Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has once again received information from MASUM, a human rights organisation working in West Bengal, concerning the case of 14-year-old girl, who was trafficked from her village on 18 April 2011. The victim was subsequently rescued, but in the meanwhile she was raped several times. The father of the victim had filed a complaint at Baduria Police Station. However on the pretext of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police at Baduria Police Station is repeatedly threatening the father of the girl that unless he brings in daughter to the police station, the police would not investigate the case properly.
The AHRC has reported already two cases involving Baduria Police Station, (AHRC-UAC-214-2011 and AHRC-UAC-217-2011) that narrates similar circumstances of victims seeking but receiving no assistance whatsoever from the local police. The AHRC’s local partner working against human and child trafficking in Uttar Pradesh, GURIA, informs the AHRC that a substantial number of children they rescue from the red-light areas of Varanasi are trafficked from Murshidabad and North-24 Parganas district of West Bengal. GURIA has informed the West Bengal state administration of this alarming trend, but the state government seems to have taken no action whatsoever to prevent child trafficking from the state. Police officers stationed at Baduria Police Station, like those involved in this case are in no lesser degree responsible for this despicable exploitation of the poor and their victimisation to flesh trade within and outside the country.
CASE NARRATIVE:
Ms Sakina Khatun (name changed), aged about-14-years, is a resident of Salua, under the jurisdiction of Baduria Police Station, in North 24 Parganas district of West Bengal.
The victim girl was trafficked on 18 April 2011. The victim’s father lodged a complaint at the Baduria Police Station. The police did not start any specific criminal case but only noted the complaint as a General Diary Entry number 1381 dated 25 April 2011. Initially the police did not bother to take any action in this matter. The victim’s father sought and obtained help from a local NGO, which helped him to register his complaint as a case at the Baduria Police Station with Baduria Police Station Case number 180, dated 25 May 2011, for offenses punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 concerning the trafficking of the victim girl.
Subsequently the police rescued the victim girl on 18 May 2011. On 29 May 2011 the girl’s statement was recorded before magistrate in Basirhat Court and her medical test was also done. It is alleged that the girl was raped before her rescue. The victim girl is presently residing with her parents and she has resumed going to school.
In the meanwhile Mr Mrinal Pal, Sub-Inspector of Police at Baduria Police Station who is also the investigating officer in Baduria Police Station Case number 180 called the victim girl’s father from his mobile phone and asked the father to bring the daughter to the police station. The officer did not disclose any reason why the victim should be brought to the police station. Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibits the police to summon any minor or a woman to the police station for investigation. Fearing that the police are not up to any good, the victim’s father did not take his daughter to the police station. The officer however did not give up. He started calling the victim’s father repeatedly and started threatening him that if he failed to bring his daughter to the police station, the police would not investigate the case properly. The officer also wanted the original birth certificate of the girl to be produced at the police station.
MASUM’s fact-finding on the case reveals that the officer contacted the victim’s father more than eight times for this purpose. The parents of the victim girl subsequently on a day met the officer. But on that occasion the officer threatened the parents that if they failed to produce their daughter at the station, he would arrest her from home. MASUM also have information that the police thought had arrested the suspects in the case had released them after the suspects furnished bail bonds in the court.
The victim’s family members are afraid to produce the victim girl before the investigation officer, Mr Mrinal Pal, as he created a situation of terror with an alleged ill-motive to force the parents to withdraw the case. The parents are afraid that the police’s intention is to force the girl to withdraw her statements once she is brought to the police station.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
GURIA, AHRC’s partner organisation in Uttar Pradesh state, has rescued more than 1500 children over a period of the last ten years from the red light areas of Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh and other places in Uttar Pradesh state. Mr Ajeeth Singh and Ms Manju Singh of GURIA has tried to trace the sources of child trafficking. This has led them to, among other places in India, to Murshidabad district and North 24 Parganas district. GURIA is of the opinion that the two districts are so poor and that the police officers in the two districts often connive with child traffickers that they in fact assist the traffickers, instead of apprehending the criminals and thus preventing the crime. This case is an example to this phenomenon.
India is a party to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. India has ratified the Protocol on 16 August 2005. India is also a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which it has acceded on 11 December 1992. On 12 Dec 2002, India has signed the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.
