Our reply in connection with Case no. 175/25/4/2011 – torture upon HRD
source: mailed by Suresh Bhat
17th February 2012
National Human Rights Commission
Ref:- Your letter dated 27.1.2012 in connection with Case no. 175/25/4/2011
Our complaint dated 17.2.2011
Sub.:- Reply against police report
We received your letter dated 27.1.2012 in connection with Case no. 175/25/4/2011 and the report of the SDPO, Durgapur attached with the letter.
We have perused the report and place our comments for your kind perusal on the report as follows:-
The SDPO, Durgapur in his report stated that “…on 21.12.2010 O/C Pandabeswar Police Station along with other officer and force being accompanied by the then CI (B), Durgapur held a raid at Kendra, Chhatadhaorah and its adjoining area to arrest the FIR named accused persons but no fruitful result could be achieved. During raid the Police personnel had been to the house of FIR named accd Subad Ali Khan …”—regarding this point we want to comment that the SDPO, Durgapur admitted that the police party was present in the house of the victim on 21.12.2010. He did not mention the name of the so called “other officer” who was present with the police party. Why he concealed the name of this “other officer”? Is he trying to save any police officer? If the police raid was valid as claimed in the report then why he did not feel it necessary to disclose the name of such “other officer”? We have definite information that the SDPO, Durgapur was himself present with the police party which raided in the house of the victim on 21.12.2010. But he did not admit the same in his report. The SDPO, Durgapur Mr. Joy Biswas stated before the news media that they had information that someone was coming from Birbhum who was going to take shelter in the victim’s house for which they went for a search in the house of the victim. Such statement of the SDPO, Durgapur Mr. Joy Biswas was made before the news reporters and the same was published. We have attached the scan copy of the said news paper cutting with this reply. The SDPO, Durgapur has no power to this enquiry as he was himself present with the police party and we demand that the concerned police authority must be directed to disclose all the names of the police personnel who were present during the raid in the house of the victim on 21.12.2010 for proper disposal of the case.
Moreover, it is quite improbable to believe that such huge police personnel went to arrest the FIR named accused persons in four cases (as mentioned in the report) but they failed to apprehend none of them. What a remarkable efficiency shown by the police party!!! We must say that the SDPO, Durgapur presented his statement regarding the purpose of the raid, the purpose of presence of the huge police personnel in the house of the victim (only to arrest him!!!) in a dubious and cryptic manner. He did not place supporting police records in support of his statement. The Police Regulations of Bengal mandates that day to day proceeding of the police station must be recorded in the General Diary Entry (GDE) Book of police station. So here we expect that the police of Pandabeswar Police Station should have had recorded the information about the commencement and purpose of the raid by the police party on 21.12.2010 in the General Diary Entry Book, but here the SDPO, Durgapur in his report did not mention any reference of the GDE entries made on 21.12.2010 at Pandabeswar Police Station over the subject matter in issue. We demand that Pandabeswar Police Station must be directed to place its GDE records made on 21.12.2010 to testify the veracity of the statement of the SDPO, Durgapur.
The SDPO, Durgapur in his report stated that “… During raid the Police personnel had been to the house of FIR named accd Subad Ali Khan and to secure arrest him in c/w Pandabeswar PS Case no.58/2010 dt. 12.11.10 u/s 143/341/506 IPC, 25/27 Arms Act & 9(b) (II) I.E. Act…”- regarding this point we want to comment that arresting of any accused person in connection with any pending criminal case is one of the parts of investigation and the Investigation Officer of the case has power to arrest the accused person if he considers the arrest to be prominent for the purpose of the investigation. But here the report never uttered a single word whether the Investigation Officer in c/w Pandabeswar PS Case no.58/2010 was present with the raiding police party or not.
The SDPO, Durgapur in his report stated that “…During local enquiry it also revealed that the petitioner Subad Ali Khan is a desperate and dangerous and most rowdy in nature and he used to create problem in the area off and on for showing his muscle power…”—-Regarding this point we want to comment that the SDPO did not mention the date, time and place as when he made such so called “local enquiry”. We understand that local enquiry means gathering of facts by talking with local people of the vicinity and noting down their statements. But here the SDPO, Durgapur did not mention any name of person/persons who took part in such so called “local enquiry” and from whom he gathered information on the reputation of the victim. We hereby attached one character certificate issued by the Prodhan(Head) of Kendra Gram Panchayat certifying that the victim was the elected member of Kendra Gram Panchayat and he bears a good, moral character. The SDPO, Durgapur by his statement made character assassination of the victim in an unfair and dishonest way and he by his mere statement tried to present an untrue picture of the targeted person i.e. the victim without any substance. It is a form of defamation.
The inquirer i.e. the SDPO, Durgapur is nothing but a paid partisan agent of the police administration which repeatedly subjected the victim into torture and harassment and the victim had to lodge specific complaints against the perpetrator police personnel to save his life, liberty and rights. The fact remains that the victim had lodged one complaint before the West Bengal Human Rights Commission against police harassment and in the matter of the said complaint, the Additional S.P. Durgapur vide communication dated 5.7.2004 asked the victim to meet with him in his office. One scan copy of the said communication is duly attached with this reply. The victim duly met with him (the Additional S.P. Durgapur) in his office but till date the victim did not get any outcome of his complaint. Moreover the victim was arrested on 5.2.2007 by the police of Pandabeswar Police Station and he was illegally detained by police. The wife of the victim lodged specific written complaint at ACJM Court, Durgapur in the matter.
Lastly, we being the complainant in this case were not given any opportunity to place our stand before the enquiring officer i.e. The SDPO, Durgapur. Moreover he neither met with the victim nor with his family members to get their statement over the incident which is the subject matter in issue in this present case. Here we understand that an enquiry means a systematic investigation of a matter of public interest. But all our hope to get a systematic and neutral investigation was pinned down in this case by the biased and concocted report place by the SDPO, Durgapur.
Hence we demand that the report placed by the SDPO, Durgapur should be rejected considering the comments made by as above and direct that a neutral investigation should be made in this case by the investigation wing of the Commission.