INDIA: Irresponsible firing by Salar police kills a woman and injures a man in Simulia, Murshidabad district, West Bengal 

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from its local partner, Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (Masum), regarding the death of 25-year-old Ms. Tulsi Das, who was killed instantly when she was shot in the face by police on 12 April 2006. The Sub-Inspector of Police from Salar police station, Murshidabad district, West Bengal reportedly fired two rounds into a crowd of people, allegedly trying to disperse the mob. The death of Tulsi was the result of one of these bullets, while the other bullet hit Mr. Haradhan Das in the leg, seriously injuring him.

It is reported that on 12 April, in connection with a local Hindu festival, there was a fight between two factions of the local Hindu community. Police officers from Salar police station were dispatched to control and to disperse the mob. When the police arrived at the scene the two groups were pelting stones and bricks at each other. It is alleged that, on arrival, police officers, led by the Sub-Inspector, charged upon the fighting mob.

It is further alleged that the Sub-Inspector of police, Mr. Kali Prasad Banerjee, pulled out his service pistol and, without warning, fired into the mob, hitting Tulsi in the face from a distance of approximately 30-35 feet away. The projectile entered Tulsi’s body close to her nose causing severe injuries and killing her immediately. The officer fired again, hitting Haradhan Das in his left leg. It is alleged that there was no warning through the public address system prior to the officer firing his weapon, nor did the police fire into the air to warn the fighting mob to disperse. Eyewitnesses also allege that the police came to the scene with complete knowledge that the mob was engaged in fighting but were not sufficiently prepared to disperse a rioting mob, therefore they resorted to shooting at close range, at a trajectory likely to fatally injure members of the mob, rather than resorting to other, less dangerous means to force the mob to disperse.

Several persons were injured in the attack launched by the police against the members of the mob. It is reported that, on the basis of a complaint by the Sub-Inspector who shot at the mob, the Salar police has registered a case under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code against 30 persons, accusing them of being involved in acts of attempted murder, rioting with weapons, for causing grievous hurt to a public officer and for preventing the officer from discharging his duty. It is alleged that no case was registered against the Sub-Inspector, whose action resulted in loss of life. Instead, the only response by the West Bengal Police Department was to suspend him and it is alleged that no further action will be initiated against this officer and he would be soon inducted back to service.

Though this case clearly shows the recklessness of the Indian police, and their disregard for human life and the safety of persons who they are bound to protect and safeguard, it also exposes the failed nature of the current policing system in India, and West Bengal in particular.

The laws that govern policing in India are the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 and the relevant state Police Acts/Rules/Regulations. In this particular instance the relevant law is the Police Regulations of Bengal of 1943, which was created by the British to rule over what was then British India. Understandably, Bengal has since undergone much change, which has rendered the old law useless in the current day.

The only changes to the law have been introduced by departmental orders, making the Regulations more complex and practically ineffective. This has resulted in the Regulations being more of a hindrance to policing in the state than a help. One such example is the Police Order No. 5 of 1970, which provides for the maintenance of criminal histories by the Criminal Intelligence Bureau and divides offences into different classifications making application of the Order far too complex. For example, theft regarding railways is divided into 14 different categories of habitual offenders: thieves who steal from male train compartments, female train compartments, at railway stations, at goods sheds, and even trying to differentiate thieves by the nature of goods and articles they steal from the train. However, in the Indian Penal Code there is only one provision for theft, and this provision does not differentiate between acts according to where they occurred or what was taken, such as whether they occurred in the male compartment or the female compartment of a train.

However, the regulations do include provisions that require police officers to exercise certain cautionary measures when being informed of crimes of a serious nature.  One such example is the Police Order No. 1 of 1952. This Order mandates the police station and the officer in charge of the station who is informed of a riot, political or communal, to immediately inform the Deputy Inspector General, Intelligence Branch, and the Inspector General of Police regarding the incident. In addition, the West Bengal Police Regulations require the presence of a Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Officer to accompany an armed police party when dispatched to control a rioting mob. These mechanisms have been incorporated to prevent unnecessary casualties and to ensure that force is only employed when absolutely necessary and that this force is kept to a minimum. It is alleged that none of these safeguards were followed in this case.

The Regulation requires that police to employ the least physical harm or bodily injury to the members of the mob when force is necessary to disperse the mob. The Regulation also stipulates that that the use of fire arms for dispersing a mob is a last resort to prevent the loss of life of officers or the loss of property, which requires either an order of a Magistrate or a situation where immediate force is extremely necessary. The Regulation also expressly mandates for prior and sufficient warnings before a shot is fired. None of these procedures were observed in this case and it is alleged that such indiscriminate use of force by the police is quite common in India.

It is also important to note that, if the police had been concerned with the proper discharge of their duty, they should have prepared themselves for the prevention of a riot by equipping themselves with riot management equipment, like public address systems and teargas shells or water cannon, for extreme cases. However, in this case it is alleged that the police came completely unprepared and this resulted in the officer open firing on the crowd.

Further action by the local police suggests that the police are using all available means to silence locals and cover-up the shooting incident. It is reported that the police conduct regular raids and searches in the locality, where the officers invade residences of ordinary people at night on the pretext of a search without the presence of female officers. The Criminal Procedure Code mandates the police to conduct searches where women are believed to be residing in the presence of female officers.

It is also alleged that on 20 April officers from Salar police station arrived at the residence of Tulsi and tried to forcefully take her parents into custody. It is alleged that the attempted arrest was for the purpose of forcing them to withdraw their complaint regarding their daughter’s death. Notably, the Officer-in-Charge of the same police station is inquiring into the case registered against those who, according to the police, were responsible for causing the fight.

The police in India are known for suppressing cases and taking no action, especially when one of their colleagues is allegedly involved in a crime. It is evident that this was not an accident, but rather a case of criminal recklessness and indifferent police action.

The current Indian laws do not provide for the initiation of any impartial inquiry into the case. The only possible remedy available to the family and to the injured is to file a complaint with the same police station that was involved in the incident and, if that police station refuses to register their complaint, either approach a higher police officer and plead for his or her mercy or approach the local Magistrate Court with a private complaint that, by law, will be referred to the same police station that is responsible for the crime or complaint alleged.

The National or the State Human Rights Commissions also do not have any independent procedure of investigation and to file a complaint with the Commissions the complainant, under law, needs to wait for a year for the Commissions to entertain jurisdiction over the cause of action of the complaint.

In India, various committees or commissions are repeatedly appointed to revise police regulations and try to revitalise the criminal justice system. However, much of the recommendations materialise as orders and annexure to the existing law, which, as is evident from the Police Regulations of Bengal, makes the law obsolete and hinders the process of justice.

India has signed the International Convention against Torture but failed to ratify the convention on the pretext that the domestic law is sufficient to prevent police torture and arbitrary punishments. However, as made evident above, domestic mechanisms are severely lacking. As a result, the perpetrators enjoy complete impunity and the victims remain helpless with no forthcoming remedy for the violations they confront.

On several previous occasions the AHRC has petitioned the Government of India and various state Governments, calling for immediate action against corrupt and debauched police officers who have complete disregard for the criminal law. In most of these cases the Government only initiates action if public pressure was considered intolerable and the Government was exposed, otherwise cases are not even registered. It is probable that this case will also contribute to the thousands of other cases waiting for justice, if no public pressure is generated.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please send a letter to the relevant authorities seeking for an immediate and effective investigation into the firing incident, and calling for the perpetrators to be prosecuted. The AHRC also calls for a strong stance to be taken against crimes committed by police officers and on investigation and prosecution of such cases.

 

 

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