Delhi Police misidentify Muslim man as Hindu in chargesheet; accuse him of murdering uncle

New Delhi: That the Delhi Police is vigorously pushing its theory of anti-CAA protesters inciting the north-east Delhi riots this February is now a matter of record. In multiple chargesheets filed in the riots-related cases, the purported role of anti-CAA protesters for allegedly "inciting" the riots has apparently been laid bare, with alleged connections to local BJP leaders buried in voluminous pages. In some cases, the role of pro-CAA agitators has been eliminated and dismissed, claiming that their actions were "in reaction to provocation from anti-CAA protesters".

Continuing with this theory, the Delhi Police have now alleged that an "anti-CAA protester" was involved in killing up to three Muslim men near the Brijpuri pulia on February 25. The police claim, on the basis of an inadmissible "disclosure statement", that 32-year-old Arif was stuck with a Hindu mob that was beating up three Muslim men during the riots and to "save himself, he tied a handkerchief around his face and joined the mob in beating the men and raised Hindu slogans".

The police claim they have Call Detail Records of Arif and witness statements corroborating this theory. However, none of this "evidence" presented by the Delhi Police in its chargesheet, prove his involvement in the murders specifically. Moreover, Arif's family have said there is no way he could have signed the purported "disclosure statement".

In this particular case, the Delhi Police have also wrongly identified Arif's religion as Hindu and accused him of being involved in murdering his paternal uncle, Mehtaab Hussain, one of the three men beaten to death by the mob on February 25, according to case documents accessed by Millennium Post and interviews with Arif's family and neighbours.

The alleged "disclosure"

The "disclosure" cited by police anyway is inadmissible evidence as it is recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC (in the absence of a magistrate). Nevertheless, the police claim this statement was signed by Arif on April 16.

But according to Arif's mother Parveen, younger brother Salman and his sister, the signature on the statement does not belong to Arif. In fact, Parveen said, "It is not possible that he signed the statement. He has a defect in his right thumb that does not allow him to write clearly." Arif's sister claimed that he had not signed any statement since he had been picked by the police only in April. According to the case documents, Arif was arrested on April 16. "Police never came looking for him before April and when they said he would be taken for questioning, they just arrested him," Arif's sister said.

Arif's father, Babu Khan is around 60 years old and unemployed with a heart condition, the family said, adding that they had not spoken to Arif or met him since April 18, when he was produced in court for his custody hearing. Moreover, while the police chargesheet has wrongly identified Arif as a Hindu, the family added that they had also put in the wrong age for him. "They are saying he is 35. He is 32," Arif's mother said, adding that the trauma of losing so many near and dear ones in February was yet to leave them.

"Mehtaab was so young. He had just gone out to get milk and as the riots escalated people closed the gates leading into the lane of our home. He could not get into the gali and by the time he could find a way around, the mob caught hold of him," Parveen, who is also Mehtaab's sister-in-law said.

'Witness' statements

The chargesheet accusing Arif of the murders has been filed in FIR number 159/20 of Dayalpur police station, which was primarily registered in the murder case of 22-year-old Ashfaq, who as reported by Millennium Post, was killed the week after he was married. As for the "witnesses" identifying Arif at the scene of the crime, the police claim to have three witnesses from the same lane as his home, "identifying him", two of whom are officials of the local Residents' Welfare Association.

All three witnesses identify the accused Arif as "leading a riotous mob of anti-CAA protesters" that was torching shops and shouting slogans near the Brijpuri pulia on February 25. All of these witnesses said Arif was a known "bad character" of the area - a term used by police for people involved in previous criminal cases.

However, none of the "witnesses", specifically identified Arif as being part of the mob that beat the Muslim men to death. Two of the RWA officials cited as witnesses had arrived at the spot of the incident around 5:30 pm on February 25 together, and both "identified" Arif as "leading a mob of anti-CAA protesters and raising slogans". The other witness cited by the Delhi Police claimed that he had seen Arif "torching shops on February 25".

The police have heavily relied on the RWA officials' statement, which specifically outlines how a mob beat three Muslim men to death near the Brijpuri pulia. These statements do not identify Arif as being part of this mob.

'Technical evidence'

If this were not enough, the police have added in their chargesheet that they have the Call Detail Records of Arif's phone, which show his location to be near the spot of the murders near the Brijpuri pulia. Other than this, the police have not cited any CCTV footage or visual evidence of Arif's presence during the murders or the riots, in their chargesheet.

But here's the catch: Arif and his family live not more than 50 metres away from the Brijpuri pulia where the murders allegedly took place. While CDR details do give an idea of the device location, they triangulate it based on the tower locations and provide the general area where the device was being operated from.

Arif's mother Parveen claimed that he had not left the house during the riots and had only gone as far as 10-20 metres from the gate of their home. In addition, Parveen said that when Arif was arrested, she had met with police officials of the Special Unit investigating the case. The police had purportedly told her that they have no video or photo of Arif participating in the riots and that nothing would happen to him. "They said they have no photos of him in the riots and that he was just being questioned," she claimed.

An anti-CAA protester?

While three witnesses from Arif's neighbourhood identified him as being part of the anti-CAA protests and the mob that was torching shops during the riots in the Brijpuri area, his family claims that he was never involved in the protests. "How could he be involved in the protests? He had just got out of jail weeks before the riots and he was never involved in politics and had nothing to do with the protests or the riots," Parveen said as Arif's sister nodded in agreement.

Arif's mother said that he was involved in other cases previously but claimed none of them had any merit.

Parveen added that they do not have the money to get a lawyer for him and now that mulaqat has been allowed in jails, they intend to first see him once. "We do not know how to go about the lawyer business. Neither do we have the kind of money needed to hire a lawyer," she said, standing outside her small home in Brijpuri's D block.

Note: An earlier version of this story mistakenly said Arif's disclosure statement was signed on March 21. The FIR was registered on March 21 and the alleged disclosure was purportedly signed on April 16, the day of his arrest. The error has been corrected.