Home / News / Urgent Appeals / INDIA: Father shot to prevent prosecution of police officers

INDIA: Father shot to prevent prosecution of police officers

June 16, 2010

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-090-2010



16 June 2010
------------------------------------------------------
INDIA: Father shot to prevent prosecution of police officers

ISSUES: Extrajudicial execution; impunity; corruption
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that on 10 June 2010, Mr. Thokchom Nimai Singh, father of Thokchom Inao was shot in front of his house at about 10.30 at night. Nimai Singh was pursuing a case against Manipur State Police Commando Officers who had shot dead his son Inao on 30 July 2009. Nimai Singh is currently undergoing treatment for his injuries and his condition is critical and is in a state of coma. The family suspects the state police and the 28 Assam Rifles for being behind the incident.

CASE DETAILS:

On 10 June at about 10.15 at night an unidentified person came to Nimai Singh's house and knocked at the front door. When Nimai Singh opened the door, the person verified whether it is Nimai he is speaking to and then asked the light in the front portico to be turned off. Then he asked Nimai to come along with him to show directions to the house of Mr. Nando Singh. Nimai refused to go out of the house since he was sick. Without uttering anything further the unidentified person pointed a gun at Nimai and shot him at a close range. The projectile hit Nimai from the front near his nose and exited through his throat.

As the assailant fled the scene, Nimai fell down. The family immediately took him to Shija Hospital and Research Institute at Langol in Imphal. Nimai is in a state of coma and his situation remains critical.

The Manipur State Police Commando Unit and officers attached to 28 Assam Rifles stationed in Manipur on 30 July 2009 arrested Nimai's son, Thokchom Inao alias Herojit Singh was arrested by officers from the Manipur State Police Commando Unit from Inao's elder sister's house. The officers in civilian dress, pretending to be the members of a prohibited militant organisation, the United National Liberation Front (UNLF), came in an unmarked white vehicle to Inao's elder sister Athokpam Ongbi Sanahanbi Devi's house in Pangaltabi Awang Leikai where Inao was staying at the time.

Inao was an agricultural labourer working with a power tiller owned by his brother-in-law. It was about 6pm and Inao had just returned from work and had taken a shower and was resting in the front porch veranda when the officers marched into the house. They confirmed whether Inao is the person who is in the veranda and dragged him into the vehicle by force. Inao's sister who was at home, pleaded with the officers to let her brother go. The officer refused and drove away.

The next day the police informed the family that Inao was shot dead in an armed encounter along the public road connecting Waithou and Thiyam. To justify the murder, a case against Inao was registered at Lilong Police Station accusing Inao as a member of the armed militant group, UNLF, and that the police and 28 Assam Rifles had shot dead Inao when he and his colleagues fired at the security forces who confronted them while on patrol duty.

Officer Mr. Ksh. Prakash Singh had given the statement to the Lilong police after the incident. However, the Officer-in-Charge of Lilong Police Station had recorded in the case file that "certified that the deceased Thokchom Inao alias Herojit Singh, aged 27 years, son of Th. Nimai Singh of Chilai Awang Leikai is not a hardcore member of the UNLF. The fact is true to the best of my knowledge."

On 3 September 2009, Nimai Singh went to the Sugnu Police Station to file a complaint against the officers he suspected who are involved in the murder of his son and the registering of the fabricated case against his deceased son. The Officer-in-Charge of the police station refused to register the complaint and gave the excuse that he required a direction from the Director General of Police to register the complaint.

On 7 September Nimai Singh filed a complaint at the office of the Superintendent of Police in Thoubal district and at the office of the Director General of Police, Manipur requesting the officers to initiate an inquiry concerning the murder of his son. The officers took no actions upon the complaints.

Against the wilful inaction of the police officers, Nimai approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) as well as the Guwahati High Court seeking redress to his complaints. The NHRC admitted the case as File Number 5/14/12/2010-FE and directed the Secretary of the Union Home Ministry; the Director General of Police, Manipur; District Magistrate Thoubal district and the Senior Superintendent of Police Thoubal to conduct investigation of the case. The NHRC also directed the police to forward to it a copy of the post-mortem report as well as a report after holding a magisterial inquiry into the incident within eight weeks. This case is posted for hearing to 4 September 2010.

