Firozabad CAA Stir: No Mention of Gunshot in Complaint for 3 Dead
In Firozabad, while medical records of 3 victims mention gunshot injury, while the complaint letter keeps mum.
In Firozabad, while medical records of 3 victims mention gunshot injury, while the complaint letter keeps mum.(Photo: Aroop Mishra/ The Quint)

Firozabad CAA Stir: No Mention of Gunshot in Complaint for 3 Dead

In UP’s Firozabad district, where six people died due to alleged police firing on CAA protesters on 20 December, the complaint letter, filed on behalf of the family members of at least three victims does not mention ‘gunshot injury’.

Documents accessed by The Quint show that though medical documents of Mukeem, Rashid and Harun clearly mention ‘gunshot injury’, the term is mysteriously missing in the complaint letters filed between 24 December and 26 December.

Loading...

1) Mukeem Qureshi

Seventeen-year-old Mukeem , a resident of Nagla Kothi in Firozabad, used to work as a labourer at a bangle manufacturing unit. The bangle-making unit was 3 km away from his house in Muslimabad.

On 20 December, Mukeem was returning from work between 4:30 pm and 5:00 pm. He was also accompanied by his Chacha (uncle), Kallu, who also used to work in the same bangle-making unit. According to Kallu, a bullet hit Mukeem in his stomach.

Mukeem was admitted to a government hospital in Firozabad from where he was referred to Agra, and finally moved to Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi but he couldn’t survive the bullet injury. Since the family didn’t have a valid ID proof for Mukeem, a local corporator had to attest a letter dated 24 December 2019 stating that he knew Mukeem since his birth and that he was a resident of Nagla Kothi. This letter was furnished by the family to take the body.

Mukeem’s family hasn’t received a copy of the post-mortem report and has been told that it may take one month before they can access it.

Letter attested by local corporator which was used as an ID proof by Mukeem’s family to get his body.
Letter attested by local corporator which was used as an ID proof by Mukeem’s family to get his body.
(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

In a hand-written note, dated 20 December 2019, which happens to be Mukeem’s medical record while he was admitted to the SNM District Hospital in Firozabad, the doctor who examined him that day mentions ‘firearm injury’.

The medical record which has thumb impression of Mukeem’s uncle, Kallu, also mentions the fact that ‘police (has been) informed’.

Medical record of Mukeem dated 20 December that mentions ‘firearm injury’ and has thumb impression of Mukeem’s uncle, Kallu.
Medical record of Mukeem dated 20 December that mentions ‘firearm injury’ and has thumb impression of Mukeem’s uncle, Kallu.
(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

A day after Mukeem’s death, his father Muveen approached the police station requesting for a formal complaint to be filed. The letter dated 24 December 2019, mentions the chain of events leading up to Mukeem’s death, except for the fact that there is no mention of ‘firearm injury’. The letter was duly received by the Ramgarh Thana in Firozabad.

"These are illiterate people and wouldn’t know what the chowki in-charge has written in complaint," says Shahzada Farhan, a local activist based in Firozabad.

Formal complaint letter written on behalf of Mukeem’s father, dated 24 December 2019.
Formal complaint letter written on behalf of Mukeem’s father, dated 24 December 2019.
(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

2) Shafeeq

Forty-two-year-old Shafeeq, a resident of Masroor Ganj, was headed home after reading namaz. At the Naini Glass chouraha, the epicentre of violence, he got caught between the protesters and the police. He was hit by a bullet in his head.

Shafeeq was taken to Agra where he was admitted to a private hospital. Two medical reports of Shafeeq – one dated 20 December and another dated 23 December – mention ‘gunshot injury’. In the first CT scan report of his brain by Agra-based Global Rainbow Healthcare, one of the primary findings says: ‘Case of gunshot injury shows a metallic foreign body in the soft tissue of left temporal region.’

Shafeeq’s medical report from Agra’s private hospital.
Shafeeq’s medical report from Agra’s private hospital.
(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

Three days later a follow-up CT scan of head was done yet again by Dr MB Jain’s Imaging & Pathology centre. The report dated 23 December stated: ‘Evidence of bony fracture by the gunshot is seen in the left temporal region....’

Follow-up CT scan of head by MB Jain’s Pathology & Imaging centre confirmed ‘bony fracture by the gunshot’.
Follow-up CT scan of head by MB Jain’s Pathology & Imaging centre confirmed ‘bony fracture by the gunshot’.
(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

In a complaint letter submitted at the Rasoolpur Thana on behalf of Nisar, who is Shafeeq’s brother, the chain of events mention Shafeeq getting ‘injured’. There is no mention of the ‘gunshot injury in head’ anywhere in the letter.

