INDIA: Alleged assault of innocent man by the police to settle private feud 

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from our local partner in Kerala, India that an innocent man named Mr. C. R. Suresh was allegedly assaulted by Sub Inspector (SI) Shamsudeen of the Pudukkad police station on 2 October 2006. It is alleged that the same officer had in the past registered fabricated charges against the victim. After the assault, the victim was asked to leave without being informed any reason for his summons. To-date, no action has yet been taken against the officer concerned. The AHRC has also received the victim’s medical certificate issued by a hospital, which indicates his injuries caused by the assault.

CASE DETAILS:

At around 5:30pm on 1 October 2006, Sub Inspector Shamsudeen came to the house of Mr. Suresh at Chulliparambil house, Kaloor post, Kaloor village, Thrissur district, Kerala and asked him to appear at the Pudukkad police station the following day. As instructed, Mr. Suresh reported to the police station along with his friend Sathisan at 9:00am on the next day. The sentry stationed at the entrance showed Mr. Suresh to the SI’s room.

Once Mr. Suresh entered the room, the SI got off from his chair, charged upon Mr. Suresh and shouted questions at him as to whether he was engaged in bootlegging. Suresh denied it. Then the SI shouted at him, “do you get drunk at night and have sex with your mother?” He further shouted, “son of a bitch… are you offering your wife for prostitution?” Mr. Suresh was shocked by these questions and protested as to why the SI was shouting at him. The SI then pushed Mr. Suresh towards the wall and punched him on his chest and stomach. When Mr. Suresh fell down, the SI threatened him that he would register a false charge against him. Then Mr. Suresh was asked to leave. Mr. Suresh says that he was not informed as to the reason why he was summoned to the station. The entire incident was witnessed by the victim’s friend Sathisan, who accompanied him to the police station. Mr. Suresh got himself admitted at the Thrissur District Hospital on the same day and received medical treatment for pain until October 4.

According to the victim, the same SI had allegedly registered a false charge against Mr. Suresh a few months earlier under the Kerala Abkari Act . Mr. Suresh insists that the SI registered the false case against him to wreck vengeance against him since as he was a political party activist. The victim also alleges that the SI entertains animosity against him after he had challenged the SI and his activities in the past. Consequently, the SI was not in good terms with Mr. Suresh and that is the reason why he assaulted and abused the victim after summoning him without any sufficient reason or charges.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

It is common for police officers to summon people to the police station and to assault them as they wish in India. In a reasonably functioning justice system, such an act would call for immediate investigation and would often result in the punishment of the police officer concerned. However in India, the police are often used by the political parties, those in power in particular, to silence the opposition. Usually the procedure of this abuse is first to summon a person to the station and threaten him or her. If it fails, the person will be summoned again on the pretext of suspicion of being engaged in some crime and then brutally assaulted. If that also fails, the police will register false charges against person, which are often related to serious offences such as dealing with drugs and narcotic substances, and the person will be then detained, tortured and later produced in court. The misuse of the police force is often exploited by the police officers to engage in bribery, corruption and also to wreck vengeance against people whom these officers do not like.

Furthermore, the use of force by police officers is often considered as a necessary requirement for policing in India. This approach is based on hypothetical proposition that unless the ordinary people fear the police, law and order cannot be enforced. This concept was introduced by the British police, particularly against those who were fighting for freedom during the pre 1947 period. However, after 1947, the practice continued and is evident from various provisions in the Police Act as well as the complete lack of an independent mechanism to investigate crimes committed by the police officers, particularly those that could be considered as excessive use of force. While arresting, questioning and investigating, physical assault is widely used by the police in India and it is often left unchallenged.

For those who wish to complain against such assault by the police, there is no independent mechanism within the country. Those who still wish to complain may write to the ministers and higher police officers who are least interested in taking action against subordinate officers due to the belief that if they do so they will revolt and may even bring to light crimes committed by the people in authority or their superiors.

The courts in India, particularly the Supreme Court of India, have tried to address this problem through its directives, which is popularly known was the D. K. Basu case law. However, the implementation of the directives by the government is despicable even after ten years after the judgment.

The AHRC along with other human rights groups has been raising concerns about this. However, the government of India has not taken any positive steps to address this issue. Furthermore, the government of India has now stated that it is planning to ratify the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), which it signed in 1997. However, it is expected that the government will place reservations upon Article 22 that allows the treaty body to look into individual complaints filed with it. The government of India has also failed to ratify the 1st Optional Protocol of ICCPR in order to prevent jurisdiction over any individual complaints from India.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Taking a cue from this case, and several others like those issued by the AHRC in the past through its urgent appeals programme, the AHRC urges you to pressure the government of India, and the state government of Kerala in particular, to order an impartial investigation into this case. We also urge you to write to the authorities named below to ensure that the government of India withdraws the reservations it has placed while ratifying international conventions and also to expedite the process of ratifying the CAT and not to place any reservation upon ratification.

 

 

 

 

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