INDIA: One minor injured and another killed when Border Security Forces open fire in West Bengal

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is deeply concerned by yet another alleged extra-judicial killing committed by the Border Security Forces (BSF) in West Bengal, India. According to the information we have received, a young man was shot dead by indiscriminate firing by BSF personnel, while another minor sustained serious gunshot wounds, in Murshidabad district, West Bengal, India on 26 June 2007. The victims were reportedly smuggling cows at the time of incident and the BSF claims that they fired for their self-defence as the victims attacked them. However, it is reported that the victims were unarmed at that time. The BSF being a paramilitary unit of the Indian defense force have no excuse to shoot to kill a person and seriously injure another even if they were committing a petty crime. Murder is not self defense. It is also in every respect morally and legally wrong. The incident depicts the causal manner in which the BSF kills people in the locality. The AHRC also notes with grave concern that the local police repeatedly refused to register the complaint of a victim’s father. This case is a reflection of the impunity the BSF enjoys in the locality due to deliberate inaction by the local police or responsible investigation authorities.

CASE DETAILS:

Satyen Mondal is a 17-year-old son of Mr. Nemai Mondal and Basudeb Mondal is the son of Babulal Mondal. Both of them belong to scheduled caste community and reside in Barobigha village, Char Munsipara post office, Raninagar poice station, Murshidabad district, West Bengal state, India.

At around 12 noon on 26 June 2007, Satyen Mondal was trying to smuggle cattle along with Basudeb Mondal and some others through the India-Bangladesh border area. However, some on-duty officers of F Company, Battalion Number 90, Rajanagar Border Out Post Number 1 and 2, Border Security Force (BSF) indiscriminately opened fire on them.

Basudeb Mondal was instantly shot dead on the spot, while Satyen Mondal sustained a bullet injury on the right side of his abdomen. It is reported that one of the BSF personnel tried to kill the injured Satyen Mondal. However, another BSF officer prevented his colleague from firing and saved Satyen Mondal’s life. Satyen Mondal then remained lying on the ground in a pool of blood for one and half hours, until the Company Commandant of the said BSF Out Post reached the place and ordered other officers to take him to hospital. Satyen was first admitted to the Baharampur New General Hospital, where he was transferred to the Nilratan Sarkar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata.

On June 30, he was again sent to the Baharampur New General Hospital, from where he was discharged on July 3. However, Satyen Mondal was still in poor physical condition and is not fit to walk even after prolonged treatment to date (See: Victim’s Photo and his age proof certificate issued by school).

According to two eyewitnesses namely Bapan Mondal (son of Nathuram Mondal) and Manojit Mondal (son of Bhim Mondal), one of the BSF personnel snatched a sickle from one of the villagers and cut himself so that he could falsely claim that they were attacked by the victims and therefore fired at them in self defence. However, it is reported that the victims were unarmed at the time of incident.

After learning the incident, Satyen Mondal’s father Mr. Nemai Mondal tried to lodge a complaint against the said BSF officers at the Raninagar police station over the telephone on June 26. However, the police refused to take his complaint. They told Mr. Nemai Mondal that he should come along with his injured son at first, if he wanted to lodge a complaint. The father then went to the said police station together with Satyen Mondal, after he was discharged from the hospital. However, the Raninagar police again refused to record the father’s complaint.

According to Mr. Nemai Mondal, the BSF constable who fired at his son later visited him and collected Rupees 850 (USD 23) from him. The officer claimed that he needed the money to cover the ‘treatment cost’ of the injured BSF personnel during the incident, although the medical treatment cost for the employees of the BSF is covered by the government.

Satyen Mondal’s family says that he joined the illegal smuggling for the first time. His family members are registered as the Below Poverty Line Card holders. Satyen lives with 5 family members; his father Nemai Mondal, his mother Mina Mondal, his two brothers Baneswar Mondal and Toton Mondal and his sister-in-law Dipika Mondal.

