INDIA: Border Security Force again accused of rights violations in Murshidabad district, West Bengal 

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received shocking information from MASUM, a human rights organisation in West Bengal, regarding yet another incident of brutality and torture committed by the Border Security Force (BSF) stationed at Murshidabad district near the Indo-Bangladesh border. The AHRC has been issuing urgent appeals on reported cases of a similar nature from Murshidabad. For further information regarding these cases please see UA-173-2004; UA-18-2005; FA-04-2005; UA-79-2005; UA-159-2005; UA-217-2005; UA-146-2006; UA-174-2006; UA-184-2006; UA-225-2006; UA-244-2006; UA-249-2006 and UP-156-2006.

This recent incident alleges that the officers from the BSF conducted an illegal search in the house of Mrs. Firoza Bibi on 6 July 2006 at about 9.20pm. The search team was lead by the Company Commandant with 12 subordinate officers from the 140 Battalion stationed at Dayarampur. It is alleged that during the search the officers assaulted Firoza and also caused damage to the property kept in her house.

CASE DETAILS:

On 6 July 2006 at about 9.20pm, a group of BSF officers allegedly forced their way into the house of Firoza to look for her husband Mr. Aiaz Biswas. The officers were lead by their Company Commandant with 12 subordinate officers. The AHRC was informed that the officers were from the 140 Battalion stationed at Dayarampur. However, Aiaz was not at home when the BSF conducted the search. The officers who entered the premises then ransacked the house by destroying household articles and furniture. When Firoza protested, the Commandant started beating her with a stick. It is alleged that Firoza suffered several injuries from the assault. Firoza was admitted to Sadikhan’s Dearh Rural Hospital, Jalangi block, Murshidabad for treatment on 7 July 2006 and was discharged the next day.

Aggrieved by the incident, a complaint was lodged at the Jalangi police station [local police station entertaining jurisdiction] by the family on 7 July 2006. The complaint was registered as General Diary Entry number 445 dated 7 July 2006. Aiaz has also lodged a written complaint to Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) of Domkal Sub Division on 8 July 2006.

However, it is alleged that the police are taking no interest whatsoever in investigating this case. It is alleged that the reason for the police’s inaction is that several local officers are themselves afraid of the BSF, while others connive with BSF officials and engage in cross-border smuggling at the Indo-Bangladesh border.

This is not a singular or rare case reported to the AHRC from the area, particularly from Murshidabad district. In the recent past, the AHRC has reported on at least a dozen cases where similar issues were occurring. In almost all cases, there is a consistent pattern of violence perpetrated by the BSF. A person is arrested and either assaulted and shot at point blank range often with automatic weapons or is brutally assaulted and left for dead. In these cases, the AHRC has communicated its concern to the relevant authorities in India by asking for independent investigations into the cases. However, the authorities in India have apparently failed to consider the request and are continuing to ignore the plight of several innocent families staying along the Indo-Bangladesh border.

Other relevant facts:

The BSF is a paramilitary establishment in India, often deployed to various borders in the country. The BSF battalion involved in this case is posted at the Indo-Bangladesh border and is a part of the larger unit posted along the Indo-Bangladesh border, which passes through a considerable extent of West Bengal. For many years, this border has been facing problems of illegal immigration, smuggling, arms-trafficking, drug-trafficking and the trafficking of women and children. The deployment of the BSF was to bring down these issues. However as of today, all these continue under the selective protection of the BSF.

The consistent allegations towards the BSF often describe torture and murder. They either involve witnesses to the incidents where BSF officers are found bargaining with cross-border smugglers or are cases involving victims who protest the loss of crops and agriculture due to cattle traffic across the border. Many victims in the cases reported to the AHRC were local farmers who had small land holdings. Some victims like Bagbul Islam Mondal [UA-174-2006] were murdered for no reason other than that they were protesting against the loss of crops due to cattle trespass.

