“Someone needs to tell me where my son got that gun and bullet from,” says 45-year-old Anju Devi, sitting on the mud floor of her two-room kuccha house in Hanumanganj village of Prayagraj district’s Koraon tehsil.
For nearly two years, Anju has been fighting a legal battle against the Uttar Pradesh Police, seeking justice for the death of her son Vijay Kumar Soni.
According to the police, Vijay was identified as an accused in a robbery case through CCTV footage, located with the other accused with help from a tip-off at a spot called Goongwa Ka Bagh, and shot at in “self-defence” during a gunbattle. He was taken into custody but later died of injuries in hospital.
Anju’s account sharply contradicts the official version. She alleges Vijay was picked up from their home and was already in custody two days before the staged encounter, falsely implicated in a robbery case, and shot in the arm. She further alleges the police forged an affidavit using her thumbprint to assert he was not in their custody before the encounter.
Vijay’s case is among several controversial encounters in Uttar Pradesh, where the police have conducted 12,964 gunbattles between March 2017 and September 2024 — nearly five every day. While a court in Prayagraj had ordered an FIR against 12 policemen based on Anju Devi’s petition, the Allahabad High Court stayed the order. The case remains pending. Four official inquiries, including a magisterial probe, have so far cleared the police of wrongdoing.
However, there are a few gaps in the police theory.
- For example, the CCTV footage police partially relied on – also seen by Newslaundry – to identify the robbers was too unclear to definitively identify any accused. The person who identified the first suspect had never seen the robbers.
- A letter and a complaint by the family to the authorities filed a day before the encounter suggested Vijay was already in police custody days before he was “located” and “arrested” after an encounter.
- Eleven rounds were allegedly fired from both sides. But the casings of the bullets fired were never recovered – they are used for forensic analysis as part of magisterial probes that are mandatory to verify the police version as per Supreme Court .
- Goongwa Ka Bagh, the site of Vijay’s alleged gunbattle, has a troubling history, as previously detailed by Between August 2022 and August 2023, police claimed two similar encounters there with the same formula: an anonymous tip-off, a pre-dawn operation, suspects meeting in the woods, and a violent exchange.
Newslaundry has now looked at police records and legal documents to map the chain of events leading to Vijay Soni’s arrest.
The robbery and identification
On September 8, 2023, an FIR was filed at Kaushambi’s Charwa police station on behalf of Anoop Soni, a resident of Samaspur village who ran a jewellery repair shop. This FIR was lodged around 10 pm against “three unknown men riding an Apache motorcycle” who were wearing black t-shirts and were charged under IPC (punishment for robbery). One of them allegedly pointed a gun as two others robbed the businessman of gold and silver jewellery, a mobile phone, and Rs 9,000 in cash – totalling worth around Rs 2.5 lakh.
“I should be able to recognise all three (boys) if presented before me,” the complaint claimed.
Soni, however, told Newslaundry that one of the suspects had “neatly cropped curly hair”. He was the only one who saw the robbers but it was his brother who “later recalled seeing such a boy on September 6 as he entered the house of one Sooraj Pasi who lived in my uncle’s neighbourhood”.
The police booked Sooraj Pasi, who was not among the bike-borne robbers, as an accused based on Anoop’s statement that his brother had identified the suspect.
Four days later, a second FIR was filed at 1 pm at the Charwa police station on behalf of inspector Vinod Kumar Singh. It suggested that within four hours, all the suspects had been traced, a gunbattle carried out, and arrests made after investigating teams shared leads and received a tip-off from an informant.
This FIR identified four persons – Vijay Kumar Soni, Ashish Nishad, Rahul Kumar Bhartiya and Sooraj Pasi – as accused. They had been charged under IPC sections (attempt to murder) and (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) along with sections (license for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition) and (punishment for certain offences) of the Indian Arms Act 1959.
“Today at around 1.33 am while carrying out night duty, three other teams, constituted to investigate the matter related to loot on September 8, 2023, were summoned,” inspector Singh stated in his complaint. A total of 12 policemen had gathered, as per Singh’s complaint, all carrying their respective pistols and INSAS rifles.
