Home / News / Urgent Appeals / INDIA: A torture victim is forced to give bribes to his perpetrator while the police fabricate charges against him

INDIA: A torture victim is forced to give bribes to his perpetrator while the police fabricate charges against him

June 4, 2004

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAM

4 June 2004
------------------------------------------------------------
UA-60-2004: INDIA: A torture victim is forced to give bribes to his perpetrator while the police fabricate charges against him

INDIA: Torture; Forced bribery; Fabrication of charges; Police inaction
------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from Vigil India Movement that a man named P.K. Joy was illegally detained in police custody and brutally tortured by head constable Sugathan of the Ettumanoor Police Station, Kottayam, Kerala with the concurrence of Sub-inspector (SI) George on 26 April 2003. More seriously, Joy was continuously intimidated by Sugathan and forced to give him money on several occasions after being tortured. After Joy made a complaint against Sugathan, his complaint infuriated the Ettumanoor Police and they are now hunting for Joy. It is also alleged that the Ettumanoor Police attempted to implicate Joy in a criminal case by making a false complaint in order to save their face and hush up the torture of Joy.

Even though several recommendations were made by the Police Directorate, Kerala Lok Ayukta and Superintendent of Police A.P. George for the police to conduct a departmental inquiry into this case, to date no departmental action has been taken, nor has any crime been registered against head constable Sugathan or SI P.J. George. On 3 May 2004 the High Court of Kerala was petitioned with regard to Joy's case and the petition was admitted on 19 May 2004.

Your urgent action is required to pressure the local authorities to prosecute the responsible officer(s) and provide protection to the victim immediately.

Urgent Appeals Desk
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
------------------------------------------------------

DETAILED INFORMATION:

Name of the victim: P.K. Joy, a merchant, Ettumanoor, Kottayam, Kerala, India
Alleged perpetrators:
1) Mr. Sugathan, Police constable attached to the Ettumanoor Police Station
2) Mr. P. J. George, Sub-Inspector attached to the Ettumanoor Police Station

Case details:

P.K. Joy of Ettumanoor, Kottayam (Kerala) is a small-scale merchant. On the night of 7 March 2003, his neighbor Thomas Joseph was attacked by two assailants and was injured in the vicinity of Joy's store. Joy was not involved in the attack.

On 26 April 2003, at around noon, the head constable Sugathan of the Ettumanoor Police Station, who was in fact not on duty that day, called Joy's house and Joy's mother received the phone call. Sugathan told her that he wanted to question her son about his former employee, who was a suspect of the attack on Thomas Joseph. After receiving the message from his mother, Joy, his father and his driver met with a Panchayath member who contacted P.J. George, the sub-inspector (SI) of the Ettumanoor Police Station. The SI reiterated the request for Joy's presence at the police station. Joy, his father, his driver and the Panchayath member went to the Ettumanoor Police Station. At the police station, SI George questioned Joy and asked him to wait in another room. Meanwhile the Panchayath member left the police station.

After that, head constable Sugathan entered the room where Joy was and began to verbally abuse Joy. Sugathan ordered Joy to remove his shirt and started to beat him on his face and abdomen. Sugathan then removed Joy's belt and took his mobile phone and purse, after which he again started to brutally assault Joy on his abdomen and face with his hands and fists. Afterwards, Joy was stripped to his underwear and forced into a lock-up where the brutal attack continued. When witnessing Sugathan's brutal torture on his son, Joy's father rushed to the local office of the Marxist Party. After hearing his story, the area secretary called the SI and asked him not to torture Joy and to release him. However, the SI refused to do so. While he was in the police custody, Sugathan seriously tortured Joy for several hours. He was released when his father returned with Advocate Sasikumar at around 8:00 pm.

