Home / News / Urgent Appeals / INDIA: Uttar Pradesh police stocks cartridges to murder an innocent man
 

INDIA: Uttar Pradesh police stocks cartridges to murder an innocent man

January 3, 2006

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

03 January 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------
UA-003-2006: INDIA: Uttar Pradesh police stocks cartridges to murder an innocent man

INDIA: Police brutality, torture, lack of action by the National Human Rights Commission and failure of rule of law
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from a local human rights organisation PVCHR based in Uttar Pradesh, Varanasi that an innocent man is under continuous threat from the local police and that the police officers have even threatened him that they have reserved a cartridge to shoot him when situations are favourable.

The AHRC is informed that the victim Mr. Ram Prasad Bharati, a resident of Chandauli District, Uttar Pradesh is under continuous threat from the police officers from Naugarh and Chakia. It is alleged that Mr. A. K. Singh and Mr. Ramawadh Yadav, both police officers attached with Majhgavan police station, is alleged to have taken the victim into custody from his house on 15 September 2005 and detained the victim at Majhgavan police station for a few hours on the pretext of investigating into alleged Naxilite activities in the area. It is alleged that while the victim was in custody the arresting officers as well as senior police officers including the Superintend of Police from Chandauli have threatened the victim that he would be soon murdered in a fake encounter killing.

It is also alleged that on 6 February 2005 Mr. A. K. Singh had paid a visit to the victim’s house looking for the victim and when he found that the victim was not at home, he asked the victim’s sons to inform the victim that the officer has kept ‘a cartridge’ in reserve to be used against the victim in near future. The AHRC is informed that the victim Mr. Ram Prasad even though had approached the local courts and the National Human Rights Commission, the authorities has failed to intervene in the case. The victim as well as his family as of now is living in extreme trauma due to continuous threat and intimidation and lack of support from any government agents. The situation is grave since it is the very police who are responsible to respect and protect the life of the citizen is the threat in this case. Contextually, it is also brought to your notice that encounter killing is the common ruse posed by the law enforcement agencies in India for extra judicial killing.

The AHRC condemns the act of the state police and the stale attitude of the authorities in India which has failed to intervene in this case despite various complaints. We request you to immediately intervene in this case calling for immediate protection to the victim and also asking for an independent inquiry into the case by the Indian authorities.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission
-------------------------------------------------------------

DETAILED INFORMATION:

Name and address of the victim: Mr. Ram Prasad Bharati, son of Mr. Badlu Ram, residing at Vishasharpur, Naugarh police station, Chandauli District, Uttar Pradesh, India
Date and time of incident: Continuously since 2003
Place of incident: Chandauli District, Uttar Pradesh, India
Alleged perpetrators: Mr. A. K. Singh, Mr. Ramawadh Yadav and other police officers from Naugarh police station and Superintend of Police Chandauli, Chandauli District, Uttar Pradesh, India

Case details:

Mr. Ram Prasad Bharati, is a resident of Vishasharpur under the jurisdiction of Naugarh police station in Uttar Pradesh, India. Since 2003 he is been chased by the police officers from Naugarh police station for unknown reasons. It is suspected that the police suspect him for alleged involvement for Naxilite activities which is prohibited by law in India. It is equally suspected that the police want to put pressure upon Prasad to work as an informer to the police. In either case, the way the police is dealing with Prasad is in the most inhuman way.

The intervention by the local police into Prasad’s life started in 2003. It started with occasional house visits by the police looking for Prasad, which took a brutal turn in early 2005. On 6 February 2005 Mr. A. K. Singh visited Prasad’s house and asked for Prasad. Prasad’s sons who were at home informed the police officer that their father was not at home and further informed the officer that their father had gone to Varanasi to meet his brother. The police officer hearing this shouted at Prasad’s children and informed them that he had kept a cartridge for their father and that soon he will be registering a case against the entire family and would bring them all to the police station.