In theory, the deployment of the BSF is to safeguard the boundary, protect the citizens and also to assist the local police whenever required or called upon. However, in practice the BSF do everything other than what their deployment is meant for. Whenever there is a case of torture or death for which the BSF is responsible, the local police often refuse to take action. Even if a complaint is registered after much pressure and persuasion at the local police, these complaints are never investigated. For denying action the local police pose the excuse that the BSF is having their own internal mechanism for prosecuting officers charged with criminal offences. The local police is also under the wrong notion that they do not have jurisdiction to entertain any complaint against the BSF. However, this internal prosecution is not transparent and often the punishment is limitted to a demotion or at most the dismissal from service.

This is what happened in the case of 16-year-old Mintu Molla and 26-year-old Jabbar Mondal who were killed by the BSF on 11 July 2006 [UA-244-2006]. In this case, two officers of the BSF who were prosecuted by the BSF through their internal mechanism for a charge of murder, the punishment given was only a dismissal from service. As of today these two officers are to face no other criminal charges in spite of the fact that their act was murder, which is a crime under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A complaint lodged by the relatives of the deceased was not investigated by the local police.

While the punishment through the internal procedures within the BSF is negligible compared to the gravity of the crime, there are several other issues also involved in such cases. For example, in all these cases where a person was injured or lost his life, no compensation was paid out at all to the injured or the deceased’s family. In most cases, a false criminal charge was also filed by the BSF officers, against the victims, often branding them as either smugglers or individuals who aid smugglers. Even young children were not spared by the BSF as shown in the case of Mithun, a 14 year old boy who was killed by the BSF on 28 June 2006 [UA-225-2006]. In this case, Mithun was murdered by the BSF and without wasting time the BSF officers also lodged a false charge against Mithun at the Raninagar police station [local police station] against Mithun alleging various offences including obstruction to duty, rioting with arms, assault and attempted murder.

There is nothing in law which prohibits the local police from registering a criminal case against an officer of the BSF. However, the police take refuge under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code which only prohibits criminal courts entertaining jurisdiction over cases against certain category of officers in the government service or in the armed forces while the alleged act of crime is in fact discharge of their lawful duty. Examples are causing the death of a person in war, or injuries caused to persons or the damage to property while controlling a violent mob in a disturbed area. In such cases, prosecution is still possible if there is a prior sanction from the government. However, this provision is limitted to the initiation of a criminal trial or proceedings through court. The police even in these cases could register a case, investigate and later refer it to the consideration of the court to decide whether a prior sanction from the government is required for commencing a trial or not. The cases reported to the AHRC involve innocent persons who were tortured or murdered to prevent them from giving statements when they witnessed some illegal acts in which the BSF were engaged with or to prevent them from lodging any complaint against the BSF.

In the current case, there is yet another issue where the BSF officers could be held responsible for breach of law. When the BSF officers forcefully entered Firoza’s house, it is mandatory for the BSF have a female police constable from the local police station accompany them. In addition, the search party is also under law to inform the occupants of the house whom they are looking for and why they want to carryout a search inside the house. They are also required by law to offer enough time for the female occupants in the house to come out of the house before the officers’ conduct their search.

The Director General of the BSF Mr. Asish Kumar Mitra in a message posted on their website has declared that he is concerned about the families and the people the BSF is supposed to protect. He has also called upon his field commanders to provide direction and leadership to their subordinate officers so that the quality of their service and discipline is not compromised at any cost [for further information please see http://bsf.nic.in/message.htm]. However, it is apparent from this case and also from the facts of several other cases mentioned above that the message remains an empty rhetoric while the officers in the filed torture and murder innocent civilians and can still enjoy absolute impunity for their acts.

Additional information:

India has not ratified the United Nations International Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of India has refrained from ratifying the Convention by arguing that the existing domestic laws are adequate to prevent torture and other inhuman treatment in the country. However, the reason why the law enforcement agencies in India are made least accountable for custodial violence is because torture is yet to be made a crime in India. This lacuna is exploited by not only the law enforcement agencies like the police but also agencies like the BSF which are not involved directly in day-to-day law enforcement.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please send a letter to the relevant authorities listed below expressing your concern about this case to the authorities mentioned below. To support this appeal please click here:

 

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER