INDIA: Custodial death of a man who was victimized of consecutive police remand 

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from its local partner MASUM in West Bengal regarding the death of a man due to custodial negligence in the state of West Bengal on 22 November 2006. It has been reported that the victim had spent more than one month in remand before collapsing to death. No inquiry has been launched even though the law demands that a judicial magistrate must investigate all deaths while in police and juridical custody.

CASE DETAILS:

Mr. K Kannan was arrested by the police at the Hotel Mohit in Howarth by the burglary section of the Detective Department of Lal bazaar Kolkata on 7 October 2006.?He was charged under section 380 (Theft in dwelling house, etc) of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 in vide case no. 255/2006. The detective department police identified him as a suspect involved in a theft which took place at the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), Park Street Branch Kolkata in West Bengal.

Mr. Kannan along with other arrested suspects was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court of Bankshall, Kolkata in West Bengal. The Court of Metropolitan Magistrate ordered them to be held in police custody for 10 days.?After 10 days on 17 October 2006, Mr. Kannan and the other suspects were produced before the same court and implicated in another theft case by the Shakespeare Sarani police (case no. 173 u/s 380 of IPC). The court again ordered Mr. Kannan and the others to stay in remand for another 9 days.?After the 9 days expired, the group was ordered to stay in remand again for another 10 day period.?
?
On November 6, Mr. Kannan and the other suspects were shown under arrest for a fourth time by the Bowbazar police in case no. 311 under section 461 (Dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property) and 380 of IPC and the same court once again ordered remand until November 10. On November 10, Mr. Kannan and other suspects were produced before the same court and were sent to Presidency Jail in Kolkata under judicial custody after receiving a medical check up, according to the police version.???
?lt;br />Due to poor health, Mr. Kannan was admitted to the jail hospital in between November 13 to November 17.?On November 21, he was released from medical care despite being in critical condition, as he was suffering from jaundice.

On the morning of November 22, Mr. Kannan visited the jail hospital for a medical check-up and to receive medicine despite having no help from the jail’s authorities. With no doctors allegedly available and too weak to stand in the queue, Mr. Kannan bent down on the railing of the veranda in front of the dispensary and fell to the floor. Suffering from critical injuries, Mr. Kannan was admitted to the Jail hospital at 10:30 am and finally succumbed to his injuries 30 minutes later at 11:00 am.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

In this case, Mr. K. Kannan was kept in police custody four consecutively times relating to different cases by the metropolitan magistrate. The AHRC believes that the court exercised an abuse of power under section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of India by way of granting unreasonable remand. Section 167(2) of Cr PC states that “The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole?amp;quot;.

However, such legal protection has not been extended to the victim in this case. Unfortunately this violation by the courts and the police is common practice in India. If the police want to keep a suspect exceeding the period of detention permitted by law, they often implicate the suspect into different cases to seek further police remand. In those cases, the courts, which has mandate to monitor the police conduct, merely approve their request.?

It is not only against Article 21 of Constitution of India relating to the right to life but against Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, which says that no confession made before a police officer shall be admissible in a court of law.?

It is clear that Mr. K. Kannan’s death was caused by the excessive abuse of the rule of law and gross negligence committed by the police, the judiciary and jail authorities. The victim was ordered to be kept in police remand four separate times but had never gone through a medical check up as is required and highlighted in section 54 of Criminal Procedure Code of India.

It is also violation of Supreme Court directives given in the case of D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal. According to the Supreme Court direction “The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health services of the concerned state or Union Territory. Director, Health services should prepare panel for all Tehsils and Districts as well”.??

After the death of Mr. Kannan while in judicial custody, an inquiry was conducted by Mr. S.S. Bhattachrya, Executive Magistrate of Alipore Court, Kolkata. While, it is mandatory by law to hold judicial inquiry by concerned judicial magistrate, in the case of a custodial death. Until now, no such inquiry has been initiated in this respect.
?lt;br />In West Bengal, the situation of the rule of law has reached its lowest ebb, particularly regarding the aspects of policing. Police torture or custodial deaths at the police stations are common features in India. To see some of those recent cases, please refer to: UA-301-2006, UP-09-2005, UA-329-2006,?UA-57-2004 and UA-231-2005.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the relevant authorities and ask for their immediately intervention in this matter. Please urge them to order a prompt and thorough investigation regarding the misconduct of the concerning police and to take the proper steps in punishing the alleged perpetrators. Please also express your condemnation towards this clear and absolute violation of legal procedure.

 

 

 

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