Arrest in mistaken identity by UP police: NHRC orders Rs 3 lakh compensation

New Delhi: The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took serious cognizance of non-compliance of its order by the Uttar Pradesh government.

The Commission had served a notice in the matter of the arrest and imprisonment of a person on mistaken identity and has recommended to the state through its Chief Secretary that action should be taken for the release of the victim with dignity and he should be paid Rs 3 lakh as relief for violation of his human rights.

Besides, in a communiqué, the Commission also mentioned on Wednesday that the DGP, Uttar Pradesh has been asked to submit a report within four weeks in the action taken against the erring police personnel, who arrested the victim without varying his identity.

NHRC had registered the matter on basis of a complaint by the victim alleging that he was undergoing imprisonment for more than four years in place of one Julum Sharma in case no 347/2000 u/s 147/148/149/506/302 IPC.

The police had failed to arrest the real culprit and had instead arrested the complainant.

The Commission on enquiry through its Investigation Division found that an FIR 347/2000 u/s 147/148/149/302/506/34 IPC was registered against 5 accused in District Azamgarh. The four accused persons were acquitted by the court in the year 2002. However, the complainant was arrested in the case vide non-bailable warrant after 13 years of registration of FIR by the police posing complainant as Julum Sharma. However, police failed to establish how complainant Singhasan Vishwakarma was the same as Julum Sharma. It was a clear case of negligence by the police.

Time and again malicious prosecutions have been done. Like, faulting the Delhi Police's special cell for investigation done defying logic, prudence and reason, the Delhi high court, in the case of Mohd Iqbal vs State (2013) acquitted two Kashmiri businessmen accused of conspiring to bomb the New Delhi railway station in 2006.

There are at least 13 more such false cases of the Delhi police alone, which were blasted away in courts.

Again on January, 2010, four youths Dalip, Deepak, Ravinder and Vikas were arrested by the Jahangirpuri police in Delhi and charged with offences of robbery and attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. During the trial, the victim testified that he had given false testimony against the four at the behest of a businessman. Acquitting them, the trial court ordered a compensation of Rs 50,000 to each of them.

In practice, to harass through false cases, the cops invoke sections of law much over what might have transpired, invoke sections of law the very ingredients of which are not found in the FIR (such as invoking Section 124A IPC, that is sedition, for any sloganeering in direct contravention of Supreme Court judgments), or proceed to arrest people immediately even as arrest may not be warranted, simply to put him through public humiliation.

Here in this case, the Commission observed that even the Judicial Officer also did not verify the true identity of the victim and sent him behind the bars. The NHRC has also directed its registry to send a copy of its proceeding to the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court for appropriate action.