On 15 September 2005 the same police officer along with a colleague Mr. Ramawadh Yadav again came to Prasad’s house, but this time with additional police force. They took Prasad into custody by about 6 am and then took him to Majhgavan police station. Form there Prasad was taken to Naugarh police station where he was brutally tortured. After some time the Circle Inspector of Police from Chakiya Police Circle along with Station Officer from Naugarh police station, Station in Charge of Majhgavan police station, Superintend of Police from Chandauli and Station Officer Chakarghatta Mr. Umesh Pandey arrived at the police station. In the presence of these senior police officers Prasad was beaten up. While beating up Prasad, the officers were also abusing Prasad with the most filthy language referring to his caste. Prasad comes from the Dalith community and is also a supporter of the local political party, the Bahujan Samajwadi Party. While the abuse was going on the Superintend of Police from Chandauli was shouting at Prasad that next time they would take him to a nearby forest and shoot him and later claim that Prasad was involved with Naxalite activities and had been shot dead in a police encounter. In the mean while coming to know about Prasad’s arrest some of the members of the Bahujan Samajwadi Party also collected in front of the police station. Seeing the crowd increasing in number the police released Prasad by about 10 pm without registering any case.

Annoyed, threatened and fearing for his life Prasad approached the local Magistrate Court on 28 November 2005 asking for help. Prasad moved the Judicial Magistrate Court Chakia requesting the court to inquire into the matter and requesting the court to call for a report from the local police and to find out for what offence and what charge he is been inquired into. In response to the inquiry from the court the Naugarh police submitted in court that Prasad is not wanted in any case. However, the police further submitted that Prasad is a notorious criminal and that he is under surveillance for alleged Naxilite activities. It is to be noted here that if a person is facing no criminal charges or in the absence of any previous convictions there is no law in India which could declare a person a criminal. The procedure is, if a person is to be proclaimed as a offender and if the person’s name is to be included in the ‘wanted list’ either the person must be absconding avoiding arrest pending an arrest warrant or the person after arrest must be brought before the Magistrate where in a quasi judicial process, the Magistrate, after hearing both the police and the detainee either declares the person as a proclaimed criminal or dismiss the claim by the police. In Prasad’s case nothing of this nature had ever happened. However, to Prasad’s surprise the local magistrate accepted the police report into file, but failed to take any action in the case even though the law mandates that the court cannot ignore such reports from the police where a person is arbitrarily declared as a proclaimed offender by the police.

Finding that the local court is failing to help Prasad, he filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission on 20 July 2005 with the help of PVCHR. The National Human Rights Commission accepted the complaint into file and through its order dated 25 July 2005 asked the State Police to inquire into the matter and to ‘take appropriate action’, which in itself mean nothing since the complaint by Prasad is against the state police. In the meanwhile on 16 October 2005 an officer from the Special Task Force to Investigate Naxilite Activities (STF) Mr. Amresh Tripadi visited Prasad’s house and gave in writing that there are no cases pending with his office as against Prasad and that he was giving this in writing because he wanted to avoid anyone at a later stage claiming that it was his office which shot Prasad in an encounter.

These incidents have caused extreme trauma for Prasad and his family. It is known that in India people are killed by law enforcing agencies on the pretext of encounter killing. Prasad comes from a Dalith community and he is very vocal against the atrocities committed against the Daliths. It is also alleged that the Intelligence Bureau (IB), the Central Intelligence Agency in India is also behind these incidents since they wanted to use Prasad as an informant with the support of the local police. In either case Prasad and his family as on today live without the minimum guarantee that whether Prasad would live another day. Prasad in follow-up of his complaint with the National Human Rights Commission has also written to all government agencies responsible for policing in India and in Uttar Pradesh in particular. None of these complaints yielded any result. Prasad is the only earning member of his family.

This is not a stay case where the local police impart terror into ordinary people in India by forcing them to become informers or falsely implicate them with serious charges. The AHRC has come to know a few hundred cases in the recent past where the police officers in India impart brutal torture upon innocent persons. The AHRC is also aware that in many cases people were killed by the police on fake encounter killings. The AHRC has intervened in all these cases where the AHRC has brought these cases into the attention of the Government of India and also to various organs of the UN. This is also a case which exposes the fallibility of the domestic legal system in India. In India as on today there is no specific law which provides protection to ordinary people against torture and police violence. There is no independent agency in India to inquire into such cases. The only option available as on today is to entrust the police to investigate allegations of torture against police which has proved meaningless since often these inquiring officers are influenced by their colleagues who are facing the charges or the officers themselves are facing similar charges. As in this case the domestic courts have proved that either it is unconcerned against cases of custodial torture or it subscribe to the acts of the police.

