1 January 2019
To,
The Chairman
National Human Rights Commission
Manav Adhikar Bhawan
Block-C, G.P.O Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023
Reference: NHRC case no. 1435/25/11/2017
The Complaint dated 16th October, 2017
Commission's direction dated 21.12.2018
Protest against the direction of the Commission
Respected Sir,
I have received Commission's direction dated 21.12.2018 in connection with the above referred case. From the direction it is revealed that your authority closed the case based on the police report and therefore the Commission said that the police authorities have taken requisite action by registering the cases and have submitted charge sheets in the concerned courts, thereby no further intervention by the Commission is needed.
Being the Secretary of MASUM, I beg to submit a strong protest against the direction of the Commission in the following points:-
At first, from the direction of the Commission it is clear that before closing the case your authority did not concern about the torture which was committed by the police authorities upon the victim. The power loving police forces continue their crime work and later they concocted the story by changing the fact and enter the name of the victim in false criminal cases. In the direction the Commission never says a word about redressal of the torture inflicted victim by the police authorities. I think your authority forgets in which purpose NHRC was established? I again reiterated the fact that the Commission was established to protect the common people from the atrocities of the state authorities.
Secondly, in the police report dated 04.01.2018 submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Malda, there are various anomalies which should be mentioned:
(a) The enquiring officer Mr. Bipul Kumar Majumder, Dy SP (HQ), Malda, during the time of enquiry did not record the statement of the victim. Even he did not produce the medical injury report and the statement of the doctors at Silampur R.H and Malda Medical College who were treated the victim at that time. The basic principle of investigation "audi alteram partem" is violated by the enquiring officer in this case. Such kind of enquiry is a biased enquiry to protect the skin of the perpetrator police personnel.
(b) On 08.08.2017 Ms. Rekha Bibi, the sister in law of the victim submitted a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Malda stating the incident of police torture committed upon the victim by the perpetrator police personnel. But the enquiring officer did not examine Ms. Rekha Bibi during the time of his enquiry. The enquiring officer did not bother to render any clarification regarding what action was taken by the Superintendent of Police, Malda till date on the complaint of Ms. Rekha Bibi.
(c) The enquiring officer did nothing during the time of enquiry except retelling the information available in the police record in connection with Kaliachak Police Station case no. 546/2015 dated 07.10.2015 and Kaliachak Police station case no. 560/2017 dated 08.08.2017 and Kaliachak police station GDE no. 351, 345, & 370 dated 08.08.2017. I do not know on the basis of such sole reliance on the police record, how did the enquiring officer declare that the allegation made by the complainant was baseless and motivated?
(d) It should be remembered that West Bengal Police is guided by the Police Regulation of Bengal, 1943 for effective functioning. Regulation 262 of the Police Regulation of Bengal, 1943 enumerates; "Directly an accused person is placed under arrest, the investigating officer shall ask him whether he has any complaint to make of ill treatment by the police, and shall enter in the case diary the question and answer. If an allegation of ill treatment is made, the investigating officer shall then and there examine the prisoner's body, if the prisoner consents, to see if there are any marks of ill treatment, and shall record the result of his examination. He shall further consider and note whether there is any reason to believe that marks found are attributable to other causes than ill treatment and shall record the result of his examination, such as resistance to arrest. If the prisoner refuses to allow his body to be examined, the refusal and reason therefore shall be recorded. If the investigating officer finds that there is reason to believe the allegation of ill treatment, he shall forward the prisoner with his complaint, the record of corporal examination, any other evidence available, and if possible the police officers implicated by the prisoner's complaint, to the nearest Magistrate having jurisdiction to enquire into the case." Under the mandate of the said regulation the police is duty bound to ask the arrestee whether he has any complaint to make of ill treatment by the police and shall enter in the case diary the question and answer. But in the police report the enquiring officer failed to report whether the said mandate of duty was duly discharged or not by the police of Kaliachak police station.
(e) Such kind of enquiry is not a neutral enquiry at all. It is merely a table work to give a clean chit to the perpetrator brothers. It is also undermined because the enquiring officer as senior brother, during the course of his enquiry completely failed to recognize that the police records may be manufactured to suit the interest of the perpetrator police personnel.
But your authority overlooked these types of lacunas which are very much predominant in the police enquiry report and the Commission closed the case completely depending upon the police report submitted by the Mr. Bipul Kumar Majumder, Dy. SP (HQ), Malda.
Thirdly, the Commission contended that as the charge sheets have been filed and the matters are sub judice before the concerned courts, no further intervention is needed. It should be remembered that NHRC is a quasi judicial body and a watch tower over all types of violations of human rights. So it has jurisdiction to run the case after knowing the matter was sub judice. There was a vast difference between the court proceedings and NHRC proceedings. But your authority closed the case depending upon a mere ludicrous matter.
The matter is grave and serious one as the incident of violation of set procedure of law at the time of arrest and custodial violence committed upon the victim by the perpetrator police personnel of Kaliachak police station. The allegation is straight against the representatives of state authority but your authority completely believed upon the report of the same department. From this working procedure it is to be believed that the NHRC and the state authorities are hand in gloves and thereby try to juggle with the justice of the poor, common people of the country.
I again demand justice and send this protest against the direction of the Commission and therefore request to reopen the case for a neutral investigation by your independent agency so that the victim may get an opportunity to place his voice and his records to substantiate that he was subjected to custodial torture by the power loving police authorities.
Thanking you,
Yours truly
Kirity Roy
Secretary, MASUM
Secretary
Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha
(MASUM)
&
National Convenor (PACTI)
Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity
40A, Barabagan Lane (4th Floor)
Balaji Place
Shibtala
Srirampur
Hooghly
PIN- 712203
Tele-Fax - +91-33-26220843
Phone- +91-33-26220845
Disclaimer:The information in this email is confidential and may be
legally priviledged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access
to this email by anyone else is unauthorised.If you are not the
intended recipient, disclosure,copying,distribution or any action
taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,it is prohibited and
may be unlawful.In such case,you should destrioy this message and
kindle notify kirityroy@gmail.com by reply email.
No comments:
Post a Comment