In the Sambhal violence on November 24, following the court-ordered survey of Shahi Jama Masjid, five people were reportedly killed in police shootings. However, as the police denied firing, a new trope emerged regarding the number and names of those killed.
The five people killed in the police shootings included 19-year-old Ayan, son of Hanif, a resident of Mohalla Kotgarvi, Maulvi Sahab ki Masjid; 35-year-old Naeem, son of Raish Dulha, a resident of Mohalla Kotgarvi, Imambada Wali Gali; 17-year-old Mohammad Saif alias Kaif, son of Mohammad Hussain, a resident of Turtipura; 22-year-old Bilal Ansari, son of Mohammad Hanif, a resident of Mohalla Sarai Tareen; and 45-year-old Rauman Khan, son of Chote Khan, a resident of Mohalla Pathan Wala, Hayatnagar.
Out of these five, one person, Rauman Khan, was initially declared a casualty of the violence. However, the police later reduced the toll to four. The Observer Post investigated what led to Rauman Khan being eliminated as a victim and the official death count being lowered to four.
In media reports published early on November 24 and the day after the violence, Rauman’s name appeared among the deceased. The death toll was initially reported as three, then four, before rising to five, only to be reduced to four again.
What followed was a curious case of botched narratives by the police, corroborated by the media.
According to The New Indian Express report on November 24, published at night, the police identified three deceased individuals: Bilal, Naeem, and ‘Nauman’. The police and media recorded Rauman’s name as “Nauman”.
However, the next day, The Times of India‘s report stated that “Four people have died following violence that erupted after a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, a Mughal-era mosque in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh.” It quoted Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Range, Muniraj G, saying on November 25, “The death toll in the Sambhal violence has risen to five.”
The “deliberate and calculated motive” behind the reported death toll reveals how the police and media denied the death of Rauman, even as the headline of the report read, “Crowd turns violent in Sambhal; 5 dead as stones pelted, vehicles set ablaze,” asserting that five people had died.
This unsettling development unfolds as the police, on the very same day, succeed in “concealing Rauman’s death” and reducing the official death toll to four.
On November 25, another report of the Indian Express, published at 12:53 PM, asserted that four people were killed, as confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner of Moradabad, Aunjaneya Kumar Singh. According to the report, despite noting that the toll of fatalities had risen to 5.
The very report is where the mystery surrounding the fact is divulged, as it further stated that “Moradabad’s divisional commissioner, Aunjaneya Kumar Singh, officially confirmed four fatalities”. It reiterated the Divisional commissioner’s claim, ‘confirming four fatalities’, reasoning that ‘one family did not inform the police or send the body for an autopsy’.
Eventually, the framing of the “official” death toll as four and the disappearance of Rauman from it paralleled the pressure exerted on his family as they struggled to file charges, have the autopsy performed, and bore the brunt of efforts to prevent them from claiming his death as a result of the violence, despite the police initially admitting his casualty.
The Mystery behind Rauman’s death and disappearance from the ‘official’ tolls
To investigate the mystery of how Roman disappeared from the numbers despite being killed—as admitted by the police and reported by the media—The Observer Post approached locals, lawyers, observers, and a fact-finding committee that visited Sambhal in early January.
In January, a fact-finding committee constituted by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties visited Sambhal.
Despite several attempts, Rauman’s family appeared fatigued, suggesting pressure from the authorities. Zakiullah, a local Journalist, said that “the family has been harassed and already punished as the Police threatened them for any attempts to seek justice”.
The Fact-finding committee’s report, published on February 2, 2025, entails the family’s statements.
Rauman’s son, Adnan told the team that his father used to sell baby garments on a bicycle. As usual, Rauman had left home early at 08:00 AM on November 24, but he didn’t return home. The family was told about his killing by his father-in-law.