Complaint letter, dated 26 December 2019, filed on behalf of Shafeeq’s brother, Nisar at Rasoolpur Thana.
Complaint letter, dated 26 December 2019, filed on behalf of Shafeeq’s brother, Nisar at Rasoolpur Thana.
(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

3) Harun

Thirty-year-old Harun, a resident of Naglamulla village in Firozabad, was an animal trader. On 20 December, he was returning from an animal fair at Pachokhara village in Tundla district.

It was while crossing the Naini Glass chouraha that Harun was hit by a bullet in his jaw. His discharge card, dated 24 December 2019, from Agra-based GG Medical Institute and Research Centre mentions ‘Gunshot Injury on Left Side’ under the diagnosis column.

Harun’s discharge card from Agra’s GG Medical Institute & Research Centre.
Harun’s discharge card from Agra’s GG Medical Institute & Research Centre.
(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

In the complaint letter, submitted at Rasoolpur Thana on behalf of Mohammed Shoaib, Harun’s uncle, the chain of events mentions Harun as getting ‘injured’. Once again, there is no mention of the gunshot injury anywhere.

Complaint letter filed on behalf of Mohammed Shoaib, Harun’s uncle.
Complaint letter filed on behalf of Mohammed Shoaib, Harun’s uncle.
(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

The Quint is trying to contact the Firozabad Police for their response. This copy will be updated as and when we receive it.

Also Read : ‘Cops Scaring Us’: Lawyers of 2 Men ‘Killed’ in UP’s CAA-Protests

Three Others Who Died Due to Bullet Injury

Apart from Mukeem, Shafeeq & Harun, three more locals from Firozabad couldn’t survive the bullet injuries – Rashid, Nabijan and Arman. While the FIRs filed on behalf of Nabijan and Arman mention ‘gunshot’ injury, the wording tries to suggest that it was the commotion during protests that resulted in casuality.

4) Rashid:

Differently-abled 39-year-old Rashid was a resident of Kashmiri Gate in Firozabad. He used to work in Asifabad and was returning from there. He, too, was caught in the clashes between the protesters and police at Naini Glass chouraha and was hit by a bullet in his head. He had died on the spot.

File photo of Rashid, a resident of Kashmiri Gate in Firozabad.
File photo of Rashid, a resident of Kashmiri Gate in Firozabad.
(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

Rashid has a six-year-old daughter. It’s still not clear whether his family has approached the police to file a formal complaint.

Rashid’s disability certificate dated 30 July 2008.
Rashid’s disability certificate dated 30 July 2008.
(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

5) Nabijaan

24-year-old Nabijaan used to work as a finisher at a bangle-making unit. He was returning from work in Wakilpura when he was hit by a bullet. He died on the spot.

File photo of Nabijaan.
File photo of Nabijaan.
(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

The FIR, dated 20 December, filed on behalf of Nabijaan’s brother, states ‘while he was returning back from work, there was a ruckus by some rabble-rousers. It was then that a bullet hit Nabijaan and he died while on his way for treatment.’

FIR filed on behalf of Nabijaan’s brother.
FIR filed on behalf of Nabijaan’s brother.
(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

6) Arman

24-year-old Arman was the sixth victim who died due to alleged police firing.

Aadhaar card of Arman, the sixth victim of firing in Firozabad.
Aadhaar card of Arman, the sixth victim of firing in Firozabad.
(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

The FIR dated, 22 December 2019, filed on behalf of Arman’s father at the Rasoolpur Thana, mentions ‘at around 3 pm when my son reached the Naini Glass chouraha, there was a big crowd there. Firing and stone pelting was going on. It was then that a bullet hit Nabijaan. Whether the bullet came from the police or someone in the crowd, I don’t know.’

FIR dated 22 December filed on behalf of Arman’s father.
FIR dated 22 December filed on behalf of Arman’s father.
(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

Speaking to The Quint, local activist Shahzada Farhan says, ‘There was pressure on the victims’ families not to mention anything about bullet injury in their formal complaints.’

Farhan also claims that in some cases, despite few local leaders accompanying the victims’ family members, the police continued to remain adamant about gunshot wounds being made a part of formal complaint.

Also Read : Who Is Responsible For The 25 Deaths During The CAA Unrest?

We'll get through this! Meanwhile, here's all you need to know about the Coronavirus outbreak to keep yourself safe, informed, and updated.

(Make sure you don't miss fresh news updates from us. Click here to stay updated)

Follow our India section for more stories.

Loading...