Upon his release, Sugathan removed Rs.200 (US $4) from Joy's purse. He also threatened him into coming to the police station the next day and paying more bribes to him in order to avoid "serious consequences". To ensure this, Sugathan obtained a written undertaking from Joy's father and driver. All this took place with the consent and concurrence of SI George. Immediately after being released from the police station, Joy was taken to the Medical College Hospital where he underwent treatment for his injuries. The doctors who examined him discovered 30% hearing loss in Joy's left ear as a result of the torture and they said that Joy would have a permanent hearing impairment. Joy made a complaint against head constable Sugathan to the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. However, his complaint infuriated the Ettumanoor Police and they are now hunting for Joy.

In the meantime, Joy continuously received threats and demands for money from head constable Sugathan. Conspiring with a criminal known by the alias "Baby", Sugathan threatened Joy and asked for money several times.

On 30 April 2003, Joy with the help of the People's Movement for Human Rights (PMHR) filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, the Director General of Police, the Chief Minister-Kerala and the Kerala State Human Rights Commission with regard to the bribery and assault. The Kerala State Human Rights Commission later directed that the Circle Inspector of Police (CIP) hold an enquiry about this case. However, it was reported that the CIP in turn issued a false report on 23 May 2003 stating that Joy's complaint was without substance. In addition, on 5 May 2003, a private complaint was lodged by Joy's neighbor Thomas Joseph regarding the attack on him that had taken place two month ago. This second complaint was made just nine days after the police torture of Joy. The new case was highly exaggerated. Joy and PMHR were concerned that the police are attempting to implicate Joy as the accused of the Thomas Joseph case in order to hush up their illegal torture of Joy and save their face. Joy, who began to realize that he might not be able to get justice, petitioned the court for anticipatory bail on 26 May 2003, fearing that he may soon be implicated in a non-bailable offence. The Kottyam Criminal Court deemed the grievance "well-founded" and the apprehension of arrest "reasonable" and granted anticipatory bail to Joy.

Complaint 331/03 was registered by Joy against Sugathan and was investigated by the Police Directorate. The directorate recommended Sugathan be dealt with departmentally and Joy compensated. However, not only did the police fail to take departmental action against the perpetrators and to compensate Joy, but they also failed in their duty as police officers to register a crime against Sugathan and P.J. George. This illustrates how the police are trying to protect those responsible for the torture of Joy and pervert the course of justice. By virtue of the failure of the police to take action in this regard, on 2 June 2003 Complaint No. 331/03 was filed before the Kerala Lok Ayukta against head constable Sugathan alleging manhandling, torture and bribery.

In the mean time, Superintendent of Police, A.P. George, submitted an enquiry report into the complaint on 13 October 2003. The report suggested that a departmental enquiry was necessary into the manhandling and bribery. The report went on to state that Head Constable Sugathan had confirmed that Joy was not an accused in the criminal case. The report deemed the first account of the attack given by Thomas Joseph to be "very true and correct" and the second to be a "highly exaggerated version" of the event. Furthermore, later, Thomas Joseph confirmed that he did not make such accusations against Joy on 5 May 2003.

On 4 February 2004 the Kerala Lok Ayukta recommended that Director General of Police order a departmental enquiry into the actions of the head constable Sugathan and that compensation be claimed from the latter. Furthermore, a copy of Complaint 331/03 and the enquiry report of Superintendent A.P. George were sent to the Director General of Police as well. However, according to Joy, no departmental action has been taken to date nor has any crime been registered against the head constable Sugathan or SI P.J. George. Moreover, no attempt has been made by the Director General or by the State of Kerala to compensate Joy. Joy sent a second letter to the Director General of Police on 1 March 2004 requesting him to take action regarding the torture and bribery he endured at the hands of Ettumanoor police. On 3 May 2004 the High Court of Kerala was petitioned with regard to Joy's case and the petition was admitted on 19 May 2004.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please send a letter to the addresses below and express your concern of this case.

Sample letter:

Dear

Re: INDIA: A torture victim is forced to give bribes to his perpetrator, while the police fabricate charges against him

I am writing to bring to your attention the case of Mr. P.K. Joy.