“We discussed all the efforts with respect to cracking the robbery case that happened on September 8, 2023, including CDR (Call Detail Record) of some suspects who could be possible accomplices of Sooraj Pasi, and were riding the Apache motorcycle that day.”
It was then, according to the complaint, that the police team was joined by SOG (Special Operations Group) in-charge Siddharth Singh. The SOG is a specialised wing of UP Police, which, like the STF (Special Task Force), assists police stations within a district in carrying out investigations in certain cases.
“Inputs were received from a mukhbir (informant) that the gang of criminals behind the loot…was seen going towards Goongwa ka Bagh…these criminals had gathered there in order to share the looted items,” the complaint noted.
The FIR pointed to warning shots so that the suspects could surrender, but a shot was fired from “one of the criminals who was hiding behind a tree”.
“While I fired three rounds, SOG in-charge Siddharth Singh fired five rounds from our respective pistols when two among the four criminals fell on the ground,” the FIR said.
After a four-hour encounter, all the four accused were arrested at 5.15 am.
“We had fired from our official pistol during the encounter in self-defence and after the operation was over an attempt was made to record statements of some locals [who were eyewitnesses]. But fearing court procedure, no one agreed to give their statement and went away without telling their name or home address,” the FIR quoted inspector Singh as saying.
But Vijay Soni’s family claims he was already in police custody two days before this arrest and encounter, and that he was in another district on the day of the robbery.
‘Illegal arrest’ from home
Vijay had come back home after marble polishing work in Varanasi on September 9. At 6 am on September 10, the family’s nightmare began as policemen arrived in two vehicles and entered inside forcefully.
The family alleged they were beaten up, their house ransacked, and their belongings, including jewellery, mobile phones, and even a sarauta (nut cracker) taken away. “It seemed as if dacoits targeted our place and then went away with whatever they could lay their hands upon,” recounted Vijay’s father Narayan.
Anju pointed to a scar on her chin to allege that policemen assaulted her and threatened her with sexual violence.
To establish the allegation that Vijay was picked up from his house, the family showed Newslaundry two documents dated September 11.
One of them was a handwritten letter to the Prayagraj police commissioner with Anju’s thumb impression. It mentioned Vijay being “taken away” on September 10 and apprehensions that he “might be implicated in a false case”. The family said there was no response to the letter that was sent by registered post. They sent another letter to the Kaushambi SP too the same day.
An online complaint was also registered at the state-run Jan Sunwai (public hearing) portal. Launched in 2016 by the then Akhilesh Yadav-led ,the online grievance redressal website provided a platform to citizens in UP for registering complaints concerning various government departments. A 14-digit IGRS (Integrated Grievance Redressal System) number was generated in response to an application by Anju Devi when she submitted her complaint under the category ‘Application regarding complaint against the police.’ This, too, didn’t result in any response, the family alleged.
Rajbal Yadav, a local who said he saw the police take away Vijay, alleged the police vehicle had a label mentioning the “thana prabhari (SHO)” and the number plate that “began with UP73”. UP 73 is the vehicle registration number for Kaushambi district.
Police theory on encounter
As per the FIR, around 11 rounds of firing took place between the police and the accused in Goongwa ka Bagh, with three rounds being allegedly fired by the suspects. “We didn’t hear anything; only came to know about the encounter from news reports the next day,” said a local resident who didn’t want to be identified.
A .32 bore pistol, four bullets, jewellery weighing 300 gms, a VIVO mobile, and Rs 600 cash were shown by the police as recovery from Vijay Soni after the encounter. An electronic machine for weighing jewellery, some other jewellery items like ring, nosepin, chain, and some cash were shown as items having been recovered from the other three accused.
“We tried looking for empty shells of bullets fired from our respective pistols, but owing to dense bushes in the jungle area couldn’t find them,” the FIR noted.
After the encounter, Kaushambi police officials were quoted in media suggesting that identities of the three accused, excluding Sooraj Pasi, had been established using CCTV footage. Three such screenshots of CCTV footage, reviewed by Newslaundry, show two men riding on a motorbike in one photo and three men in another such still. Their faces are not easily identifiable though.
Speaking to Newslaundry, one of the co-accused in the robbery case, who is out on bail and spoke on the condition of anonymity, “All of us had been picked up by the police from our respective places three days before the encounter and subjected to torture while in custody.”
