Prasantha Pradeep Kumara Francis (30) is married, an electrician, a resident of No 09, 3rd Lane, Akkara 35, Ballapitiya, Horana. On 21.08.2008 at about 9:00 am Prasantha went to the Panadura Police station to get a certified copy of a complaint he had made on 18.08.2008 with regard to the loss of his National Identity Card.
Prasantha says when he was leaving the premises after obtaining the said certificate a police officer dressed in civilian clothes asked him if he was also known by the names Chooty or Patty. Prasantha said he had no other names and the officer then told him that he want to take a statement from him and took him to the Crimes Branch of the police station.
Prasantha was made to sit on a chair and the officer in civilian clothing asked him why he had come to the police station. Prasantha told him that he had come regarding the certificate and showed him the document in his hand. Prasantha says there were about four other officers also dressed in civilian clothes. One of the others then said that they were looking for him and if he was also known as the buthaya or ghost? He also asked Prasantha if he had a younger brother and what he was like. Prasantha then described his younger brother to them. Another officer then asked Prasantha if he had stolen bicycles and that if he revealed their whereabouts he would not be harmed. Prasantha denied having stolen bicycles and told them that he worked as an electrician. The officer then told him that if he was not the one to have stolen the bicycles it must be his brother and asked him if his brother was at home. Prasantha told them that he did not know the movements of his brother. The officers then called a person who said he had lost a bicycle and, showing Prasantha to him asked him if he could identify him as the thief. This person said that the thief looked like Prasantha but was definitively not him.
Prasantha says the officers then took Prasantha to his house. The door was closed and there was no one in the house. They examined the surrounding area and went back to the police station, taking Prasantha back with them.
Prasantha was again taken to the Crimes Branch and asked again if he knew where his brother was. Prasantha again told them that he was not aware of the whereabouts of his brother. Then the officers said, We know how to extract information from you, and took him into a hall adjoining the Crimes Branch.
Prasantha recognised this as a dormitory for the officers since there were bunk beds, mosquito nets, clothes racks and two tables.
Prasanna says that the officers then stripped him of his shirt and tied his hands to his front with a blue cloth. They made him sit on the floor with his knees hunched up and placed his tied hands around them Then they passed an iron pole through his hands and under his knees. In this manner they hung him from the iron pole and raised the pole and wedged it between the two tables. (This method of torture is referred as the Dharma chakra in police parlance.) Thus Prasantha hung upside down and the officer who had taken him into custody assaulted his body with a wooden pole. Each time he was assaulted, as a result of the impact Prasanthas body swung around and stopped with his head upside down. When he was in this position the officers assaulted the soles of his feet with the pole. Prasantha says that he was tortured in this manner for about one hour.
Then he was released from this torture by the officers who pulled his hands to the two sides and supporting his spine, making him stand up. Prasantha says both his hands and legs were numb but the officers made him walk and he was put into the cell. Prasantha was given lunch and dinner that day.
On 22.08.2008, the next day, the officer who had taken Prasantha into custody was wearing his uniform and the police identity number on the uniform was 14241.
On this day Prasanthas mother came but she was not allowed to see him. The whole day Prasantha was kept in the cell and his meals were given regularly.
On 23.08.2008 at about 12:00 in the afternoon, the officer who had taken Prasantha into custody bearing identification number 14241 took him out of the cell and assaulted him with his fists and boots about the face and body and still kicking him, took him to the Crimes Branch.
Again Prasantha was asked where his brother was. Prasantha again said he did not know the whereabouts of his brother. Then the officer said, We will find out, and took him to the same hall where he had been tortured previously.
Thus on the 23.08.2008 again Prasantha was tortured in the same way as before. Prasantha says he was tortured, assaulted on his body and soles by the same officer who had taken him into custody bearing identification number 14241.
However on this day in addition to the previous methods of torture the office who had taken him into custody employed another method. Prasantha was shown some kochchi chillies and was told that it was going to be put into his eyes. The officer 14241 made a wad, wrapping the chilies in a cloth and then squeezed the chilly juice into Prasanthas eyes and nose. Prasantha says that this was done while he was hung upside down from the iron pole. He was also assaulted with the wooden pole. Prasantha says he screamed in pain, asking for water. This torture lasted for about an hour until Prasantha lost consciousness.
Prasantha was then taken down and like on the previous day made to stand and walk. Prasantha could not open his eyes and the pain he felt in his body and eyes was severe. He said that he was not quite aware of what was happening thereafter.
Prasantha was aware that he was taken to a wash room where a tap was opened and he was made to sit under it and told to bath. Prasantha says he sat under the tap for maybe about 15 minutes. Prasantha was then taken back to the Crimes Branch and made to sit on a chair and handcuffed to the leg of a table. Prasantha felt faint and he was not aware of what happened after that. He vaguely remembers having taken a meal.