In its Concluding Observations on India, the Child Rights Committee vide recommendations dated 26 February 2004 (CRC/C/15/Add.228) has requested the Government of India to: (1) setup mechanisms so that child trafficking is effectively prevented; (2) to take measures so that the rights of the child are respected, protected and promoted; (3) to take all necessary measures for the implementation of the National Plan of Action for the Girl Child and encourages the enforcement of protective laws; (4) Set up child-sensitive mechanisms to receive complaints against law enforcement officials regarding ill-treatment during arrest, questioning and police custody and in detention centres; (5) Investigate and prosecute complaints in a child-sensitive manner; (6) Strengthen its efforts to train the law enforcement personnel on the human rights of children; (7) Take all necessary steps to implement the Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929; (8) Extend the scope of the to all forms of trafficking of children and ensure that all trafficked children are always treated as victims; (9) Conduct a comprehensive study to assess the causes, nature and extent of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of children; (10) Provide sufficient human, financial and technical resources for the implementation of the National Plan of Action; (11) Adopt multidisciplinary and multisectoral approaches and take measures to prevent and combat sexual exploitation and trafficking of children, including an awareness-raising campaign and educational programmes, particularly for parents; (12) Ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice; (13) Strengthen its policies to facilitate the reunification of child victims of trafficking with their families and provide adequate care and reintegration programmes for children who have been sexually exploited and/or trafficked, in accordance with the Declaration and Agenda for Action and the Global Commitment adopted at the 1996 and 2001 World Congresses against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children.
All the above recommendations have been negated in this case. The direct responsibility of it falls upon the local police, who have failed to act upon the complaint.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the authorities listed below asking for their urgent intervention in this case.
The AHRC is also writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children calling for an intervention in this case.
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear __________,
INDIA: Case of child trafficking reported from Salua village and the despicable conduct of Sub Inspector of Police Mr Mrinal Pal of Baduria Police Station of North 24 Parganas to help child traffickers must be investigated
Name of victim: Ms. Sakina Khatun (name changed), aged about 14 years, residing at Salua village under the jurisdiction of Baduria Police Station, North 24 Parganas district, West Bengal state
Names of alleged perpetrators:
1. Accused in case number 180 dated 25 May 2011 of Baduria Police Station
2. Mr Mrinal Pal, Sub-Inspector of Police, Baduria Police Station, North 24 Parganas district, West Bengal state
Date of incident: 18 April 2011
Place of incident: Salua village under the jurisdiction of Baduria Police Station
I am writing to express my concern regarding the case of 14-year-old girl, who was trafficked from Salua village in North 24 Parganas district of West Bengal and later rescued. I am shocked to know that the local police at Baduria Police Station, in particular the Sub-Inspector of Police Mr Mrinal Pal instead of assisting the victim and her father to investigate the case, is in fact threatening them in an alleged attempt to settle the case at the behest of the suspects.
Ms Sakina Khatun (name changed), aged about-14-years, is a resident of Salua, under the jurisdiction of Baduria Police Station, in North 24 Parganas district of West Bengal.
The victim girl was trafficked on 18 April 2011. The victim’s father lodged a complaint at the Baduria Police Station. The police did not start any specific criminal case but only noted the complaint as a General Diary Entry number 1381 dated 25 April 2011. Initially the police did not bother to take any action in this matter. The victim’s father sought and obtained help from a local NGO, which helped him to register his complaint as a case at the Baduria Police Station with Baduria Police Station Case number 180, dated 25 May 2011, for offenses punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 concerning the trafficking of the victim girl.
Subsequently the police rescued the victim girl on 18 May 2011. On 29 May 2011 the girl’s statement was recorded before magistrate in Basirhat Court and her medical test was also done. It is alleged that the girl was raped before her rescue. The victim girl is presently residing with her parents and she has resumed going to school.
In the meanwhile Mr Mrinal Pal, Sub-Inspector of Police at Baduria Police Station who is also the investigating officer in Baduria Police Station Case number 180 called the victim girl’s father from his mobile phone and asked the father to bring the daughter to the police station. The officer did not disclose any reason why the victim should be brought to the police station. Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibits the police to summon any minor or a woman to the police station for investigation. Fearing that the police are not up to any good, the victim’s father did not take his daughter to the police station. The officer however did not give up. He started calling the victim’s father repeatedly and started threatening him that if he failed to bring his daughter to the police station, the police would not investigate the case properly. The officer also wanted the original birth certificate of the girl to be produced at the police station.
MASUM’s fact-finding on the case reveals that the officer contacted the victim’s father more than eight times for this purpose. The parents of the victim girl subsequently on a day met the officer. But on that occasion the officer threatened the parents that if they failed to produce their daughter at the station, he would arrest her from home. MASUM also have information that the police thought had arrested the suspects in the case had released them after the suspects furnished bail bonds in the court.
