11/11/2009-Jayaprakash, S/o Janardhanan, Thekkinedath House, P.O.Peringottukara, Thrissur
11/11/2009- Abubakkar, S/o Ibrahim, Valiyakathu House, P.O.Peringottukara, Thrissur
30/10/2009- C.R.Manoj, S/o Raghavan, Chembakasseri House, Pazhuvil West, P.O.Pazhuvil, Kurumbilavu Village, Thrissur
10/10/2009- Ajomon, S/o Jose, Puthusseri House, Vailaathra, P.O.Kutichira, Chalakudi, Thrissur
7/10/2009- Chandrasekharan, S/o Kuttikrishnamenon, Souparinnika, Unniyanthiran Kavu Road,P.O. Kunnappalli, Perinthalmanna, Malappuramm , Pin - 679332
26/09/2009- A.N.Aneesh, S/o Asokan, Njarleli House, P.O.Kuruvilasseri, Valiyaparambu, Mala, Thrissur
8/8/2009- DR. M.G.Sivadas, Madathil House, P.O.Anthikad, Thrissur
27/07/2009- Sinaj, S/o Hussain Ravuthar, S.M.Kolani, Kuranthod, Punnapra, Aalapuzha
23/06/2009- Bindhu, W/o Anil Kumar, Thattil House, Near Anthikad Police Station, P.O.Anthikad, Thrissur, Pin - 680641
20/06/2009- K.K.Jose, S/o Kuriyan, Kulambatt House, P.O.Kallur, Thrissur
18/06/2009- K.Balakrishnan Nair, S/o Ravunni Nair, Karuppam veetil House, P.O. Kuttancheri, Erumapetti, Thrissur
29/05/2009- Binosh, S/o Sreedharan, Thili Veetil, Kannothu Road, P.O.Venkidagu, Thrissur
5/5/2009- Thomas, S/o Jhony, Mulakkal House, P.O.Nambazhikkad, Mattam, Thrissur
22/01/2009- Karthik. T.S, S/o Shankaranarayanan, Thattil House, P.O.Puthenpeedika, Thrissur
Case Details
On 13 January, at about 7:30pm, Nitish, the victim in this case, was watching a festival procession in a local temple, the Sri Kurumbakavu Temple, in Kodungaloor. While Nitish was at the temple ground, Sub Inspector of Police Mr. Balachandran arrived at the festival ground in a police vehicle. Sitting inside the vehicle, Sub Inspector asked Nitish to come closer to the police vehicle.
The officer then asked Nitish to get inside the vehicle. There was another boy of his age inside the vehicle. The officer then asked Nitish whether he had quarrelled with the boy who was inside the vehicle, and asked Nitish, who else were with him. Nitish was scared and gave the names of his friends to the police officer. Arun and Maheswaran, two of Nitish’s friends, who were also in the temple ground, were brought into the police vehicle.
Nitish sat in the backseat of the police vehicle. At that time, a police constable who was sitting in the vehicle slapped Nitish. The officers took Nitish to the Kodungaloor Police Station. At the police station, the Sub Inspector hit Nitish on the backside of his neck. Then, the Sub Inspector Balachandran and probationary Inspector Mr. Praveen Kumar started punching and kicking Nitish. Nitish lost his balance and hit against a table in the room. Due to the pain and fear, Nitish cried out loud, pleading to the officers to stop torturing him and informing them that is a student. The officers did not stop however. They continued assaulting Nitish.
The officers then asked Nitish to remove his cloths. The Sub Inspector ordered Nitish to be brought to his room. Wearing only his underwear, Nitish was asked to kneel down in front of the officer. The probationary Inspector then squeezed Nitish’s fingers while holding broken canes in between his fingers. Nitish cried loud from excruciating pain.
The probationary officer then asked Nitish to stand up. The officer then forced Nitish’s face up and asked whether he knows the Sub Inspector. The Sub Inspector got up from his chair and forcefully removed the remaining dress, the underwear, Nitish was wearing. When Nitish tried to get his dress back, the Sub Inspector shouted at him that Nitish does not have anything other than any other males and ordered him to stand naked inside the officer’s room. After a few hours, the officers allowed Nitish to wear the underwear.
Then the probationary Inspector asked Nitish to raise his arms and jump up and down. As Nitish was jumping, the probationary Inspector kicked Nitish under his left armpit, shouting at him to jump higher. After a few minutes, the officers asked Nitish to return to the lockup cell. Arun and Maheswaran were also brought to the same room. Then the officer asked all the three boys to jump up and down again with their arms stretched up. After about 30 minutes, a police constable came to the lockup room and asked the three boys to sit down. Later in the night, the police took the three boys to a doctor to test whether they had consumed alcohol.
The next day, Nitish’s mother came to the police station at about noon. She was informed about the detention of her son through a person named Shani, who had been at the police station for some business and saw Nitish inside the police cell. When his mother came, Nitish was inside the lock up cell wearing underwear. A police constable asked Nitish’s mother to get the boys some food. Nitish was not able to eat anything. He complained about back pain, refused to eat, and collapsed on to the floor. The police took Nitish to the nearby government hospital. At the hospital, the doctor gave Nitish some intravenous drip. The doctor also gave four other injections to Nitish.
