INDIA: Jalangi police continues unabated brutality in Murshidabad district of West Bengal 

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received shocking information from MASUM, a human rights organisation in West Bengal that a person was illegally taken into custody from his house by the officers from Jalangi police station and brutally tortured. It is alleged that the officers raided the house at about 3am on 28 August 2006 and arrested the victim, Mr. Bajlur Rahman. At the time of arrest Bajlur was brutally beaten up and also at the police station. Neither Bajlur nor his family was informed the reason why he was taken into custody.

Facts of the case:

On 28 August 2006, at about 3am six officers led by Mr. Tuhin Biswas, Sub Inspector of Police from the Jalangi police station raided the house of the victim. The officers who barged into the house did not inform the family whom or what they were looking for. The officers after arresting Bajlur brutally tortured him in front of his mother. He was later taken to the Jalangi police station in a police jeep. It is alleged that Bajlur was brutally tortured in the police station also.

Bajlur’s mother Mrs. Anesa Bewa tried to contact Mr. Somnath Banerjee, the officer in charge of Jalangi police station to find out why her son was tortured and what the reason for his arrest was. However, she was not provided any details by the officer. Subsequently she contacted MASUM on 30 August 2006 in the evening. On receipt of a complaint by Anesa, MASUM contacted the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police of Murshidabad. However both officers failed to provide any help or information regarding the case. Bajlur however was produced in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad today. It is also alleged that the police has framed false charges against Bajlur to justify the arrest.

The case currently registered against Bajlur at Jalangi police station is case no. 47 of 2006 dated 28 March 2006. The complainant in this case is one Mr. Badi Mondal son of late Mr. Hakman of Prasanna Nagar village, Jalangi. There were two accused named in the original First Information Report. They are 1) Mr. Sanjay Sk of Roshan Nagar and 2) Ms. Tarangini Pramanik of Balia Danga. Both were arrested long back. There was no whisper regarding the involvement of any other accused in this case.

However, it is alleged that once MASUM intervened and on receipt of complaint from the mother of the victim, the Jalangi police have now doctored a statement of one Ms. Khusi Bibi of Pune, Maharastra state, who is also allegedly involved in a case of female trafficking to connect Bajrul in this case. It is however an anomaly that the allegedly doctored statement of Khusi Bibi is made by her while she was in custody of Jalangi police. The police have also made up a false arrest memo which is now produced in court where Khusi Bibi is made a witness to the arrest. This contradicts the purpose of the arrest memo. According to the rules framed by the Supreme Court, the witness to the arrest memo must be either a family member of the arrested person or a respectable person in the locality, for which according to the current circumstances Khusi Bibi does not qualify.

On production of Bajlur at about 3pm in court the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ms. Subrata Hazra Nee Saha has remanded Bajlur to judicial remand till 14 September 2006. Even though the Magistrate had received written complaint regarding the manner in which Bajlur was arrested and tortured in custody without being produced before the court within the stipulated time of twenty four hours, the Magistrate did not ask Bajlur whether he was arrested in the manner mentioned in the compliant and whether he was tortured by the police. The Magistrate also did not care whether Bajlur require any medical attention. This lack of action by the Magistrate also reflects the general attitude of the subordinate judiciary in India in cases of custodial violence. It also reflects how custodial violence continue unabated in India inspite of the initiative taken by the Supreme Court of India and how the Supreme Court’s directives are not implemented by the subordinate judiciary in India.

Other relevant information:

The Criminal Procedure Code 1973 of India requires the law enforcement agencies to follow certain procedures at the time of conducting a house raid. Section 47 (1) of the Code requires the police officers to inform the occupants of the house whom they are looking for and seek prior permission before entering the house. It is only when the occupants refuse permission to the police to enter and the officers believes that such refusal is to facilitate an escape of the person they seek to arrest, the officers could use force to enter the house.  However, in this case the officers barged into the house without complying with any formalities. Section 47 (2) also requires the officers entering a house where a woman resides to allow the woman to step outside the house before the search.

Section 49 of the Code prohibits use of unnecessary force during arrest. Section 50 requires the officer to inform the person arrested the reason for arrest, including the alleged offense for which the person is taken into custody.

In addition to the statutory requirements the Supreme Court of India has ruled that at the time of arrest a memo must be prepared by the arresting officer. This memo must contain the crime alleged, place, date and time of arrest and also the place to which the person would be taken to to be detained before producing the detainee before a Magistrate. The rules framed by the Supreme Court also require the officers to ask a person to witness the arrest memo.

Bajlur was arrested on 28 August, but he was produced before a Magistrate only on 31 August. Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the police to produce the detainee before a local Magistrate within twenty four hours. In Bajlur’s case this law also was not observed. The arrest and detention of Bajlur is also against the mandates of Article 22 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India.

This is not the first time that the AHRC has come across similar cases from India. In the past few years the AHRC has been calling upon the authorities in India to make sure that such blatant violations of law do not happen. For further information please see UA-247-2005, UA-116-2005, UA-89-2005, UA-82-2005 and UA-19-2005. The AHRC is also aware that in most cases the detainees are later released without any charge or are falsely implicated in serious offences. In Bajlur’s case he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court Murshidabad today charged under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[Section 363: Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship 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 366A: Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable with fine.]

Bajlur’s mother has also filed complaints with the Chief Judicial Magistrate Murshidabad alleging illegal detention, torture in custody and non-compliance of the law and the directives of the Supreme Court.

India has not ratified the United Nations International Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of India has refrained from ratifying the Convention by arguing that the existing domestic laws are adequate to prevent torture and other inhuman treatment in the country. However, the reason why the law enforcement agencies in India are made least accountable for custodial violence is because torture is yet to be made a crime in India. This lacuna is exploited by the law enforcement agencies in India.

We call for your urgent intervention into this matter. Please send a letter to the local authorities to take appropriate action against the concerned police officers and to strictly implement domestic laws and guidelines regarding arrests and detentions so that errant police officers can be held answerable to the justice system.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please send a letter to the Chief Minister of West Bengal requesting him to order an immediate and thorough investigation into this case so that disciplinary actions are taken against the alleged perpetrators.

To support this appeal, please click:

 

 

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