Section of Arms Act dropped
All accused deleted mobile phone data of days when riots unfolded
CCTV footage of incident not found
These are some of the revelations made by Delhi Police in its chargesheet on the murder of Parvez (48), who succumbed to a gunshot injury on the right chest, on February 25 during the riots in North-East Delhi. The chargesheet names 16 people charged with murder and rioting.
While police, in the chargesheet filed on June 15 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Karkardooma, have said forensic experts are trying to “retrieve” lost data and CCTV footage of the incident from two shops, an office-bearer of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, among those questioned by police regarding the case, has lodged a formal complaint that “false cases” are being foisted on “innocent Hindus”.
On April 9, Devesh Mishra, VHP vice-president of Yamuna Vihar Vibhaag, was among 22 people summoned by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police in connection with the probe into the murder of Parvez.
The same night, six of them, including Mishra, were allowed to leave. Mishra claims he was called for questioning on the basis of a “false complaint” filed by the victim’s son Sahil Parvez, stating that Mishra was leading the mob.
“My phone record details, and the CCTV show I was not present in Delhi. The police seized my phone, checked my CDR, and then let me off,” Mishra said.
The remaining 16 were arrested: Sushil Kumar (40), Jaibir Singh (57), Supreme Maheshwari (26), Atul Chauhan (37), Virender Chauhan (40), Pawan Kumar (44), Suresh Pandit (50), Amit Kumar (42), Naresh Tyagi (50), Uttam Tyagi (46), Deepanshu Gupta (30), Rajpal Singh (48), Akhil Chaudhary (23), Uttam Chand Mishra (49), Hari Om Mishra (55), Sandeep Chawla (44).
According to Devesh Mishra, he sent a letter on April 21 to the government, alleging that Delhi Police is conducting an impartial probe and filing false cases against Hindus. “We sent the letter through an email to the Lieutenant Governor. We received a message that our complaint has been received,” he said. Mishra claims he received a call in June from the local Crime Branch office in Seelampur regarding the complaint he had filed.
“On the basis of the complaint I had sent, I received a call from Seelampur Crime Branch office. They asked me if I have any evidence in support of the accused who I have said are innocent. I said I don’t have any evidence and that is the reason why I have made a demand for a re-investigation,” he said.
While he says he does not have evidence to back his charge, his letter titled ‘Complaint against the Delhi police registering false cases against the Hindus and arresting them’, made these claims:
* That he was in Etawah, from February 23 till February 27, visiting his sister; and it was the complainant (Sahil) who claimed he was in Delhi.
* He claims accused Subhash Tyagi was at his “workplace on February 24” at a government dispensary and on “medical leave from February 25 to 28”; similarly, accused Rajpal Tyagi, a teacher, was “also present at his institution on February 24”.
Mishra claims “based on the false complaint” by Sahil, others have been sent to jail, while they “themselves are riot victims”. “Hari Om Mishra’s dhaba was set on fire by Muslim rioters; Jaiveer Tomar’s medical shop was set on fire; Umesh Mishra’s electrical shop was set on fire,” he claims.
Hari Om Mishra’s son Manish said his father “has been associated with the Sangh’s shakha at Yamuna Park”.
The police, in the chargesheet, said: “As per the CDR analysis, all accused persons were present at the place of occurrence at the time of the commission of the offence.”
“As per the statement u/s 161 CrPC of Sahil Parvez (son of deceased Parvez), and independent eyewitness, all the accused persons were part of the mob that were rioting and his father was shot dead by Sushil Kumar,” police said.
“Location of their mobile phone numbers were at the place of occurrence on the relevant date and time. As per one video, behaviour of one accused, Sushil Kumar, was aggressive and was involved in the riot,” police said.
Police have also named three protected witnesses, who are independent witnesses, and have identified all the accused.
“Due to safety and security of Public witness No. 1, Public witness No. 2 and Public witness No. 3, their identity are being kept secret. Their statement, identification memo etc. are being kept separately in sealed envelope,” police said.
But there are discrepancies regarding the key evidence. Consider these:
* Police have not recovered the weapon used to kill Parvez. The Arms Act section has been dropped, even before the start of trial. “After sincere efforts, weapon of offence (firearms) could not be recovered. So, section 25 Arms Act has been removed… During the PC remand of accused Sushil Kumar, all efforts were made to recovery of firearms (pistol), but it did not get,” police said.
* Police have said no CCTV footage related to the incident has been found: “Every effort was made to obtain footage of Delhi Government and private CCTV cameras installed around the scene of the incident, but no CCTV footage related to the incident could be found. Because, the rioters sabotaged the CCTV Camera before the incident i.e. on 24.02.2020 and after.”
“However, 2 DVR of CCTV cameras from the 2 shops (Pawan Electronics and Big Bazar shop, Main Yamuna Vihar Road, North Gonda) nearby the place of occurrence have been seized and deposited to FSL Rohini to retrieve the data,” it said.
* “Relevant data of the relevant period i.e. 23, 24 & 25 Feb, 2020 from the mobile phones have been deleted by the accused persons,” police said.
“All exhibits have been deposited in FSL Rohini… for retrieving the data. Accused persons have deleted intentionally, the relevant data of the relevant period i.e. 23, 24 & 25 Feb, 2020 from their mobile phones,” police said.
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines
- The Indian Express website has been rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by Newsguard, a global service that rates news sources for their journalistic standards.