The case filed before the Guwahati High Court was also admitted to records as Writ Petition 31/2010. Among other things Nimai had requested the High Court to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) an investigation agency functioning under the Central Government to investigate the case, which require the state government to hand over the case files to the CBI.

The Executive Magistrate of Lilong issued a public notification dated 12 May 2010 calling upon all interested parties to appear before the Magistrate to give evidence in the inquiry the Magistrate had initiated as per the directions of the NHRC. The Magistrate had also ordered that anyone wishing to provide any evidence concerning the murder of Inao could furnish evidence in the form of an affidavit to the Magistrate on or before 27 May 2010. Accordingly Nimai filed an affidavit before the Magistrate naming five other witnesses to the incident involving his son's murder.

On 11 June, a day after Nimai was shot, two persons visited Nimai's house claiming that they are from the media. But the two unknown persons threatened Nimai's family that if Nimai survived, he will be shot again. But before the two unidentified persons could leave, by sheer chance police officers from Sugunu Police Station came to Nimai's house. The police officers could apparently identify the two unidentified persons as their fellow officers working with the State Police Commando Unit. It was thus by sheer chance that the disguise of the two police officers who visited the family to threaten them was blown.

Nimai's family strongly suspects that the Manipur State Police Commando Unit and officers of the 28 Assam Rifles is behind Inao's murder and the attempted murder of Nimai. The family and other witnesses in the case are now in a terrified and traumatised state and are seeking help to safeguard their life and at the same time support to pursue the case Nimai has initiated.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Manipur is in a state of complete turmoil due to the alarming number of extrajudicial executions happening in the state. The administration has so far failed to prevent state sponsored murder in the state, and on the contrary have been an active collaborator. A report by the AHRC on Manipur entitled INDIA: The state of the republic is showcased in Manipur analyses the issue in detail.

The AHRC has reported 14 cases of extrajudicial execution from Manipur in the past 16 months. These are cases that are reported to the AHRC in detail through its partner network. While there is no systematic and credible information concerning the exact number of extrajudicial executions that have happened in the state so far, the only credible indicator to the magnitude of the problem is the public statement made by the Director General of Police Mr. Joykumar Singh in November 2009 that his officers have killed 260 persons in eleven months in the state through extrajudicial means. The officer of course iterated that that all those who have been murdered by his force are terrorists.

The NHRC and the Supreme Court of India have issued directions to the state governments and the union government, the procedures to be followed in cases of extrajudicial executions, more commonly known as encounter killings in India. The directions are such to reasonably rule out the possibility of the state agencies covering up murder in the excuse of combating militancy or terrorism. This includes conducting a magisterial inquiry each time a case of extrajudicial execution happens and the video recording the autopsy. The report of the magisterial inquiry and that of the autopsy are to be sent in each case to the NHRC for its review. So far Manipur has systematically failed to comply with this directives, like many other states.

The laxity to follow directives issued by the NHRC and the Court by the state agencies is partially because of the failure of the NHRC and that of the Court to insist compliance of its orders by the governments. The fact that the Director General of Police in Manipur has publically admitted that his officers are behind at least 260 extrajudicial executions in 2009 alone was brought to the attention of the NHRC by the AHRC as early as December 2009. Yet according to the information available to the AHRC, the NHRC is yet to demand from the government of Manipur a comprehensive report concerning each of the 260 cases from the Manipur state government.

The non-following of the procedures by the government is exploited by the state agencies, in particular the police. It is commonly reported from India that its police officers do not find any form of deterrent from them committing crimes, including murder. The AHRC has reported cases where police officers are suspected to have murdered innocent persons for mere promotions or for extorting money from Manipur itself. Each of these cases, according to the police or the agency behind the murder, are of persons that the state agencies claim having association with militant organisations. There has never been a single attempt either by the state administration or by the Union Government to conduct an inquiry to find the truth behind the claim that the murdered civilian is in fact killed in an armed encounter or not.

The case of Thokchom Rabina and Sanjeet Meitei proves this point. The case was brought to national attention through media coverage and the appeal and statement issued by the AHRC. After much reluctance the state government ordered a magisterial inquiry into the incident. The officers involved in the case are yet to be punished according to the information available to the AHRC.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please send a letter to the authorities listed below expressing your concern about this case and calling for an investigation into both cases. The AHRC is writing a separate letter to the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions calling for an intervention into this case.

