UPDATE (India): Jalangi police forged First Information Report to assist perpetrators in obtaining bail 

Dear friends,

On 1 August 2005, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) released an urgent appeal (UA-130-2005) detailing the case of Subhas Mondal. The AHRC has now received new information from MASUM, a human rights organisation in West Bengal regarding the release of perpetrators after details of a counterfeit First Information Report (FIR) were submitted in court.

Subhash was an unmarried 26-year-old who worked hard in supporting his family. Prior to his death he was engaged in petty businesses such as selling jute fiber and was thinking of setting up a small tea stall at the Berhampore local market.

On 15 October 2004 Subhash and his elder brother Swapan were returning home on bicycles from the market. He was carrying with him 10 kilograms of wheat flour and Rs.15000/- (USD 300) in cash. Some distance away from their village the two men were attacked by a group of armed officers. They were armed with clubs, iron rods, country made pistols and choppers. They pounced on them brutally and stole the money and other things. Swapan rushed to the camp of the Border Security Force (BSF) stationed at Singh Para close by his village for help. The BSF personnel came with him to the spot and provided him a jeep to carry his wounded and gravely ill brother to the hospital. The armed men had left Subhash in a serious state and had forced a five inch long iron nail through his left eye. After initially being taken to the Jalangi police station, Subhash was then transferred by Swapan to the Sadikhandear Hospital [Block Primary Health Center (BPHC)]. The attending doctor of the said hospital rendered treatment, however his condition was critical and therefore he was moved to the District Hospital at Berhampore. However, on his way to the District Hospital, Subhash died.

Swapan and his family went to the Jalangi police station and informed them of Subhash’s death. Mr. Babu Mondal, the elder brother of the deceased lodged a written complaint where he disclosed the names and addresses of seventeen perpetrators and handed over the complaint to Mr. Harish Ali Khan, Sub Inspector of the Jalangi police station.

Mr. Khan gave a chit of paper to the victim’s family members present at the police station to receive the dead body from hospital and another paper addressed to the district hospital requesting for a post mortem examination. The victim’s family was asked to hire a car to carry the body to Berphampore. This was peculiar as it is the duty of the police to send dead bodies to the morgue for post-mortem examination. However, when the family hired a car for Rs. 1000 a constable from the station accompanied them. The family was under the impression that their complaint would be properly investigated; however, this has not been the case.

On the basis of the complaint by the victim’s family vide Jalangi police station case no. 178 / 2004 the police arrested just four of the perpetrators, thus absconding the remaining 13. Two of the perpetrators’ names were in fact excluded from the falsified FIR made by the police shielding them from punishment for the crimes they are alleged to have committed. Additionally, having relied on the false evidence given in the FIR the named perpetrators have been able to obtain bail.
The family is disheartened by the police’s actions in falsifying the FIR and in their protecting of persons allegedly responsible for Subhash’s death. They have also been subjected to repeated threats for their pursuing of this case. Nevertheless, the family are adamant to seek justice in this case and have lodged complaints with Jalangi police station vide General Diary Entry No. 1006 / 21.12.2004; 1153 / 24.12.2004 and 1265 / 21.06.2005 respectively.

FACTS OF CASE:

It is reported that the original FIR was registered at 6am on 16 October 2004 when Swapan lodged a complaint at the Jalangi police station (vide Jalangi P.S. case no. 178 / 2004). However, a falsified FIR was recorded at 3.15pm and in using this time difference, the police fabricated a false charge against Subhash with the help of a local sex worker, Ms. Jyotsna Bibi who was provoked into lodging a fabricated case against Subhash (vide Jalangi P.S. case no. 177 / 2004). The report records that Subhash had gone to her with ill intentions. He was caught in public and was lynched thereafter. This case was lodged in the same FIR book bearing the same number 274826. Swapan also mentioned that the thumb impressions of himself, his mother and the signature of his brother on the Inquest Report were reproduced and not genuine.

It is alleged that the police fabricated the complaint to taint the character of the deceased as he had a close relationship with the cross border smuggling network. The problem of smuggling has mushroomed in recent years and the act of punishing local dons apparently combated bribery for the police.

The perpetrators of this heinous crime obtained bail and are roaming free on the streets of India. This is a great perverse of justice and cannot be tolerated. A proper investigation must be afforded to ensure redress to the victim’s family.

To date the stolen money and the two bicycles of the brothers have yet to be found. Complaint letters have been sent to: 1). Mr. Narayan Ghosh, IPS Economic Offence Investigation Cell Finance Deptt., Writers’ Building , Kolkata – 1; and 2). West Bengal Human Rights Commission, Alipore, Kolkata – 27 by Registered post vide Reg. Letter Nos. 9551 and 9552 dated 21 July 2005 from Behrampore post office. However, neither authority has properly addressed this matter.

OTHER RELEVANT INFORAMTION:

According to the Criminal Procedure Code of India, all complaints lodged at any police station must be recorded in writing. If the complainant is present at the police station while the complaint is recorded a copy of the complaint as recorded at the police station must be immediately handed over to the complainant. [Please see Section 154 which reads: (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant]

This provision of the procedural law is in place to ensure that police officers do not manipulate the substance of the complaints according to their whims and also to ensure that all complaints are registered. In general, offences in the Indian Penal Code are divided into two categories cognizable and non-cognizable. A simple explanation of the term ‘cognizable offence’ is an offence in which a police officer may execute an arrest without a warrant – mainly serious crimes like rape, murder and robbery. With the crime in this case being that of murder, the police officer at Jalangi police station should have recorded the complaint in writing and then also served the complainant with a copy.

However, in most cases, including this one, the police officers refuse to record complaints. This gives further opportunity for officers not to include the entry in the General Diary, to be maintained at the police station. The requirement for making the entry at the General Diary is an additional precaution to prevent malpractices with records at the police station.

In certain cases, the time of recording the complaint at the police station is pivotal. In this case for example, the FIR numbers show [as it appears from the Jalangi police station records] that the complaint against the diseased was registered before the complaint of murder. This apparently is a well thought after move so that the accused in the murder [lynching] case could take this as a defense to at least lighten the sentence, if the crime is proved. In this context, it is also worth mentioning that owing to very conservative practices and social misgivings anyone who is alleged to have been found with a sex worker is looked down upon by the public and many judges are no exception.

Extra ordinary delays in the justice dispensation mechanism in India are common. However, this case shows that delays can occur even before a case is brought to court. Some of the accused involved in this case are either not included in the FIR which was registered at the Jalangi police station, or are yet to be arrested. One year and eight months have now passed since the date of the crime in question. Given the current and previous pace of investigation in this case it is possible that it will continue for another decade before it is taken up for trial by which time the witnesses will not be in a position to depose before the court. In addition, the long delay between the date of crime to the date of trial also allows more opportunity for the accused to influence the witnesses, particularly in the absence of a law for witness protection, and even tamper with the evidence.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please send a letter to the Director General of Police, West Bengal and other authorities urging for an immediate impartial investigation into this crime.

Automated email letters can be sent by the AHRC Urgent Appeals on-line support system. To support this appeal please refer to http://www.ahrchk.net/support.php?ua=UP-132-2006. For those contacts without an email address, we ask that you still write a letter and post or fax this. If you have any problems or questions using this system, please feel free to contact us at ua@ahrchk.org.

 

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