At least two of the accused, including Vijay and Ashish, had sustained gunshot injuries. The co-accused Newslaundry spoke to alleged the police fired from a close range after wrapping a cloth around the legs and hands – an act that prevents blackening of the gunshot injury in the forensic analysis. Evidence of a close range shot could negate the self-defence claim.
Bribe offered to family?
A day after the encounter, Anju Devi says she got a call from Vijay asking her to come to the government-run Swaroop Rani hospital in Prayagraj and informing her about being shot in the right hand. The family alleges the police tried to dissuade them from meeting Vijay.
Eight days later, Vijay died in hospital. The same day, the Kaushambi jail superintendent sent a radiogram – a message conveyed on a wireless set –to the NHRC and the state HRC in Lucknow informing of the death and “that his family members were already present with the prisoner during treatment”. The postmortem report, dated September 22, 2023, mentioned the cause of death as “septicemic shock due to multiple organ infection”.
The family says Vijay told them that he was taken to Goongwa Ka Bagh on September 12 around 10 pm and shot at. Narayan also says there were signs of custodial torture on his son’s body.
However, the inquest report prepared at the SRN Hospital mortuary dated September 21 didn’t specify any such bruises. An inquest report (or panchayatnama) is a form filled at the mortuary by a panel of doctors in the presence of family members of the deceased and police. It is used to confirm the identity of a body in cases of unnatural death. “Death was caused due to injuries followed by infection in the body during treatment,” it said.
Anju Devi says SOG in-charge Siddharth Singh tried to bribe the family. Vijay’s account was recorded on mobile but was deleted by officials at the hospital, the family alleged.
When this reporter reached out to SOG in-charge, Siddharth Singh, who is currently posted at Kaushambi’s Pipri police station, he refused to comment since the matter is subjudice.
Legal sources close to Siddharth Singh, while responding to questions from Newslaundry, said, “SOG in-charge was on duty somewhere else while Vijay Soni was being treated. As per family’s claims, if they have relevant CCTV footage of the hospital, they should bring it forward.”
Newslaundry sent a questionnaire to Dr Neelam Singh, Deputy Superintendent, SRN Hospital. This copy will be updated if she responds.
The clean chits
Police records suggest the Kaushambi police had set up three additional inquiries as part of a fact-finding exercise.
On September 21, 2023, then Kaushambi SP Brijesh Srivastava ordered an SIT probe. The chargesheet, dated November 28, 2023 and in response to the second FIR, gave the first clean chit by skipping any mention of a police role. Submitted on behalf of the SIT’s Investigation Officer, Inspector Jay Chandra Kumar, it said, “Prima facie the accused were found to have been involved in the offence related to attempt to murder (of policemen during shootout). Since Vijay Soni died during treatment, his name has been struck off from among those accused.”
The second clean chit came in the form of a letter – citing an affidavit by Anju Devi – by the then Circle Officer (Chail tehsil) Yogendra Krishna Narayan on November 21. This was after the UP Human Rights Commission sought a report in the case of Vijay Soni’s death. The affidavit, allegedly with Anju Devi’s thumb impression and dated September 26, claimed that she had submitted a complaint on September 11 as she was suspicious of Vijay going “with three to four persons who had come to our house” on the morning of September 10.
But Anju says she never gave consent for any such affidavit and her son didn’t know any of the co-accused. This affidavit also said that Anju got a call from her son on September 11 though she says she was called on September 13.
In another inquiry report dated December 8, in response to a query sent to the NHRC by Varanasi-based activist Lenin Raghuvanshi, Circle Officer Yogendra Krishna Narayan again gave a clean chit to policemen on the basis of the same affidavit. “As per the affidavit, Anju Devi has stated that she doesn’t want any further action upon complaints filed on and after 10 September 2023.”
The inquiry reports by Kaushambi Police had also emphasised on the criminal background of Vijay Soni and six FIRs filed against him since 2021. These included those pertaining to POCSO charges, alleged abduction, house trespass and theft. We could not independently verify the allegations levelled in these FIRs filed in Koraon and Pratapgarh districts.