When Prasantha recovered his senses, it was the next day, the 24th and he was in the police cell. He was then produced before the Panadura Magistrate at his official bungalow. The Magistrate did not ask any questions and, and Prasantha was remanded in the Kalutara Prison.
On 25.08.2008 Prasantha was produced before the Panadura Magistrates Court. A charge had been fabricated against him saying that he had stolen a bicycle. Attorney-at-law, Abeysinge, appeared for Prasantha. He informed the Magistrate that Prasantha had been assaulted by the police and that Prasantha needed medical treatment. The Magistrate granted bail but since there was no one that day to furnish bail, Prasantha was again sent to the prison.
On the 27.08.2008 Prasantha was released on bail. The number of the fabricated case was 80745 and the case will be called on 15.12.2008.
Prasanthas mother notified Chairman Human rights Commission, Chairman National Police Commission, Inspector general of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police, Panadura of this incident while Prasantha was still in prison by fax dated 22.08.2008.
What is reflected in this case history?
a. The manner of the identification of a suspect Prasantha goes to the police station to get a certified copy of a document. On his return two police officers approach him and mention two nicknames (Chooty and Patty) and asked if he known by those names. He is surprised and tells them that he is not known by these names. Then they mentioned another nickname, Buthaya, meaning ghost, which too, he denied. Then he was questioned about a brother of his.
Then Prasantha is shown to a person and asked whether he is the one who has stolen the mans lost bicycle. The man very positively states that Prasantha is not the person who stole the bicycle although Prasantha may have some resemblance to the thief. The very person who is the complainant states very clearly that Prasantha is not the person who has committed any crime against him.
These are the preliminaries to an arrest.
It is a strange form of questioning which you would expect either in a school play or in some comedy. However, there is nothing comical about this. This is how Sri Lankan police officers decided to arrest someone.
If the police officers had some genuine reason to find out more about Prasantha they could have asked him who he was, what he does, where he lives and the like. They could have even asked for his identity card and any other documents to establish his identity. In this interrogation there is nothing of the sort. It happens in a high density fashion. What kind of education, training or common sense is exhibited by this type of questioning? It is as stupid, silly and nonsensical as it can be, but these police officers are allowed to act in this way. Certainly it is not the law that allows such behaviour but it is the senior officers of the Sri Lankan police that allow such behaviour. Police regulations established through long years of experience provide enough safeguards to prevent this kind of behaviour. However, police regulations do not seem to matter anymore.
b. The manner of arrest Having found nothing to confirm any suspicion about Prasantha he is now arrested in order to extract information from him about his brother. All the interrogation and torture thereafter is for this purpose.
This is therefore a case of kidnapping in order to obtain indefinite information. It is also a case of arresting an innocent person in order to get to another. Again neither the law nor any decent behaviour allows this practice. It is simply a crime. However, this act only demonstrates how far police officers have been made to believe that they can do whatever they like.
c. The manner of the interrogation two days of torture The police officers feel at liberty to beat this person brutally to get him to reveal the whereabouts of his brother. For two days he was mercilessly assaulted inside a police station. It may be a few police officers who were involved in the direct attack but the entire police station would have been well aware of what was going on as people subjected to such beatings naturally yell out, pleading for relieve and begging for help. But no one, including the Officer-in-Charge thinks it his duty to intervene. Perhaps it is taken as normal routine at a police station which acts very much like a theatre for torture. How has the police station become like this? The only answer is that it is the higher-ups in the policing system that has made it like that and that the countrys political establishment allow officers to act like this.
d. What is the charge? The possible charge is a bicycle theft by someone else. All these strenuous activities of arresting, interrogation and beating up is about the loss of a bicycle.
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have taken down the details of the lost bicycle and thereafter try to trace who might have stolen it.
When dealing with bigger crimes such as corruption relating to Rs. 450 million or attacks on the media by a politician, the police officers do not even dare to question the persons concerned. When the suspect or the person who has information about the suspect is a poor person the police officers act with the utmost cruelty. Once again, what type of intelligence is demonstrated by such behaviour?
e. Who is the police officer bearing identification number 41241? Who is this officer who has such ominous powers with regard to arrest, detention and torture? From the number is can be said that he is just a constable who is in the lowest ranks of the policing system. Why does this officer number 41241 feel so powerful that he can arbitrarily catch hold of a citizen and do whatever he likes to him? Obviously he has been made to feel that he is a person with ominous powers and the ordinary many is nothing before him. Who has given him this impression? Once again it is only the officers of the higher ranks and the patronage of politicians that could create such an impression on such a puny officer. The might of officer number 41241 has come from the approval of this type of behaviour which is given by high ranking officers and the political system.
f. Where were the officers in charge of the police station and of the Crime Branch? Under the Criminal Procedure Code the person who is responsible for investigations is the Officer-in-Charge of the police station. Generally there is also an Officer-in-Charge of the crime branch. They are both of the rank of inspector. During this whole episode which took a few days, where were these persons? Obviously all these activities happened with the direct or indirect approval of these officers. Anyway, as a court case has been filed this could only be done with the approval of the Officer-in-Charge of the station. Thus, without exaggeration it can be asserted that these acts have been done with the knowledge of these officers.