According to the information I have received, he was illegally detained in police custody and brutally tortured by head constable Sugathan of the Ettumanoor Police Station, Kottayam, Kerala on 26 April 2003. In addition, he was continuously intimidated by Sugathan and forced to give him money several times.

I am also gravely concerned by the information that Ettumanoor Police attempted to implicate Joy in a criminal case by falsely making a complaint against him in order to save their face and hush up the torture of Joy. After Joy made a complaint against Sugathan, his complaint infuriated the Ettumanoor Police and they are now hunting for Joy. Even though several recommendations were made by the Police Directorate, Kerala Lok Ayukta and Superintendent of Police A.P. George requesting a departmental inquiry into this case, the police ignored these recommendations and have not taken any departmental action nor registered any crime against head constable Sugathan and sub-inspector George of the Ettumanoor Police Station who consented and cooperated Sugathan's illegal act.

This incident provides clear evidence of the miserable situation which the Indian people have faced for a long time. If they cannot expect any justice from the police and on the contrary, they even have to suffer from torture and intimidation by the police, where must they have to go to get justice? Unfortunately, it seems that the government of India has made no serious attempt to put an end to this brutal cycle of torture and injustice.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution endows upon the State the duty to protect the fundamental right to life of its citizens, which includes the protection of subsidiaries of this right; the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Article 22 further lays down the particular rights of a person at the time of arrest and detention. Therefore, the torture and intimidation against the victim by the Ettumanoor Police is clearly in violation of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, I strongly urge you to take legal/administrative action against head constable Sugathan of the Ettumanoor Police Station and order a thorough and independent investigation into the case. The police authorities should follow the recommendations from the Lok Ayukta.

I also urge you to provide full protection to the victim and suspend Sugathan from his service while the investigation is going on. The victim should be compensated as well. Lastly, I urge the Government of India to ratify the Convention against Torture (CAT) and to legislate upon it without delay in order to prevent these human rights abuses in the future.

Sincerely yours,


-----------------------------

Send a letter to:

1. Shri. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam,
President of India
Rashtrapathi Bhavan,
New Delhi -110001
INIDA
Tel: +91 11 23015321
Fax: + 91 11 23017290 / 23017824
E-mail: presidentofindia@rb.nic.in

2. Justice A S Anand
Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission of India
Sardar Patel Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001
INDIA
Tel: +91 11 2 334 0891 / 2334 7065
Fax: +91 11 2 334 0016
E-Mail: mailto:chairnhrc@nic.in

3. Mr. A. K. Antony
Chief Minister of Kerala
Room No.141, IIIrd Floor, North Block, Secretariat,
Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala State
INDIA
Tel: +91 471 2 333812, 332184 (O) / 314853, 317051 (H)
Fax: +91 471 2 333682 (O) / 333489 (H)
E-mail: chiefminister@kerala.gov.in

4. Mr. K.M. Mani
Minister for Revenue and Law, Kerala State
Room No.216, 3rd Floor, North Sandwitch Block,
Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala State
INDIA
Tel: +91 471 2 327876, 327976
Fax: +91 471 2 327876
E-mail: minister-revenue@kerala.gov.in

5. Mr. Justice V.P.Mohan Kumar
The Chairperson
Kerala State Human Rights Commission
Arka Njlayam, M.P. Appan Road
Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram -14,
Kerala State
INDIA
Tel: +91 471 2 337263 / 337145 (direct) 313950
Fax: +91 471 2 2337148
Email: kshrctvpm@vsnl.net

6. Mr. Theo C. van Boven
Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture
OHCHR-UNOG
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Fax: +41 22 917-9016

7. Mr. Leandro Despouy
Special Rapporteur on the Independence of judges and lawyers
OHCHR-UNOG, Palais Wilson,
Rue des Paquis 52, Geneva
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 9175727
Fax: +41 22 9179006

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-60-2004
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.