Shad Usmani, a senior Journalist in Sambhal, who extensively followed the events in the aftermath of the Sambhal violence, told The Observer post that “Rauman is one of those who died in police shooting near the Jama Masjid, where the violence erupted. He remained lying at the spot where he was shot until locals identified him”. Rauman was a resident of Hayat Nagar, an area almost 5-6 kilometres away from the spot of his death.
According to Kamal Singh, a member of the fact-finding committee constituted by PUCL, the locals decided to take Rauman to his in-laws’ place, as it was closer, situated at Nakhasa Chauraha, only a kilometer away. “He hadn’t succumbed till then,” Kamal Singh said.
By the time those transporting him reached Nakhasa Chauraha, near his in-laws’ residence, he had taken his last breath.
Angered by his death, the locals began protesting at Nakhasa Chauraha after placing his body at the spot.
“When we met the family, they were threatened. One of the bullets that hit Roman was fired from close range. The authorities ensured that the postmortem didn’t take place. They ensured that the family didn’t register a complaint. They were brutally threatened,” Kamal Singh, who visited the family, told The Observer Post.
The fact-finding team also met District Superintendent of Police Krishna Kumar Bishnoi, questioning him about Roman’s disappearance from the official toll.
The report states the concerned question as follows: “Those who died in the firing are five people, not four. The fifth was Rauman, a baby garments seller who was poor. Even media portals and news reports have acknowledged this. The PUCL team has also met the deceased’s family and confirmed it. We’ve learned that the police visited the deceased’s home twice. However, his death is not on official records, nor was his post-mortem carried out.”
The report states that the Superintendent of Police responded, “We are not aware of this. When the family itself is not saying anything, how could the police do anything? It is not necessary that he died during the police firing or the violence. It is possible that he died due to some personal feud or enmity.”
Kamal Singh, who is also a lawyer, argues, “If the police admit that he might have been killed due to a personal feud or enmity—even if that were true—then it is a case of murder, and the police should have investigated it. They should have filed an FIR and sent the body for a postmortem.” This, he said, reveals “a deliberate motive to deny accountability for his death and deny the facts put forth by the locals and victims.”
The family, upon arriving at Nakhasa Chauraha around noon on November 24, found Rauman’s body smeared with blood. “A bullet was lodged in his chest. His head and nose were bleeding. His bicycle and all the garments he had taken to sell were missing,” says the report.
“Our whole family was afraid, and because he died in police firing, we didn’t immediately file a complaint. The police didn’t even file an FIR regarding his death, evading the necessity of sending the body for a postmortem. He was finally laid to rest at 6 PM,” the report quotes Adnan as saying.
The family told the team that the police first arrived at their home late at night on the same day, November 24, and returned the next day. They inquired about them and took details of the family.
“The family couldn’t gather the courage to say anything to the police. What could they, who killed Rauman, do except further harassment and loss?” Kamal Singh says the family told the team. “They were pressured into accepting defeat and the disappearance of Rauman’s name from the list of those who died in the police shooting,” he added. The report states that the family said, “We were afraid of facing further problems if we said anything.”
On November 25, Advocate Zafar Ali, President of Shahi Jama Masjid, stated in a press briefing that the police shootings had claimed five lives. Recently, on March 23, he was arrested and charged under an FIR alongside Member of Parliament Ziyaurrehman Barq, Sohail Iqbal, and ‘700-800’ others. The reason behind his arrest has been attributed to police pressure to alter his statement and to prevent him from testifying before the Judicial Committee, where he was scheduled to give his statement on November 24.
Ultimately, Rauman has disappeared not once, but twice—first in death and then as the circumstances of his death were concealed.
A man is arrested while asleep
Nadeem was sleeping at home, nearly a kilometer away from Nakhasa Chauraha, where the protest had erupted after those taking Rauman to his in-laws’ residence discovered he had succumbed to his injuries. As the protest escalated, the situation turned violent again, leading to clashes between the police and the locals.
A resident of Nakhasa, he was at home when the mob began dispersing from the protest site after the police started tear-gassing. His house came under attack while he was resting.