To support this appeal, please click here:

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear __________,

INDIA: The attempted murder of the father to prevent him pursuing the case of his son's murder must be investigated

Name of victims:
1. Mr. Thokchom Inao, alias Heroji Singh, aged 27 years (shot dead on 31 July 2009)
2. Mr. Thokchom Nimai Singh, aged 52 years, father of Thokchom Inao named above, residing at Chairen Awang Leikai, under the jurisdiction of Sugunu Police Station, Thoubal district, Manipur (shot on 10 June)

Names of alleged perpetrators: Officers attached to Manipur State Police Commando Unit and 28 Assam Rifles

Date of incident: 31 July 2009 and 10 June 2010
Place of incident: Pangaltabi Awang Leikai (from where Inao was abducted) and Chairen Awang Leikai (where Nimai Singh) was shot

I am writing to express my deep concern about the case of the father and son Thokchom Nimai Singh and Thochom Inao brought to my attention by the Asian Human Rights Commission.

I am informed that Nimai Singh is the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition 31 of 2010 currently pending before the Guwahati High Court and the complainant in case number 5/14/12/2010-FE pending before the National Human Rights Commission of India. These cases are filed by Nimai against the Manipur State Police Commando Unit; 28 Assam Rifles; Government of Manipur and the Government of India accusing them that they are responsible for the murder of his son Inao.

I am informed that on 10 June 2010 an unidentified gunman shot Nimai in front of his home at about 10.15pm. I am informed that Nimai is admitted at Shija Hospital and Research Institute at Langol in Imphal and that he is in a state of coma and his situation is critical. I am informed that Nimai's family suspect the Manipur State Police Commando Unit and the 28 Assam Rifles for the attempted murder of Nimai as well as the murder of Inao, Nimai's son.

According to the information made available to me on 10 June at about 10.15 at night an unidentified person came to Nimai Singh's house and knocked at the front door. When Nimai Singh opened the door, the person verified whether it is Nimai he is speaking to and then asked the light in the front portico to be turned off. Then he asked Nimai to come along with him to show directions to the house of Mr. Nando Singh. Nimai refused to go out of the house since he was sick. Without uttering anything further the unidentified person pointed a gun at Nimai and shot him at a close range. The projectile hit Nimai from the front near his nose and exited through his throat.

I am informed that the Manipur State Police Commando Unit and officers attached to 28 Assam Rifles stationed in Manipur on 30 July 2009 arrested Nimai's son, Thokchom Inao alias Herojit Singh was arrested by officers from the Manipur State Police Commando Unit from Inao's elder sister's house. It is reported that the officers in civilian dress, pretending to be the members of the prohibited militant organisation, the United National Liberation Front (UNLF), came in an unmarked white vehicle to Inao's elder sister Athokpam Ongbi Sanahanbi Devi's house in Pangaltabi Awang Leikai where Inao was staying at the time.

I am informed that Inao was an agricultural labourer working with a power tiller owned by his brother-in-law. It is reported that the officers from the Manipur State Police Commando Unit and 28 Assam Rifles abducted Inao at about 6pm from his elder sister's house on 30 July 2009. Inao's sister who was at the house, pleaded with the officers to let her brother go. The officer refused and drove away.

It is reported that on the next day the police informed the family that Inao was shot dead in an armed encounter along the public road connecting Waithou and Thiyam. It is alleged that in order to justify the murder, a case against Inao was registered at Lilong Police Station accusing Inao as a member of the armed militant group, UNLF, and that the police and 28 Assam Rifles had shot dead Inao when he and his colleagues fired at the security forces who confronted them while on patrol duty.

I am informed that officer Mr. Ksh. Prakash Singh had given a statement to the Lilong police after the incident accusing Inao as a member of the UNLF. However, I am aware that the Officer-in-Charge of Lilong Police Station had recorded in the case file that "certified that the deceased Thokchom Inao alias Herojit Singh, aged 27 years, son of Th. Nimai Singh of Chilai Awang Leikai is not a hardcore member of the UNLF. The fact is true to the best of my knowledge."

I am informed that when repeated attempts made by Niami Singh to register a complaint with the police against the murder of his son, he approached the National Human Rights Commission and the Guwahati High Court seeking redress in the case.