On January 6, 2024, SDM Kaushambi shared findings of the magisterial probe, in the fourth clean chit to the police. “Family members of the deceased, Anoop Soni, didn’t present any evidence or appear in person to support their claims or sent a response via registered post, even though sufficient time was granted to them. Hence it is clear that police fired upon Vijay Soni during the encounter in self-defence.”
However, Anju Devi said the family went to Kaushambi “twice so that our statements are recorded”.
On September 7, 2024, the Prayagraj district court took cognisance of Anju Devi’s application under under which a magistrate can direct a police officer to conduct investigation and subsequently file an FIR. The Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered an FIR against 12 policemen: Inspector Vinod Kumar Singh, SOG in-charge Siddharth Singh, sub inspectors Sunil Kumar Yadav, Ayodhya Kumar, Ravishankar Yadav, constables Anil Yadav, Bhanu Pratap Singh, Ramji Patel, Ashish Tiwari, Shivank Gautam, Radhey Shyam and Ravi Shankar.
However, the FIR was not immediately registered. Ten days after the order, the Kaushambi police approached the Allahabad High Court, where they got a stay and the matter is currently pending.
According to former UP DGP Vikram Singh, “Police can’t refuse to register a case and if despite an order under Section 156(3), FIR was not filed then this amounts to an illegal act.”
Areeb Uddin, a former legal journalist and practising lawyer at Allahabad High Court, said, “The police claim of receiving inputs from a mukhbir (informant) about the accused being in a forest area, coupled with the inability to recover empty shells and lack of eyewitnesses, creates suspicion. These factors align with common red flags in fake encounters, where staged narratives are used to justify unlawful killings. Courts often scrutinise such inconsistencies.”
The lawyer said that affidavits with only a thumb impression, “especially without specifying whether it is the right thumb impression [required for females under Indian law] carry limited legal reliability”. “Such affidavits can be challenged on grounds of coercion, lack of voluntariness, or even forgery. Courts typically demand corroborative evidence to support such affidavits, especially when they contradict prior complaints.”
Legal case drags on
Kaushambi is the turf of UP’s Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya. It is also among the state’s most backward districts. More than 50% of the population was poor as per the family health survey of 2015-16, though a NITI Aayog in July 2023 noted significant improvement in living conditions owing to better availability of basic amenities.
Vijay’s family belongs to the Sunar caste that comes under the Other Backward Class category. As the case drags on, record keeping has been a challenge for Vijay’s parents as Anju Devi can’t read or write while her husband can read Hindi with some effort. A few papers pertaining to postmortem and applications sent to authorities are stashed inside a bag and the couple don’t have the entire case file.
There have been some bitter experiences with lawyers as well.
The family says lawyers have tried to bribe them to give up on the case. “I feel that the lawyers we engage get money from the other party since we can pay only Rs 4,000-5,000 as fees. It seems as if our lawyers are also being snatched away from us,” says Anju Devi.
Their struggle for legal support highlights a broader issue. Former IPS officers Newslaundry spoke to agree that when it comes to encounter cases in Uttar Pradesh, a proper grievance mechanism is missing. “With a spurt in encounters accompanied with bulldozer action, in most cases people are not able to muster courage to raise their voice against state’ action,” says former IPS officer Amitabh Thakur. He had issued a in September 2024 calling Mangesh Yadav’s encounter as ‘fake’ based on assessment of the nature of injuries.
“Collection of evidence is the job of police and if that isn’t done properly there’s really not much anything can be done about it. In fact it is this caucus that enables the police to continue with fake encounters since the general notion among police is that they are invincible.”
Former UP DGP Sulkhan Singh, who was at the helm under the Yogi Adityanath government in 2017, says, “The grievance redressal system at the present is all hotchpotch. It’s a senior police officer who is entrusted with investigation in encounter cases but when police are also a party in the case how can they be considered to be unbiased?”
Newslaundry sent a questionnaire to then UP DGP Prashant Kumar and UP DGP PRO Rahul Srivastava. This reporter tried reaching out to Kaushambi SP Rajesh Kumar and sent questions on WhatsApp. This story will be updated if any of them respond.
Independent journalism is not possible until you pitch in. We have seen what happens in ad-funded models: Journalism takes a backseat and gets sacrificed at the altar of clicks and TRPs.
Stories like these cost perseverance, time, and resources. Subscribe now to power our journalism.