Releasing a 11-point statement on the issue, the CCIM accused the NHRC of committing a grave injustice. Detailing the points, it said:
1. It is one-sided, and NHRC has solely depended on police version of 19th September 2009 events, post mortem reports of slain inspector Mr. M.C. Sharma and Mr. Atif Ameen and Mr. Mohammed Sajid and forensic report and arrived to the conclusion that “there was no violation of human rights and the action of the police was fully protected by the law.”
2. The NHRC did not look at the other side, they didn’t meet the other occupants of L-18, neither they contacted the locals of Jamia Nagar and nor the relatives of the slain boys from Azamgarh.
3. The NHRC didn’t visit the flat No 108 of L-18 to check the police version and came to the conclusion that police acted in the self defence.
4. The NHRC reported two contradictory version of the police one by Shri R.P. Upadhayay Additional Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), Delhi, submitted in a report to NHRC on 23 October 2008 and another not by Mr. Karnail Singh, Commissioner of Police Special Cell Delhi, submitted in a note which was submitted to NHRC on 19th November 2008 and does not tried to verify which statement is correct and which is not.
5. The NHRC also didn’t try to ascertain by wether M.C. Sharma was actually killed by the Atif and Sajid and also who opened fire first. Relying on the police version, NHRC came to conclusion that “if the police had fired first, Atif and Sajid would have been injured and would not have been in a position to fire back at the police. Hence, the police party acted in self defence. To prove that M.C. Sharma was killed by Atif and Sajid the NHRC relied on CFSL report which has found chemical on the hands of Atif and Sajid and the police version that it found two 0.30 mm pistols and that the pistols do not belong to police.
6. The NHRC also didn’t answer that when M.C. Sharma got the medical aid within five minutes (Holy Family Hospital was 5 minutes distance from L-18) and when his vital parts were not hurt by gunshot then why he died because of excessive bleeding.
7. When AIIMS post mortem report says that the surgery done on .C. Sharma at Holy Family Hospital destroyed the vital evidences as to how they came to the conclusion that M.C. Sharma was hit from front side.
8. The NHRC also didn’t try to know how Sajid was fired on his skull. His photographs showed multiple injuries on his skull, which suggests that he was made to sit first and then shot in cold blood from above. NHRC simply says that Sajid’s post-mortem report shows several ante-mortem injuries including prominent bullet wounds but it didn’t analysed the report.
. The NHRC also avoided answering whether Atif and Sajid were actually terrorists or not. Its simple answer was that this is not an issue before the Commission.
0.The NHRC also violated its own guidelines regarding magisterial enquiry and simply accepted the police version that Lt. Governor didn’t permit such enquiry. NHRC must answer whether such an enquiry in all the police encounters is mandatory or it is the choice of the state Government to order it or not.
11. This is surprising that NHRC also didn’t try to cross examine the sole eye witness Mr. Mohammed Saif who was arrested alive from flat no 108 of L-18.
t said that on the basis of the above facts, it was rejecting the NHRC report as it was biased, one sided and didn’t do justice to this sensitive issue.
It said that the NHRC had betrayed the trust of the people by completely denying the other party to be heard. It also accused the NHRC of completely failing to protect the human rights of the victims and common man.
The CCIM reiterated its demand of high level judicial enquiry into Batla House encounter.
It said that it would hold a protest demonstration on Tuesday at 3.00 p.m. at Jantar Mantar to press for its demands. (ANI)