I am informed that the NHRC admitted the case as File Number 5/14/12/2010-FE and directed the Secretary of the Union Home Ministry; the Director General of Police, Manipur; District Magistrate Thoubal district and the Senior Superintendent of Police Thoubal to conduct investigation of the case. The NHRC also directed the police to forward to it a copy of the post-mortem report as well as a report after holding a magisterial inquiry into the incident within eight weeks. This case is posted for hearing to 4 September 2010.

I am also aware that the case filed before the Guwahati High Court was also admitted to records as Writ Petition 31/2010. Among other things Nimai had requested the High Court to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) an investigation agency functioning under the Central Government to investigate the case, which require the state government to hand over the case files to the CBI.

I am informed that the Executive Magistrate of Lilong issued a public notification dated 12 May 2010 calling upon all interested parties to appear before the Magistrate to give evidence in the inquiry the Magistrate had initiated as per the directions of the NHRC. The Magistrate had also ordered that anyone wishing to provide any evidence concerning the murder of Inao could furnish evidence in the form of an affidavit to the Magistrate on or before 27 May 2010. Accordingly Nimai filed an affidavit before the Magistrate naming five other witnesses to the incident involving his son's murder.

It is under these circumstances Nimai was shot on 10 June. The attempted murder of Nimai is wilful interference with the process of justice.

I am informed that on 11 June, a day after Nimai was shot, two persons visited Nimai's house claiming that they are from the media. But the two unknown persons threatened Nimai's family that if Nimai survived, he will be shot again. But before the two unidentified persons could leave, by sheer chance police officers from Sugunu Police Station came to Nimai's house. The police officers could apparently identify the two unidentified persons as their fellow officers working with the State Police Commando Unit. It was thus by sheer chance that the disguise of the two police officers who visited the family to threaten them was blown.

I am informed that Nimai's family strongly suspects that the Manipur State Police Commando Unit and officers of the 28 Assam Rifles is behind Inao's murder and the attempted murder of Nimai. The family and other witnesses in the case are now in a terrified and traumatised state and are seeking help to safeguard their life and at the same time support to pursue the case Nimai has initiated.

I therefore urge you to take immediate steps to ensure the following:

1. To guarantee the safety of Nimai and his family while he is undergoing treatment;
2. The Magistrate inquiring into the Inao murder case, immediately order the Manipur State Police Commando Unit as well as 28 Assam Rifles to furnish a report to the Magistrate within seven days as regards to their position in the attempted murder of Nimai;
3. The statements Nimai's family members who were present at Nimai's house on 10 June 2010 to be recorded by a judicial magistrate;
4. The 28 Assam Rifles as well as Manipur State Police and the state government to file a report with its version of the shooting of Nimai to the Guwahati High Court as well as the National Human Rights Commission within seven days;
5. All necessary steps taken to guarantee the safety of all witnesses in the Inao murder case as well as Nimai' shooting to be provided protection by the state government until the case is finally disposed of by the High Court as well as the National Human Rights Commission.

I am looking forward to your intervention.

Yours sincerely,
----------------

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. A. K. Anthony
Defense Minister
Government of India, 104 South Block
New Delhi
INDIA
Fax: +91 11 23015403

2. Dr. P. Chidambaram
Home Minister
Griha Mantralaya
Room No. 104, North Block
Central Secretariat, New Delhi 110001
INDIA
Fax: +91 11 2301 5750, 2309 3750, 2309 2763
E-mail: hm@nic.in

3. Justice K. G. Balakrishnan
Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission of India
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg
New Delhi-110001
INDIA
Fax: +91 11 23340016
E-mail: chairnhrc@nic.in

4. Justice R. S. Garg
Chief Justice
Guwahati High Court
Guwahati, Assam
INDIA
FAX +91 361 2604122 or +91 362 2735863 (Registrar General)
E-mail: hc-asm@nic.in , hicourtg@rediffmail.com

5. Mr. Okram Ibobi Singh
Chief Minister of Manipur
New Secretariat Building
Bapupara, Imphal, Manipur
INDIA
Fax + 91 385 2451398
E-mail: cmmani@hub.nic.in

6. Chief Secretary, Manipur
Old Secretariat Building
Bapupara, Imphal, Manipur
INDIA
Fax + 91 385 2222629
E-mail: csecmani@hub.nic.in

7. Director General of Police
Police Headquarters
Bapupara, Imphal, Manipur
INDIA
Fax + 91 385 2223829
E-mail: dgp.mnp@hub.nic.in

Thank you

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
AHRC-UAC-090-2010
Countries :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.