Why do such officers allow these things? It cannot be because the follow the police regulations. It cannot be because such acts are perceived as intelligent or right. It can only be that anything barbaric is permitted in the name of policing in Sri Lanka.
g. Fabrication of charges At the end, when the acts of torture are exposed by the family of the victim making complaints outside, the suspect is produced, charged with stealing a bicycle which the complainant himself was stolen by someone else. What is the evidence on which such a report is filed in court? Do not the police owe an obligation to file a truthful report if the man were to be produced in court? Are police officers allowed to file false reports in order to cover their backs? The answer to all those questions is that all these things are normal practices in Sri Lanka. Once again police regulations are meant to prevent such practices and the law makes such practices a crime. The fabrication of charges is itself a crime under Section 208 of the Penal Code of Sri Lanka which reads: False charge of offence made with intent to injure. Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both: and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death.-or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 189 of the Penal Code is also directly applicable to such fabrication of cases. Fabricating false evidence. Whoever causes any circumstance to exit, or makes any false entry in any book or record, or makes any document containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry, or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry, or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person, who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said ” to fabricate false evidence “.
h. What will happen now? Complaints have been made about the illegal arrest, detention and torture and fabrication of charges. Will there be investigations? No one knows. If there is an investigation, when will that happen? Judging from experience it will not be any time soon. What is the redress available to the suspect to escape from the chain of illegality to which he has been bound by these acts of the police? There is none that he could achieve with any kind of speed. He can wait, hire lawyers and fight the fabricated charges sometime within the coming few years when the case comes before court. He is on his own to extricate himself from a completely illegal and irrational course of action by these police officers. He will also face the harassment of these officers when he engages in the struggle to free himself from this situation. There is no witness protection law and he is at the mercy of this same police officer and the same system. Can they place him in bigger trouble? This is quite possible going by normal experience. He may be charged with a greater crime and perhaps even a non-bailable one, like for example possession of illegal drugs or bombs, as has happened to many other innocent persons in the past.
i. What has happened to the complaint mechanisms with the Inspector General of Police, the Human Rights Commission and the National Police Commission? Regarding the complaint made to the IGP if it is supported by some organisation there will be a letter of reply some months later from the IGPs secretariat that the matter has been referred to an investigation by a senior officer. Perhaps that will be all you will hear about the matter from the IGP. During 2003 and 2006 there was a special investigating unit to inquire into this kind of complaint, but now it has been disbanded after some diligent officers found enough evidence to indict police officers on serious charges in over 60 cases. That kind of seriousness was not to the taste of the higher police officers and the government. Thus, even the limited attempt made some time back to investigate these matters has been abandoned. As for the HRCSL all that it will do is to ask for a report from the same police station. The same police officers and their seniors will write whatever they wish. In the process they may do what is done normally, that is to alter the records and write whatever they wish in place. What the HRCSL does thereafter and how long it will take no one knows. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that nothing will happen with any form of urgency. Whether the NPC will do anything better? It is not possible to answer that affirmatively judging by experience. What makes the situation worse from the point of view of the HRCSL and the NPC is that they are busy trying to demonstrate that the number of complaints are less which implies that the situation has improved. It means that the police behaviour has improved.
j. What is the criterion that is used to judge the improvements of the police The criterion is by stating that there are fewer complaints. However, why there are less complaints when almost every day, in every part of the country the behaviour such as revealed in this case takes place. It simply demonstrates that people have been convinced of the futility of complaint making. Bad policing is expected to be accepted as the condition of being a Sri Lankan whichever part of the country a person lives in. It is expected that this existential reality be accepted and that to avoid getting ones life more complicated by trying to go against the laws of this reality.
k. Complaining as an unpatriotic act Complaining into incidents as in this case is considered an unpatriotic act. The argument is simple; such complaints make it appear that there are human rights abuses in the country and that there is no effective mechanism to counteract this. This is considered bad propaganda for the ruling regime and all bad propaganda for the regime is portrayed as propaganda against the nation. Thus, at the end it is the victim of illegal arrest, detention, torture and the fabrication of charges who becomes the unpatriotic person. Anyone who makes a fuss on his behalf is also unpatriotic.
It is that type of mentality that is being cultivated in the country and it is in that background that even the officers of the lowest ranks dare to abuse the citizens rights in such a blatant manner.