“It was around 2:00 PM when he (Nadeem) was arrested. As the fleeing mob passed by our home, which is only a kilometer from Nakhasa Chauraha, the police, who were chasing them, assumed people had entered our house,” a member of Nadeem’s family told The Observer Post.
The curious case of Nadeem is pertinent since it highlights how the police, subsequently after his arrest, made him an accused in three of the several FIRs filed on November 24. These FIRs were related to the larger violence that occurred earlier that day, fueled by the court-ordered survey of the mosque, in which five people were killed.
The police accused Nadeem, 58, of being part of the protest at Nakhasa Chauraha, which resulted in a clash between the police and the locals, alleging that he was one of the protesters who fled and was caught. However, it was his own home that the police claimed was a place where the mob took shelter—though none did. Furthermore, no FIR was registered on the matter.
“Why was no FIR registered in the incident, yet he was charged in FIRs related to the main violence that occurred outside the mosque, where people were killed?” Anwar, Nadeem’s brother, asks.
Nadeem’s home is almost 5–6 kilometers away from the Shahi Masjid. The protest at Nakhasa Chauraha took place between 12:00 and 1:00 PM. Both incidents occurred at different places, at different times, and for different reasons. Furthermore, the FIRs in which Nadeem was booked were registered at the Sambhal Police Station, whereas the incident for which he was arrested took place in the Nakhasa area, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Nakhasa Police Station.
“If the police claim he pelted stones at them and took shelter at his home, why did they not file a separate FIR on the matter?”Anwar asks. The three FIRs in which Nadeem has been made an accused, and sent to Jail, named Ziyaurrehman Barq and Sohail Iqbal, alongside ‘700-800’ unnamed others.
Sagheer Saifi, a senior advocate representing numerous matters surrounding the Sambhal violence, says that “This reveals the police’s deliberate attempt to incarcerate anyone—witnesses, victims, community leaders, and locals—whomever they decide to arrest based on trumped-up plots”.
The Observer Post visited Nadeem’s home on March 29. One of his family members took us through the places at their residence leading up to Nadeem’s arrest.
At the time of the incident, a few family members were standing near the door to get a sight of what was happening outside.
Anwar said that some people who were part of the mob had run inside. There were around 5-10 people, but they took a different route and didn’t enter the house of Nadeem, which stands in the centre of their family residence, sharing the main gate which opens onto the main road.
“When the police barged in, the gate was closed. The mob consisted of around 40–50 people whom the police were pursuing. The police stopped at the door after noticing the footsteps of our family members inside,” a member of Nadeem’s family told The Observer Post.
As Nadeem’s family witnessed the harrowing scene of the police rushing in, he, along with some other family members, attempted to run inside toward their garden.
The main gate of Nadeem’s home was closed when the mob passed through after the Nakhasa chauraha clashes. The police saw the feet of those who were standing on the other side through the opening at the bottom of the large gate, almost 12 feet high, and barged in, as they believed that the mob had run inside seeking shelter. Photo: Syed Affan/The Observer Post
Subsequently, Anwar said the whole family scattered in panic. The police knocked down the door of a toilet as they searched for people.
“Some of us tried to climb the boundary wall, but he (Nadeem) was caught by the police after he fell onto a stack of wooden sticks lying next to the wall. He was ill at the time and couldn’t decide what to do,” said a family member.
When Nadeem was climbing up, he fell on the wooden stack, according to the family. It was around 02:00 PM when the arrest took place.
Nadeem’s story is one of many yet to be documented. Furthermore, Anwar said that the arrest was recorded as having taken place at 11:30 AM, while the incident at Nakhasa Chauraha unfolded around 1:30 PM. “How could he be there if he was arrested at 11:30 AM?” he asked.
So far, Nadeem’s bail has been rejected in the local court. The total number of those arrested stands at 81, with the police filing a closure report for a woman arrested alongside three others, as they failed to substantiate her involvement in the incident.
Syed Affan is a writer and Journalist based in Delhi. His reportage focuses on Human rights, land conflicts, and policy.