The victim’s family members are afraid to produce the victim girl before the investigation officer, Mr Mrinal Pal, as he created a situation of terror with an alleged ill-motive to force the parents to withdraw the case. The parents are afraid that the police’s intention is to force the grill to withdraw her statements once she is brought to the police station.
I am informed that GURIA, AHRC’s partner organisation in Uttar Pradesh state, has rescued more than 1500 children over a period of the last ten years from the red light areas of Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh and other places in Uttar Pradesh state. Mr Ajeeth Singh and Ms Manju Singh of GURIA has tried to trace the sources of child trafficking. This has led them to, among other places in India, to Murshidabad district and North 24 Parganas district. GURIA is of the opinion that the two districts are so poor and that the police officers in the two districts often connive with child traffickers that they in fact assist the traffickers, instead of apprehending the criminals and thus preventing the crime. This case is an example to this phenomenon.
India is a party to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. India has ratified the Protocol on 16 August 2005. India is also a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which it has acceded on 11 December 1992. On 12 Dec 2002, India has signed the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.
I am informed that in its Concluding Observations on India, the Child Rights Committee vide recommendations dated 26 February 2004 (CRC/C/15/Add.228) has requested the Government of India to: (1) setup mechanisms so that child trafficking is effectively prevented; (2) to take measures so that the rights of the child are respected, protected and promoted; (3) to take all necessary measures for the implementation of the National Plan of Action for the Girl Child and encourages the enforcement of protective laws; (4) Set up child-sensitive mechanisms to receive complaints against law enforcement officials regarding ill-treatment during arrest, questioning and police custody and in detention centres; (5) Investigate and prosecute complaints in a child-sensitive manner; (6) Strengthen its efforts to train the law enforcement personnel on the human rights of children; (7) Take all necessary steps to implement the Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929; (8) Extend the scope of the to all forms of trafficking of children and ensure that all trafficked children are always treated as victims; (9) Conduct a comprehensive study to assess the causes, nature and extent of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of children; (10) Provide sufficient human, financial and technical resources for the implementation of the National Plan of Action; (11) Adopt multidisciplinary and multisectoral approaches and take measures to prevent and combat sexual exploitation and trafficking of children, including an awareness-raising campaign and educational programmes, particularly for parents; (12) Ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice; (13) Strengthen its policies to facilitate the reunification of child victims of trafficking with their families and provide adequate care and reintegration programmes for children who have been sexually exploited and/or trafficked, in accordance with the Declaration and Agenda for Action and the Global Commitment adopted at the 1996 and 2001 World Congresses against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children.
All the above recommendations have been negated in this case. The direct responsibility of it falls upon the local police, who have failed to act upon the complaint.
I therefore urge you to take the following actions in the case:
1. That the police immediately investigate case number 180 dated 25 May 2011 registered at Baduria Police Station;
2. A separate inquiry is ordered into as to the conduct of Mr Mrinal Pal concerning the threats of arrest of the victim girl and the officer’s alleged attempt to settle the case at the behest of the suspects;
3. Mr Mrinal Pal discharged from the responsibilty of investigating the case and an officer not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police asked to investigated why there are so many cases of child trafficking from North 24 Parganas distrcit;
4. The officer directed to report the investigation to the Chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights
Yours sincerely,
—————-
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. Ms. Mamata Banerjee
Chief Minister
Government of West Bengal
Writers’ Buildings, Kolkata – 700 001
West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: +91 33 2214 5480 / 2214 1341
Email: cm_wb@nic.in
2. Mr. Samar Ghosh, IAS
Chief Secretary
Government of West Bengal
Writers’ Buildings, Kolkata – 700001
West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: +91 33 2214 4328
Email: chiefsec@wb.gov.in
3. Mr. G. D. Gautama, IAS
Additional Chief Secretary (Home)
Government of West Bengal
Writers’ Buildings, Kolkata – 700001
West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: +91 33 22143001
Email: sechome@wb.gov.in
4. Mr. Naparajit Mukherjee, IPS
Director General & Inspector General of Police
Government of West Bengal
Writers Buildings, Kolkata-1
West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: +91 33 2214 4498 / 2214 5486
Email: dgp_westbengal@gmail.com
5. Prof. Shantha Sinha
Chairperson
National Commission for Protection of Child Rights
Government of India
5th Floor, Chanderlok Building, 36, Janpath
New Delhi – 110 001
INDIA
Fax: +91 11 23731584
Email: shantha.sinha@nic.in
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)