The family’s only property was 21,600 square feet agricultural land from where they cultivated crops and received an income barely enough support their living. However, they sold the land to pay for Satyen Mondal’s medical treatment. They spent more or less Rupees from 55,000 to 60,000 (from USD 1394 to USD 1521). The family is now facing tremendous financial hardships. Satyen Mondal could not complete his medical treatment due to shortage of money.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

In this case, the BSF personnel did not follow the guidelines of National Human Rights Commission in this case, neither the police were obedient to the guidelines of the Commission. In fact, this is not the first case the AHRC is reporting about the extra-judicial killing carried out by the BSF in the Indo-Bangladesh border. For further information please see UA-272-2007, UA-110-2007, UA-087-2007, UA-072-2007, UA-249-2006, UA-244-2006, UA-225-2006, UA-184-2006, UA-174-2006, UA-146-2006, UA-217-2005, UA-159-2005, UA-18-2005 and UA-173-2004. In all these cases people were allegedly shot at by the BSF. The local police never cared to investigate the case resulting in the BSF enjoying complete impunity.

Even if the BSF’s version of self-defence is taken accountable in this case, when is the use of guns justified in self defence? The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials lay down the internationally-established and accepted norm that as far as possible, non-violent means must be used before shots are fired. Even then, where the use of guns is unavoidable, law-enforcement officers are supposed to exercise restraint in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and respect and preserve human life. This means that shooting in self defence is justified only “against the imminent threat of death or serious injury” or where the person is threatening to cause similar harm to others. The principles stress that, “In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”

The principles also establish a number of other important features in the proper distribution and handling of firearms: in particular that every case of use of such weapons shall be subject to judicial and administrative review and that the commanders of the persons responsible for the shooting also have liability. “Persons affected by the use of force and firearms or their legal representatives,” they add, “Shall have access to an independent process, including a judicial process [for redress]. In the event of the death of such persons, this provision shall apply to their dependants accordingly.”

Murder is not self defence. To say that some teenagers had it coming because they illegally smuggled cow is to add gross insult to terrible injury. It is also in every respect morally and legally wrong.

However, the BSF being a paramilitary unit of the Indian defense force have no excuse to shoot to kill one body and seriously injure another even if they were committing petty crime. The incident depicts the causal manner in which the BSF kills people in the locality. This is a reflection of the impunity the BSF enjoys in the locality.

Right to life cannot be denied to any person and is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution and an inalienable human right. There is no law in India that justifies killing of people by the armed forces.

Moreover, the BSF being a paramilitary unit the inquiry into the incident is often limited to a departmental inquiry conducted by an immediate superior officer where neither the victim nor the relatives of the victim and even an independent witness have a role to play. Such inquires conducted within the four quarters of the BSF is a farce. Letters of concern mailed to the superior officers of the BSF concerning earlier instances of murder has not generated any result in the past. What the BSF does in their jurisdiction is duplicated by the local police within their jurisdiction as encounter killings. This callous attitude of murdering suspects to avoid all further complications has resulted in an ever increasing number of extra judicial killings in India.
The AHRC notes that the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials also contain the following two provisions:

“Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law.

“Exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles.”

The cases below are human rights abuses committed by the BSF, which the AHRC reported since this March.

UA-251-2007: INDIA: A villager mowed down and drowned by the Border Security Force in West Bengal
UA-214-2007: INDIA: A foreigner allegedly raped by the Border Security Force in West Bengal
UA-203-2007: INDIA: Elected representatives abused and assaulted by the Border Security Force
UA-157-2007: INDIA: An ailing man died in the custody of Border Security Force (BSF) due to lack of medical help
UA-073-2007: INDIA: Alleged assault and sexual harassment of a man by the Border Security Force

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please immediately write to the relevant local authorities and express your deep concern about this serious case. Please strongly demand an independent and thorough investigation into this case so that the alleged perpetrators be brought to justice without further delay.

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