Nitish could not lie down on his back due to pain. Later, the doctor asked Nitish and his mother to do an x-ray examination of his back. For the x-ray examination, they went to a private laboratory named Modern Laboratories. Nitish’s mother paid for the x-ray. They returned to the hospital and the x-ray was handed over to the doctor. Dr. Feriyal who examined the x-ray advised that Nitish must consult a bone-specialist and informed the accompanying police constable that the specialist will come by 8 pm. The constable however did not allow Nitish to remain in the hospital. The constable took Nitish back to the police station.
Back at the police station, the police officers asked Nitish’s mother and his uncle, who had come to the station by then, to return home. The officers informed them that they would release Nitish soon. Instead, by about 8 pm the officers took Nitish to the residence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Thrissur. The police also registered a crime against Nitish. The crime number is 30/2009.
Before entering the Magistrate’s house, the police constable accompanying Nitish pulled off the catheter from Nitish’s arm saying that such things would annoy the Magistrate. When the officer pulled off the catheter, Nitish started bleeding from the wound. The officer also threatened Nitish that he must not complain about anything to the Magistrate.
When the Magistrate saw Nitish, he informed the police officers that this is an incident, where the parents must have been informed about the boy and that he should have been released immediately from the station itself, instead of registering a case. Then the Magistrate read the case file. The Magistrate then scolded the police constable saying that why Nitish is referred to as an ‘accused’ in the case file, as he is just a boy. The Magistrate also said that Nitish could not be remanded to judicial custody as he was a boy and that he must be handed over to the Juvenile Home.
Nitish was hence transferred to the Juvenile home for the night. The next day, the Juvenile Board was convened and the Board decided to release Nitish without charging him with any crime. Nitish is undergoing treatment now for his injuries.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The officer then asked Nitish to get inside the vehicle. There was another boy of his age inside the vehicle. The officer then asked Nitish whether he had quarrelled with the boy who was inside the vehicle, and asked Nitish, who else were with him. Nitish was scared and gave the names of his friends to the police officer. Arun and Maheswaran, two of Nitish’s friends, who were also in the temple ground, were brought into the police vehicle.
Nitish sat in the backseat of the police vehicle. At that time, a police constable who was sitting in the vehicle slapped Nitish. The officers took Nitish to the Kodungaloor Police Station. At the police station, the Sub Inspector hit Nitish on the backside of his neck. Then, the Sub Inspector Balachandran and probationary Inspector Mr. Praveen Kumar started punching and kicking Nitish. Nitish lost his balance and hit against a table in the room. Due to the pain and fear, Nitish cried out loud, pleading to the officers to stop torturing him and informing them that is a student. The officers did not stop however. They continued assaulting Nitish.
The officers then asked Nitish to remove his cloths. The Sub Inspector ordered Nitish to be brought to his room. Wearing only his underwear, Nitish was asked to kneel down in front of the officer. The probationary Inspector then squeezed Nitish’s fingers while holding broken canes in between his fingers. Nitish cried loud from excruciating pain.
The probationary officer then asked Nitish to stand up. The officer then forced Nitish’s face up and asked whether he knows the Sub Inspector. The Sub Inspector got up from his chair and forcefully removed the remaining dress, the underwear, Nitish was wearing. When Nitish tried to get his dress back, the Sub Inspector shouted at him that Nitish does not have anything other than any other males and ordered him to stand naked inside the officer’s room. After a few hours, the officers allowed Nitish to wear the underwear.
Then the probationary Inspector asked Nitish to raise his arms and jump up and down. As Nitish was jumping, the probationary Inspector kicked Nitish under his left armpit, shouting at him to jump higher. After a few minutes, the officers asked Nitish to return to the lockup cell. Arun and Maheswaran were also brought to the same room. Then the officer asked all the three boys to jump up and down again with their arms stretched up. After about 30 minutes, a police constable came to the lockup room and asked the three boys to sit down. Later in the night, the police took the three boys to a doctor to test whether they had consumed alcohol.
The next day, Nitish’s mother came to the police station at about noon. She was informed about the detention of her son through a person named Shani, who had been at the police station for some business and saw Nitish inside the police cell. When his mother came, Nitish was inside the lock up cell wearing underwear. A police constable asked Nitish’s mother to get the boys some food. Nitish was not able to eat anything. He complained about back pain, refused to eat, and collapsed on to the floor. The police took Nitish to the nearby government hospital. At the hospital, the doctor gave Nitish some intravenous drip. The doctor also gave four other injections to Nitish.
