INDIA: Death of a woman in suspicious circumstances and local police failing to investigate the case properly

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information through its local partner the MASUM, a human rights organisation based in West Bengal, regarding the death of a 16 year old girl in suspicious circumstances and the failure of the local police to investigate the case properly. It is alleged that the local police is picking up people from the locality at random and keeping them in illegal custody for several days on the pretext of investigation. It is also alleged that two suspects who might have a connection with the crime, though were named by the girl’s father is not questioned by the police.

CASE DETAILS:

On 24 October 2006, the body of Ms. Kashmira Khatun, aged 16, daughter of Sk. Mainuddin, was found with serious injuries in the property of Lakshman Deb Koley in Koleypara, Bhagabatipur, Hooghly district, West Bengal, India. It is alleged that Kashmira had left her home on the previous day night at about 10pm for her sister’s house in Koleypara village.

Coming to know about the incident, the police officers from the Chanditala police station arrived at the spot and took Kashmira’s body. The next day the body was sent to Srirampore Walsh Hospital for postmortem examination. However the postmortem examination was not done in that hospital and the body was transferred to Nilratan Sarkar Medical College & Hospital the next day at about 1.30pm. The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Tapas Kumar Bose, Professor and Head, Department of Forensic and State Medicine, Medical College, Kolkata. Kashmira’s body was handed over to the family on the same day at about 5.30pm.

The Chanditala police registered a case [case number 136 of 24 October 2006] under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. An additional case was also registered [case number 59 of 24 October 2006] as that of unnatural death.

The MASUM being informed of the case met Kashmira’s father Mr. Sk. Mainuddin, who informed MASUM that two to three days before Kashmira’s death, there was an argument between Mr. Kamruddin, Mr. Laltu Mallik and Jakir Mallik. Kamruddin is the younger brother of Mainuddin. Hearing about the argument, Mainuddin and his family intervened in an attempt to sort out the issue. But Laltu and Jakir threatened Kamruddin and his family with death and failed to sort the issue out. Mainuddin immediately informed the matter to the Chanditala police station. The police took Laltu and Jakir into custody and illegally detained them in the police station for four days and later released them without producing them before a court. The law in India mandates that any person taken into custody must be produced before the local magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. Even though MASUM tried to get further information regarding the arrest and the illegal detention of Laltu and Jakir from the police station the police refused to provide any further information.

It is alleged that the officers of the Chanditala police station has started harassing innocent persons in the locality in connection with the case registered for Kashmira’s death. It is alleged that on 1 February 2007, Mr. Tapasbrati Chakraborty, the Officer-in-Charge (OC) of the Chanditala police station summoned Mr. Subrata Koley, a neighbour of Mr. Ensan Mallik to the police station. Ensan is the son-in-law of Mainuddin. When Subrata went to the police station he was detained and kept in the police lockup for three days. It is alleged that Subrata was also not produced before the magistrate as mandated by the law.

Later on 4 February 2007 Ensan was also summoned to the police station by the same officer. When Ensan reported at the police station he was also detained in the lockup. The next day Mainuddin was informed about the incident and he rushed to the police station. There he informed the officer that on 23 October 2006, the day on which his daughter was suspected to have been murdered, Ensan was with Mainuddin. With this statement Ensan was also released. However Ensan and Subrata were released on the condition that both must report to the police station whenever required by the officer.

Mainuddin suspects that Laltu and Jakir are behind his daughter’s murder, even though their names were not mentioned in the First Information Report . Mainuddin allege that both Laltu and Jakir are local hooligans and have good connection with the local police, particularly the OC of the said police station. Mainuddin also allege that a blue colored underwear was recovered from the crime scene which if subjected to scientific analysis would provide some clue to investigate the crime. However Mainuddin does not know whether it was sent for any scientific examination. Since such an item of cloth was recovered from the crime scene Mainuddin suspects that his daughter might have been sexually assaulted before she was murdered. Mainuddin is thoroughly dissatisfied with the investigation in the case and is seeking help to pressure the local police to properly investigate the case and also to question Laltu and Jakir upon the incident.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

In India most often the investigation of a crime starts with a confession statement and ends with it. Most often the police take people into custody at random and torture them to force a confession statement and later prepare an investigation report based on the confession statement. They will also makeup witness statements to meet the confession of an alleged accused. Most of the witnesses might not have even the slightest relation with the crime and often they turn hostile in the court.

When instances of police brutality were reported in alarming numbers the Supreme Court of India took the initiative to provide some guidelines regarding arrest and detention of persons. This it did by making certain observations while delivering a judgment in the D. K. Basu case. Interestingly this case originated from West Bengal, from where the AHRC has documented the maximum number of cases of violation of the guidelines of the court.

In the current case it appears that the attempt by the local police is to get people into custody at random and try to force a confession from someone and finally charge that unfortunate person with the crime. From the practices of the Indian police it is evident that most of them are either not aware of modern scientific means of investigating a case or they believe that torture is the cheapest way of investigating a crime. The fact that India has no specific legislation that criminalises torture also adds into the problem. Due to the absence of a specific legislation that criminalises torture and other forms of custodial violence the local police enjoy complete impunity.

The AHRC suspects that in Kashmira’s case too the local police will finally find someone who will succumb to the brute force and threat used by the local police to confess the crime, while the real accused will remain free. As evident from this case, the local police never take any action against the local hooligans even though there are suspicions against them of involving with this case. This is because often the local police entertain a close nexus with the criminals in the locality. The Indian police by and large are corrupt and even high ranking police officers are no exception to this.

In addition to the failure in policing there is complete absence of modern facilities for investigating a crime in India. Most police stations lack even basic amenities like a telephone connection and a vehicle to travel. Forensic examination of a crime scene is done only in cases of high publicity or when the victim is of high influence to force the police to conduct a thorough scientific examination. Even autopsy reports are never produced in time. In many cases in West Bengal autopsies are never conducted and if conducted are done by inexperienced persons like the helpers in the morgues. The MASUM and the AHRC has in the past documented several such cases. However, in this case Kashmira’s family is fortunate since the autopsy was conducted by a trained surgeon from the medical college. However, it might take months for the report to be handed over to the family.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the authorities listed below expressing your concerns over this case asking them to intervene in this case immediately. A thorough investigation into the case must be ordered. It is also imperative that the manner in which the Chanditala police is investigating into the matter be also a subject matter of a separate investigation. In fact the Officer in Charge of Chanditala police station must be prosecuted for illegally detaining people in custody which is a clear violation of the Supreme Court of India’s guidelines in the D. K. Basu case.

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