. In the petition, it has been alleged that Faizan was “targeted, brutally assaulted” and “injured by the policemen”at Kardampuri and subsequently “illegally detained” in an injured condition at Jyoti Nagar police station, where he was allegedly denied timely critical medical care, resulting in his death later at a hospital.

Grover argued that when the mother found out on February 24, 2020, that her son had been taken to the police station after allegedly being picked up by police from GTB Hospital, “she goes to police station… She is not allowed entry, nobody is willing to listen to her”.

Grover further questioned whether the Delhi Police can detain somebody who is severely injured. She went on to argue, “This is a custodial murder. First custody is with policemen who targeted me. And after that, I am in custody of the police station Jyoti Nagar where I was detained…” She also questioned why there had been no investigation into the police station.

Grover said that on February 25, 2020, Kismatun was asked by the same police station to pick up her son, who she found in a severely injured condition. After she brought him home, Grover said, her client’s son told her everything that happened to him between February 24 and 25, 2020 and the next day, after he was admitted at LNJP hospital, he died less than 24 hours after he was released by police.

Grover expressed her apprehension, which was noted by the HC, that the affidavit filed by the Delhi Police in response to directions of a previous order of the HC passed on February 1, 2021, does not expressly confirm that documents/evidence such as daily diary, the general diary, station diary, duty roster and arrest memos for the relevant period have been preserved in original and are in safe custody of a responsible officer and would be available to be produced in original before this court if and when called for.

The HC recorded the statement of Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad appearing on behalf of the investigating officer (IO) concerned at the time and the present IO, who “said diaries/register etc are available in original and have been preserved under safe custody of a responsible officer…and are available to be produced before this court if and when called for”. The matter has been listed on May 8.

When the court queried about the status of the investigation, Prasad submitted that it is ongoing and the reason for this is that the “video footage retrieved from social media the pixel quality is very bad”, hence it cannot be enhanced as much.

When the court asked whether the video showed the victim and not those who assaulted him, Prasad replied, “It shows the victim. What is seen is someone wearing a helmet…with this much of face. There is no way you can enhance it. We have put it to CFSL and all other agencies available to us”.

At this stage Grover said that there is more than one video which shows these “so called faceless nameless policemen”, however, there had been “no investigation on whose identity is known”. She further said that, “I’m not assaulted by rioters… it is admitted that I’m assaulted by policeman, that’s precisely what the video shows…”