Nitish could not lie down on his back due to pain. Later, the doctor asked Nitish and his mother to do an x-ray examination of his back. For the x-ray examination, they went to a private laboratory named Modern Laboratories. Nitish’s mother paid for the x-ray. They returned to the hospital and the x-ray was handed over to the doctor. Dr. Feriyal who examined the x-ray advised that Nitish must consult a bone-specialist and informed the accompanying police constable that the specialist will come by 8 pm. The constable however did not allow Nitish to remain in the hospital. The constable took Nitish back to the police station.
Back at the police station, the police officers asked Nitish’s mother and his uncle, who had come to the station by then, to return home. The officers informed them that they would release Nitish soon. Instead, by about 8 pm the officers took Nitish to the residence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Thrissur. The police also registered a crime against Nitish. The crime number is 30/2009.
Before entering the Magistrate’s house, the police constable accompanying Nitish pulled off the catheter from Nitish’s arm saying that such things would annoy the Magistrate. When the officer pulled off the catheter, Nitish started bleeding from the wound. The officer also threatened Nitish that he must not complain about anything to the Magistrate.
When the Magistrate saw Nitish, he informed the police officers that this is an incident, where the parents must have been informed about the boy and that he should have been released immediately from the station itself, instead of registering a case. Then the Magistrate read the case file. The Magistrate then scolded the police constable saying that why Nitish is referred to as an ‘accused’ in the case file, as he is just a boy. The Magistrate also said that Nitish could not be remanded to judicial custody as he was a boy and that he must be handed over to the Juvenile Home.
Nitish was hence transferred to the Juvenile home for the night. The next day, the Juvenile Board was convened and the Board decided to release Nitish without charging him with any crime. Nitish is undergoing treatment now for his injuries.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The above incident is a common phenomenon throughout India. It is common practice for the police to take persons into custody on mere suspicion. Investigation of a crime in India is often torture and confessions extracted by torture. There is no law in India that criminalises torture other than for provisions like Section 330 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Section 330 mandates "[w]hoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer, or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct …. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also liable to fine."
This provision of law is a highly diluted expression of criminalising torture. Though the concept of torture is far wider than what is mentioned in this section of the IPC, had the justice system in India been geared up to ensure punishment under this section of law, custodial torture in India could be considerably reduced.
Several impediments prevent the proper application of this law. Complete lack of independent investigating and prosecuting agencies; the laxity of Indian authorities, including that of the courts, in dealing with the issue of torture; and the general perception of fear against the law enforcing agencies by the average Indians are some of the important reasons why custodial violence goes unpunished in India. Even if a case is registered against the police officer, the chances are that the officer will continue in service.
Lack of prompt and foolproof disciplinary actions within the police department let police officers charge-sheeted with crimes against torture to be in a position to threaten, intimidate, and further force the victims to withdraw their complaints. Further, the absence of a witness protection law makes it practically impossible for a victim to remain immune to such intimidation and threat from the perpetrators. To make matters further worse the enormous delay, often extending to decades, plaguing the Indian court system renders the entire process a mockery, even if a police officer is charge sheeted, tried for the crime and punished.
The police also employ the tactic of registering fabricated charges, often relating to petty offenses, once they realise that the person have nothing to do with the crime under investigation. This falsification of charges is practiced by the police in order to escape the liability of arresting an innocent person and further to eliminate the possibility of the person complaining about torture. This pattern has been observed by the AHRC in several instances and Nitish’a case is yet another one in the list.
Section 330 mandates "[w]hoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer, or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct …. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also liable to fine."
This provision of law is a highly diluted expression of criminalising torture. Though the concept of torture is far wider than what is mentioned in this section of the IPC, had the justice system in India been geared up to ensure punishment under this section of law, custodial torture in India could be considerably reduced.
Several impediments prevent the proper application of this law. Complete lack of independent investigating and prosecuting agencies; the laxity of Indian authorities, including that of the courts, in dealing with the issue of torture; and the general perception of fear against the law enforcing agencies by the average Indians are some of the important reasons why custodial violence goes unpunished in India. Even if a case is registered against the police officer, the chances are that the officer will continue in service.
Lack of prompt and foolproof disciplinary actions within the police department let police officers charge-sheeted with crimes against torture to be in a position to threaten, intimidate, and further force the victims to withdraw their complaints. Further, the absence of a witness protection law makes it practically impossible for a victim to remain immune to such intimidation and threat from the perpetrators. To make matters further worse the enormous delay, often extending to decades, plaguing the Indian court system renders the entire process a mockery, even if a police officer is charge sheeted, tried for the crime and punished.
The police also employ the tactic of registering fabricated charges, often relating to petty offenses, once they realise that the person have nothing to do with the crime under investigation. This falsification of charges is practiced by the police in order to escape the liability of arresting an innocent person and further to eliminate the possibility of the person complaining about torture. This pattern has been observed by the AHRC in several instances and Nitish’a case is yet another one in the list.
20/01/2009- Nidheesh lal R.P, S/o Pradeep, Ramassedath House, Lokameleswaram, Kodungallur
14/01/2009- Maniyamma Rajappan, KappumChalil House, Kalvarimound.P.O. Idukki
No comments:
Post a Comment