Delhi Court Takes Action in 2020 Riots Death Case, Summons Police Personnel
In a significant development nearly five years after the tragic incident, a special court in Delhi has issued summons to two Delhi Police personnel in connection with the death of 23-year-old Faizan during the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi. The court action follows a chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), marking a crucial step in the long-pending case.
Court Finds Sufficient Evidence Against Accused Officers
Chief Magistrate Mayank Goel, presiding over the case, observed that there was "sufficient material on record against the two police personnel to take cognisance for commission of offence" under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The charges specifically include Section 304(II), which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, read with provisions on common intention.
The summoned officers are Head Constable Ravinder Kumar and Constable Pawan Yadav, both of whom were posted at the Jyoti Nagar police station at the time of the incident. The court has scheduled their next hearing for February 24, where they will be required to appear and respond to the charges.
Background of the Tragic Incident
The case originates from disturbing events during the February 2020 Delhi riots. A widely circulated video from that period showed Faizan, a butcher from Ghazipur Mandi, along with four other injured men lying on the road while Delhi Police personnel allegedly forced them to sing the national anthem and intermittently beat them with lathis.
Faizan was reportedly wrongfully detained at Jyoti Nagar police station and released on February 25, 2020. Tragically, he died in hospital the following day, on February 26, 2020, raising serious questions about police conduct during the communal violence.
Long Legal Battle and Investigation Transfer
The path to justice has been arduous for Faizan's family. Initially, Delhi Police registered a murder case against "unknown persons" at Bhajanpura police station on February 28, 2020, two days after Faizan's death. This case was subsequently transferred to a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
Kismatun, Faizan's mother, filed multiple applications before the magistrate court in June 2020, seeking crucial documents including the post-mortem report and requesting preservation of evidence such as call detail records and police duty registers. Frustrated by the lack of progress after ten months, she approached the Delhi High Court on December 17, 2020, alleging that the investigation was "vitiated" and neither "fair nor objective."
In her petition, Kismatun explicitly stated that her son "died at the hands of Delhi Police" and sought transfer of the investigation to the CBI. The High Court, in July 2024, described the case as a potential "hate crime" and criticized the SIT probe as "too little, too late," ultimately ordering the transfer to CBI.
CBI's Fresh Investigation and Charges
The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a fresh First Information Report (FIR) in August 2024 under various sections of the IPC, including the serious charge of Section 302, which pertains to punishment for murder. This marked a significant escalation in the legal proceedings and demonstrated the agency's commitment to a thorough investigation.
The CBI's subsequent chargesheet, which led to the court's recent summons, represents a pivotal moment in a case that has highlighted concerns about police accountability and justice delivery in sensitive communal violence situations. The court's decision to proceed with the case suggests that the evidence gathered by the CBI has met the threshold for judicial consideration.
This development comes at a time when questions about police conduct during the 2020 Delhi riots continue to surface, with multiple cases still pending in various courts. The Faizan case has become emblematic of the broader challenges in addressing alleged police excesses during periods of civil unrest.
The upcoming court hearing on February 24 will be closely watched by legal observers, human rights activists, and the victim's family, who have waited nearly five years for this moment of judicial reckoning. The case outcome could have significant implications for how similar incidents are investigated and prosecuted in the future.
