INDIA: Retrafficking of a twelve-year-old girl with the aid of local police

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from Guria, a local human rights organisation based in Uttar Pradesh, regarding the alleged kidnapping and physical harassment for the purposes of human trafficking, of a twelve-year-old girl in Varanasi. After failing to take immediate action, the police eventually recovered the girl. Further, abuse of proper procedures took place – the police failed to produce the girl to a magistrate on the day of recovery, a medical examination was not undertaken, and no case was registered against the accused. Subsequently, the City Magistrate, disregarding procedure, passed an order to hand over the girl to a suspect in the crime. The safety and welfare of the girl is at grave risk.

CASE DETAILS:

According to information received, on June 16, Shamsunisha, a resident of Dulhipur village, Muhgalsarai Police Station, Chandauli district, filed an application with the Deputy Inspector General (DIG) Varanasi, for the rescue of her twelve-year-old daughter Shama Parween, also known as Shamanaz or Munni. The mother alleged that Mr. Haider and his wife, Chanda, residents of Mohalla-Doshipura under the territory of Jaitpura Police Station Varanasi, and Mr. Mehndi had kidnapped her daughter and that they are likely to sell her into prostitution.

The mother alleged that Shama had been kidnapped with the intention of trafficking her and that she had been subjected to physical harassment. Shamsunisha requested the authorities to immediately rescue her daughter and register a case against the accused.  The DIG ordered Jaitpura Police Station to take immediate action on the complaint.

Upon visiting the Jaitpura Police Station around 11 am on the same day, the Station House Officer at Jaitpura Police Station sent Shamsunisha back home, asking her to return the next day when action would be taken. She then went back to the DIG office to urge the DIG that immediate action must be taken upon her complaint due to the serious nature of the possible danger to her daughter.

The DIG once again directed the Jaitpura police to investigate the complaint on that same day. Although Shamsunisha was quite willing to guide the police to the exact location where she knew her daughter was detained, the Jaitpura police failed to do anything that day. Shamsunisha once again sent an application to the DIG informing him that the Jaitpura police have refused to take any action on her complaints and further, urging the DIG to initiate urgent action.

On the following day, the police recovered Shama from Doshipura, the exact location provided by Shamsunisha to the police on the previous day. However, the police failed to register a case against the accused. The police also failed to arrange a medical examination for the girl. Furthermore, the police failed to present the girl before a magistrate to record her statement, which is against existing legal rules and guidelines.

When Shamsunisha asked the police why a case was not registered against the accused, the Station House Officer of Jaitpura Police Station allegedly threatened Shamsunisha and stated the case to be compromised. The officer also said that should she not abide by his threats, her daughter would be handed over to her former husband, Abbas. Shamsinisha was also informed that Abbas would sell Shama back to the accused, just as he had previously sold their elder daughter. The officer told her to compromise with the accused, and in return, he would obtain some money for her from the accused.

Shamsunisha bluntly refused the offer. The senior officer told her that they would not produce Shama before the magistrate that same day, but on the next day. The police officer told her that he will call her former husband Abbas, and Shama would be handed over to him, who would then sell her back to the accused.

Shamsunisha argued that as her daughter is a minor, she should be kept in a women’s police station. However, Jaitpura police refused to transfer her to such a facility

On June 18, the Jaitpura police presented Shama before the Assistant City Magistrate III (ACM) of Varanasi instead of the Child Welfare Committee. According to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, a minor who requires care and protection should be presented to this committee.

The ACM III refused to take Shama’s statement, stating that the incident happened outside his jurisdiction. Later Shama was presented before the City Magistrate Shreenath Shukla, who is the person in charge of the Child Welfare Committee. In accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, Shamsunisha had requested a medical examination for her daughter. The magistrate, however, handed over custody of Shama to her father Abbas and closed the matter. As of now Shamsunisha does not know what has happened to her daughter and whether she was sold to the accused for child trafficking.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

In the past, the AHRC has reported cases where the local police have refused to register cases, even when the suspects were handed over to the police by citizens. It is also a common phenomenon in India for the local police to refuse to register cases when there is a specific report regarding a crime.

In Varanasi in particular, it is a common practice for the police to refuse to register cases against human traffickers since often these criminals work hand in hand with the police. In the past Guria and the AHRC had reported cases where the local police have refused to take timely action against human traffickers. They wished to retain their contacts and ‘business associates in crime’ from being exposed and through them the police officials.

The Criminal Procedure Code 1973 mandates that a police officer in charge of a police station must register complaints in the general diary when a crime is reported. If a complaint relates to an offense that requires an investigation, the police are required by law to register the complaint as an FIR, furnish a copy of the complaint to the informant and further to investigate the crime. In this case it is apparent that the police have refused to do so.

Kidnapping and abduction is a common crime in India, particularly in the Northern states of India. In the recent past there were several cases reported from these states where children were kidnapped for ransom for petty sums. In some cases the ransom was as little as Rupees 100 (USD 3). While the state governments declared in public that they are determined to control police corruption and police ineptitude to control crime and investigate crimes, in practice such action never takes place.

Varanasi is one of the hubs of human trafficking in Asia. Guria has been involved in intervening in these cases since its inception. For further details concerning these cases please see UA-190-2005, UP-131-2005, UP-035-2006, UP-036-2007, UA-191-2007 and AHRC-UAU-005-2008.

For further details regarding this case and also about the other cases reported by Guria please contact Ms. Manju / Mr. Ajeet Singh, S- 8/ 395, Khajuri Colony, Cantonment Police Station, Varanasi district, Uttar Pradesh, India Tel: + 91 9919780636.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write letters to the authorities mentioned below expressing concern over the case and demanding an impartial investigation into this case without delay. Action must be taken against those who commit crimes against children.

The AHRC has also written a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, its causes and consequences, calling for an intervention in this case.

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