INDIA: Police officers and thugs assault a person on mistaken identity; superior officer refuses to take any action on complaint 

Dear Friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information regarding the brutal assault of Mr. Sadiq Ali and how he was threatened by a superior officer when he approached the officer to lodge a complaint regarding the incident. Not only was Sadiq beaten by law enforcement officers, but the police admit that they arrested and attacked the wrong person in a case of mistaken identity.

On June 26, 2006, Sadiq, a travel agent, was illegally taken into custody by plainclothes police officers and taken to the local police station in Kunnamkulam. At the time of his arrest, Sadiq was not informed why he was arrested and where he was being taken. Instead, Sadiq was punched in the face and forced into a private vehicle. Once inside the vehicle, he was further assaulted on the way to the police station. Later, after intervention by his family, the police understood that Sadiq was mistakenly taken into custody and was released. Even though Sadiq tried to lodge a complaint with the deputy superintendent of police on the same day, he was threatened by the officer and asked not to lodge a complaint. It is alleged that the police officers who took Sadiq into custody were assisted by thugs who work for private moneylending firms. Sadiq, an amateur bodybuilder who had won prizes at district-level competitions, had to be admitted to the hospital for two days to recover from the injuries he sustained in this incident.

FATCS OF THE CASE

On June 26, 2006, at about 1:55 p.m., Sadiq was waiting for a bus near the Kunnamkulam bus stand. Kunnamkulam is a township near Thrissur in central Kerala. While waiting for the bus, a vehicle bearing number plate KL-14-C-700 stopped in front of Sadiq, and a few strangers stepped out and asked him to enter their vehicle. Finding it strange, Sadiq asked one of the people who instructed him to get into the vehicle who they were and why they wanted him to accompany them.

In response, the person said, “We are police officers. You can only obey police officers after obtaining our address.”

It later became known that this person was Mr. Krishnankutty, a probationary subinspector attached to the Kunnamkulam police station.

Following this initial interaction, Krishnankutty punched Sadiq in his right eye and below his left eye. Along with Krishnankutty, there were six other people in the vehicle of which two were later identified as Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Shivadasan — police constables from the same police station. Sadiq was then pulled into the vehicle, and the vehicle drove towards the Kunnamkulam police station.

Once the vehicle began moving, the police officers, along with the others, started torturing Sadiq, causing him to urinate and defecate inside the vehicle. Soon the vehicle reached the police station, and Sadiq was taken inside.

At the station, Sadiq regained his courage and asked the police officers why he had been taken into custody and beaten up. The police officers did not offer any explanation to his inquiries. Sadiq informed the officers that he operates a travel agency at West Fort in Thrissur. Suddenly Sadiq’s mobile phone began ringing, and the police officers told him to answer it and asked him to identify the caller.

Sadiq did as he was instructed and informed the officers that the caller was his friend, Mr. Asad, calling him from a nearby place. The officers asked Sadiq to inform Asad to come to the police station, which Sadiq did. Sadiq also informed Asad that he was being held in custody for reasons unknown to him. Before arriving at the police station, Asad contacted a member of the Panchayath [local body] and informed him that Sadiq had been taken into custody for some unknown reason and that Asad was asked to go to the station too. When Asad arrived at the police station, he was asked to wait with Sadiq.

Meanwhile, the Panchayath member contacted the police station and inquired why Sadiq had been taken into custody and why his friend Asad was also asked to go to the police station. The police answered that Sadiq was accused of being involved in a theft. In the meantime, Sadiq’s family also learned the news that Sadiq was arrested and was being held at the police station. Sadiq’s family soon arrived at the police station along with the Panchayath member.

The Panchayath member and Sadiq’s family again asked the officers why Sadiq was taken into custody. The police answered that it was a case of mistaken identity and that they were setting Sadiq free.

Once freed from police custody, Sadiq went to see the deputy superintendent of police, Mr. P. N. Unniraja, and explained to him what had happened. The officer informed Sadiq that the police officers who took him into custody were probationary police officers who mistook him for a defaulter in a vehicle hypothecation arrangement with a local private financial agency and that the police officers were helping this agency identify the defaulter and make the person pay the amount due.

In spite of Sadiq informing the superior officer about the brutality of the incident and the injuries he sustained from it, the deputy superintendent of police, instead of taking any action against his subordinate officers for illegal detention and torture, threatened Sadiq, telling him that he would tell the officers to register a false charge against him if Sadiq dared to complain to anyone about this incident.

Sadiq went home. By that evening, he was feeling severe pain all over his body and was finding it difficult to sleep and urinate. On June 27, Sadiq was admitted to Puthenpalli V. A. M. Hospital for treatment and was discharged two days later. As of today, Sadiq is willing to lodge a complaint in the court against the police officers who tortured him and the other identifiable persons who assisted the police in torturing him and also against the deputy superintendent of police who failed to take action on his complaint. However, Sadiq is afraid that the police officers, as threatened by the deputy superintendent of police, would implicate him in a false case.

OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION:

In India, there are thousands of private financial agencies who provide financial services, like hypothecation and loans, along with private and nationalised banking companies. Owing to the delay in court procedures, for the financier to repossess articles hypothecated through an agreement, they engage private agencies to repossess the security or the hypothecated article. These private agents, after paying off corrupt police officers, repossess articles forcibly, often in breach of the law, along with the police officers. Even though repossessing of securities and hypothecated articles do not come under the mandate of the local police, these agents and financiers pay off police officers to avoid complaints if the use of criminal force is involved. In addition, the presence of corrupt police officers during this process ensures a certain amount of false authority and also guarantees complete impunity for all damages caused in the process of repossession.

To prevent similar atrocities from being committed by the police and other law enforcement agencies, the Supreme Court of India ruled that when a person is taken into custody the officers must identify who they are and why the person is being taken into custody. The officers must also inform the nearest relative or friend of the detainee about the arrest and where the person is held. The Supreme Court of India ordered all states as well as the central government to enforce its verdict. The facts and circumstances of this case indicate that the police officers acted in complete derogation of these rules set by India’s highest court, which is contempt of court.

It appears that the police officers who tortured Sadiq and the deputy superintendent of police are on the payroll of private financiers. It must also be noted that custodial torture has not yet been made a crime in India. Thus, the only option available for a victim in India in the case of custodial torture is to file a private complaint in a magistrate’s court under Section 190 of India’s Criminal Procedure Code. On receipt of such a complaint, the only two options available for the magistrate are (1) to refer the complaint to the local police for inquiry, which in this case are also the perpetrators, or (2) to take cognisance of the offence and again refer the matter to the local police to gather evidence, which includes the statements of witnesses. In either case, since the perpetrators themselves are vested with legal authority to investigate the complaint, these investigations are often partial and go against the victims. Additionally, in this case, it appears that the police officers received protection from their immediate superior officer — the primary reason why police officers enjoy impunity even in cases of brutal custodial torture in India. One of the ways to avoid such an anomaly is to make torture a crime in India and to provide for a separate investigating agency, outside the influence of the local police, to investigate such cases. Towards this end, ratification of the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) would be a positive step which the Indian government must take. Upon ratification, the government of India must implement the convention into domestic law.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the authorities mentioned below, in particular to Mr. M. N. Jayaprakash, the superintendent of police of Thrissur District, seeking an immediate and proper investigation into this incident. Please also send a copy of your letter to the other authorities named below.

To support this appeal, please click: 

 

 

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