Commission orders damages to boy beaten up in police station
The National Human Rights Commission directed the Rajasthan Government to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to a 10-year-old boy who was grievously beaten in a police station. It also recommended that suitable action be taken against the guilty police officials.
Taking cognizance of a report appearing in a newspaper that some police officials had beaten the boy, Rahul, mercilessly at the Alwarganj Gate police station of Ajmer, the Commission asked the Government to pay compensation to the boy and his mother, who was also ill-treated by the policemen.
The report published in an October 1997 edition of Dainik Bhaskar stated that Rahul’s father, Pradeep Sharma, was arrested and detained at the police station in a case of theft involving a gas cylinder and Rs.450. When his wife, Sunita, went to the police station to inquire about her husband, she was asked to bring Rs.2,500/- towards the cost of the cylinder and the stolen cash.
However, she could not pay the amount and returned to her place when, at about 10 p.m., the SHO, Dinesh Vohra, sent two constables to bring her to the police station. When Sunita reached there with Rahul she was asked to deposit Rs.2,500/-. On her plea that she could not arrange the amount, she was asked to part with her gold chain and earings. The policemen misbehaved with her and Rs.500/- was snatched from her purse, the report alleged.
At this, Rahul became emotional and dared to ask the SI from where his mother could bring this money. This prompted the policemen to beat Rahul mercilessly at the police station. When Ms. Sunita approached the District Magistrate, he ordered a medical examination, which revealed that the boy had as many as 14 injuries and a fracture in the wrist.
However, when the NHRC issued notice to the State Government seeking its response within four weeks, a report sent by the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer said that Sunita had come to the police station with her mother, brother and a neighbour and that when she was given the information regarding her husband’s arrest, she refused to accept the written information and, instead, threatened to falsely implicate the SI in the court. The report further said that she then started thrashing her son, and that a case had been registered in that regard. The report denied that Rahul was brought to the police station or that Sunita was called there as alleged in the complaint. According to the report, Rahul was beaten by his mother to manipulate a case against the police it was added that the other allegations relating to the snatching of her cash and ornaments could not be substantiated, it added.
The Commission, however, felt that this report was self-contradictory as it said that Sunita thrashed her son at the police station, making him unconscious, to falsely implicate the policemen. At the same time, it also said that the presence of Rahul in the police station could not be substantiated. If Rahul was not present in the police station, he could not have been thrashed over there, nor a report regarding this registered. Besides, it appeared improbable to the Commission that Sunita could have caused such grievous injuries to her son with the sole purpose of implicating the policemen, especially when her husband was in the lock-up and she herself was distressed.
It was substantiated that injuries were caused to Rahul at the police station as he was medically examined under the orders of the District Magistrate. So there was no probability of them being self-inflicted, the Commission said. Besides, the complainant’s version, that she had to part with ornaments to compensate for the Rs.2,500/- for which her husband had been detained, seemed more probable to the Commission.
Taking cognizance of a report appearing in a newspaper that some police officials had beaten the boy, Rahul, mercilessly at the Alwarganj Gate police station of Ajmer, the Commission asked the Government to pay compensation to the boy and his mother, who was also ill-treated by the policemen.
The report published in an October 1997 edition of Dainik Bhaskar stated that Rahul’s father, Pradeep Sharma, was arrested and detained at the police station in a case of theft involving a gas cylinder and Rs.450. When his wife, Sunita, went to the police station to inquire about her husband, she was asked to bring Rs.2,500/- towards the cost of the cylinder and the stolen cash.
However, she could not pay the amount and returned to her place when, at about 10 p.m., the SHO, Dinesh Vohra, sent two constables to bring her to the police station. When Sunita reached there with Rahul she was asked to deposit Rs.2,500/-. On her plea that she could not arrange the amount, she was asked to part with her gold chain and earings. The policemen misbehaved with her and Rs.500/- was snatched from her purse, the report alleged.
At this, Rahul became emotional and dared to ask the SI from where his mother could bring this money. This prompted the policemen to beat Rahul mercilessly at the police station. When Ms. Sunita approached the District Magistrate, he ordered a medical examination, which revealed that the boy had as many as 14 injuries and a fracture in the wrist.
However, when the NHRC issued notice to the State Government seeking its response within four weeks, a report sent by the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer said that Sunita had come to the police station with her mother, brother and a neighbour and that when she was given the information regarding her husband’s arrest, she refused to accept the written information and, instead, threatened to falsely implicate the SI in the court. The report further said that she then started thrashing her son, and that a case had been registered in that regard. The report denied that Rahul was brought to the police station or that Sunita was called there as alleged in the complaint. According to the report, Rahul was beaten by his mother to manipulate a case against the police it was added that the other allegations relating to the snatching of her cash and ornaments could not be substantiated, it added.
The Commission, however, felt that this report was self-contradictory as it said that Sunita thrashed her son at the police station, making him unconscious, to falsely implicate the policemen. At the same time, it also said that the presence of Rahul in the police station could not be substantiated. If Rahul was not present in the police station, he could not have been thrashed over there, nor a report regarding this registered. Besides, it appeared improbable to the Commission that Sunita could have caused such grievous injuries to her son with the sole purpose of implicating the policemen, especially when her husband was in the lock-up and she herself was distressed.
It was substantiated that injuries were caused to Rahul at the police station as he was medically examined under the orders of the District Magistrate. So there was no probability of them being self-inflicted, the Commission said. Besides, the complainant’s version, that she had to part with ornaments to compensate for the Rs.2,500/- for which her husband had been detained, seemed more probable to the Commission.