In Asia India is one of the countries with a very poor human rights standard. Even in poorer countries like Sri Lanka there are existing domestic laws which cater to the requirements of the International Convention against Torture. Sri Lanka is way ahead, in ratifying the convention and also to have a domestic legislation criminalizing torture.  As on today custodial torture is a crime in Sri Lanka which attracts an imprisonment for a period of seven years and the case is traible at a High Court. There are also separate and independent mechanisms to inquire into cases of alleged torture working under the Attorney General’s Department. In India however, torture is not made a crime and on the contrary if one need to prosecute a case of torture the complainant need to depend upon the very same police who is responsible for torture as it is depicted in this case. This has lead to numerous instances where cases were not investigated and the victims facing brutal reparations.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the authorities listed below expressing your concerns over this case asking them to intervene in this case. The entire incident must be investigated into and the erring officers must be punished. The victim must be given immediate protection. If it is proved that the victim has suffered physical injuries the state as well as the perpetrator police officers must be made to pay compensation to the victim.

Suggested letter:

Dear ______________,

Re: INDIA: Uttar Pradesh police stocks cartridges to murder an innocent man

Name and address of the victim: Mr. Ram Prasad Bharati, son of Mr. Badlu Ram, residing at Vishasharpur, Naugarh police station, Chandauli District, Uttar Pradesh, India
Date and time of incident: Continuously since 2003
Place of incident: Chandauli District, Uttar Pradesh, India
Alleged perpetrators: Mr. A. K. Singh, Mr. Ramawadh Yadav and other police officers from Naugarh police station and Superintend of Police Chandauli, Chandauli District, Uttar Pradesh, India

I am shocked to know about the case of Mr. Ram Prasad Bharati reported from Vishasharpur, Naugarh police station, Chandauli District, Uttar Pradesh, India where it is alleged that the local police officers have threatened him saving that they have reserved a cartridge to murder him. I am concerned about the safety of the victim and his family. It is alleged that the police officers are threatening the victim to put pressure upon the victim to make him work as an informant of the local police. It is also alleged that even the local Magistrate Court and the National Human Rights Commission and other responsible authorities in India is not responding to the call for help by the victim.

I am informed that the police have taken the victim into custody and had brutally tortured him while in custody that too in the presence of senior police officers. One of the officers, particularly the Superintendent of Police from Chandauli has threatened him that next time he must be taken into the nearby forest and must be executed as if it is a death from encounter killing.

I am shocked to know that the domestic legal setup in India and the authorities have equally failed to intervene in this case. I therefore call upon you to intervene in this case and to take immediate action to safeguard the security of the victim and his family and also to order an inquiry into the incident. I request you to spare no resources to punish the alleged police officers if they are found guilty. A statement of the victim must be recorded immediately by a judicial magistrate or else the chances are the victim will be murdered as planned by the local police in order to prevent any inquiry into the case. If it is proved that the victim was tortured while in custody the state as well as the police officers who are responsible for torturing the victim must be made liable to pay compensation to the victim.

I hope that you will consider this case with utmost importance and would take all necessary steps to provide protection to the victim until the case is fully investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice.

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

PLEASE SEND A LETTER TO:

1. Mr. Yashpal Singh, IPS
Director General of Police
Tilak Marg, Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh
INDIA
Tel : +91 52 2220 6104
Fax :+91 52 2220 6120, 2220 6174.
E-mail : police@up.nic.in

2. Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav
Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh
Chief Minister's Secretariat
Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh
INDIA
Fax: + 91 52 2223 0002 / 2223 9234

3. Justice A. S. Anand
Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission of India
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg
New Delhi-110001
INDIA
Tel: + 91 11 2307 4448
Email: mailto:chairnhrc@nic.in

4. Justice A.P. Mishra
Chairperson
Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission
6-A Kalidass Marg
Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh
INDIA
Tel: + 91 52 2272 6742
Fax: + 91 52 2272 6743

5. Prof. Manfred Nowak
Special Rapporteur on the question of torture
Attn: Mr. Safir Syed
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9230
Fax: +41 22 917 9016 (general)
E-mail: ssyed@ohchr.org

6. Ms Leila Zerrougui
Chairperson
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
c/o Miguel de la Lama
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTENTION: Working Group on Arbitrary Detention)
Email: mdelalama@ohchr.org


Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-003-2006
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.