Family says it never called victim Somlal, as the police claimed his name to be; allege cops not probing the case properly
Investigations into the alleged custodial death of 24-year-old fruit seller Sompal are getting murkier by the day, as loop holes continue to surface in Delhi Police's version of the events.
First, the police claimed Sompal was a serial offender with three pending criminal cases, a claim that seemed questionable, as the FIRs produced by them showed the accused as Somlal. To make matters worse for the cops, the accused in one of the cases had already been acquitted, while the other two are pending trial. Also, the family says they never called him Somlal.
Then, Delhi police claimed that Sompal had been picked up because a vendor has accused him of stealing a slipper from his car. This statement has come into question as no record has emerged of the man whose slippers Sompal had stolen. In fact, Adarsh Nagar cops, under whom the case is registered, seemed clueless about the entire incident. When DNA visited the place, all the cops could say was that they were making efforts to identify him.
Sources said, the investigation had hardly moved forward, as Constable Surender, who brought Sompal to the police station, had not turned up for the interrogation.
But the most inexplicable contention by the police is the position of Sompal's body. According to the police FIR, Sompal fell off the terrace which is on the fourth floor of the police station. If this is indeed true, why did nobody in the police station hear anything? After all, it was a man who was being interrogated, who had fallen.
Sompal's family points out another fallacy. "If he (Sompal) indeed fell from the fourth floor, there would be serious injuries on his body. Also, it would have been impossible for him to get up and walk. But his body was found around five kilometers away from the spot," says Bunty, Sompal's brother.
Files with police show that the cases against Sompal go back to 2007 and 2009. While one of them is under sections 324/ 34 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), the second is under section 379 (Punishment for theft) and 411 (Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Both the cases are pending trial. The third case was registered against him in 2009 under section 399 (making preparation to commit dacoity) and 402 (assembling for purpose of committing dacoity). Sompal, however, was acquitted in this case.
FAMILY SPEAKS
"Sompal was the main breadwinner of the family as he was the one who set up the fruit stall. The police are really not investigating the case properly. The first day we were taken to the police station around noon and then we sat for few hours. We only got to know through the media that he had died. We were told he had fallen off the terrace."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Sompal")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}