NHRC issues show-cause notice to UP Government in one of the oldest cases of custodial death still pending with the Commission
The National Human Rights Commission had received a complaint from a NGO in Uttar Pradesh alleging that one Ram Kishore of Ghaziabad had died in police custody on 23 July 1993, due to physical violence and torture perpetrated on him. It was also alleged that the police had tried to hush up the case by procuring false medical reports, destroying the evidences of torture, changing the name of Ram Kishore to Raj Kishore and offering a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the wife of the deceased for not pursuing the matter.
The Commission, on taking cognizance, had sought a report from the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. After prolong correspondence and several reminders, the State Government simply informed the Commission that the investigation of the case had been entrusted to CID, UP. As the report of the investigation had not been forthcoming, the Commission had continued to pursue the matter with the State Government.
The Commission meanwhile received another petition form the wife of the deceased alleging that the local police had been threatening her and had been trying to compel her to stop pursuing the case of custodial death of her husband. Upon the Commission’s direction to SSP, Ghaziabad, the SP (Rural), Ghaziabad reported to the Commission that no local police officer had extended any such threat.
As the report of the investigation conducted by the State CID was not received till October 1995, the Director General (Investigation), NHRC personally asked the Director General of Police, UP requesting him to look into the matter. He was asked to get the investigation of the CID completed urgently and send a report to the Commission without further delay. The matter was pursued by the Commission by issuing a number of reminders and finally on 26 June 1997, Director General of Police, UP sent a report stating the outcomes of the investigation conducted by the CID:
· death of the deceased was due to heart problem, which he had prior to his arrest;
· two police officers and the employer of the deceased had been found guilty and charge-sheet would be submitted against them;
· departmental action had been recommended against the ASP and SI of the area for the lapses committed during the supervision of the case.
· departmental action had been recommended against the Medical Officer for giving incorrect postmortem report.
· departmental action had also been recommended against the SP (Rural), Ghaziabad and SDM, Modi Nagar for lapses committed by them.
The Commission also received another report from DIG (Operations), UP, intimating that upon the investigations by the State CID, it had come to light that the employer of the deceased had handed the latter over to the police in an unconfirmed case of robbery. He was kept in illegal police custody and tortured during his detention as a result of which he had expired. During his postmortem though the cause of death was stated to be ‘not known’, anti-mortem injury marks were found on his body. The report claimed that action was being contemplated against all the guilty officers. Later upon reminders sent to the State Government on 3 October 1997, the Commission was informed that the ASP, Modi Nagar had been found guilty of misconduct, destroying evidence and hushing up of this case. A warning had been administered to the officer. However, the Commission noted that the State Government had not confirmed the action against the other police officers and the medical officer. It appeared to be shielding the guilty officers and the reports to the Commission were not totally above board.
On 27 January 2000, the Commission was constrained to record its deep distress at the continued apathy of the Government of Uttar Pradesh in this case in as much as the report and material required from it had not yet been submitted. Thus, the Commission issued summons to the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police to appear before the Commission on 8 March 2000 or submit the necessary report before that date. Pursuant to the conditional summons issued by the Commission, a façade of compliance was received from the UP Government reporting the purported action sought to be taken by it. However, these were not compliance of the conditional summons. Hence, looking at the seriousness of the case, the Commission issued unconditional summons to the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, UP on 8 March 2000.
The officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh informed the Commission that after conducting detailed investigation, charge-sheets had since been submitted by the State CB CID against the employer of the deceased, the then Police Inspector in-charge and the Sub-Inspector involved in the case. Warnings had been issued to the ASP and adverse entry had been recorded in the service records of the Sub Inspector and the Assistant Sub Inspector. The State Government has also taken departmental action against the Medical Officer, the Superintendent of Police and the Sub-divisional Magistrate involved.
After all these, the UP Government is yet to confirm to the Commission about the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings taken against various officers as well as the current status regarding the filing of charge-sheet against the guilty. However, since the fact of the prosecution of public servants is itself sufficient proof and justification for award of “immediate interim relief” under section 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to the next of the kin of the deceased, the Commission has issued notice to the Government of UP to show-cause as to why immediate interim relief be not granted to the next of kin of Shri Ram Kishore.
The Show-cause notice was issued to the UP Government on 25 September 2001 and the UP Government has been asked to report to the Commission within 4 weeks.
The Commission, on taking cognizance, had sought a report from the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. After prolong correspondence and several reminders, the State Government simply informed the Commission that the investigation of the case had been entrusted to CID, UP. As the report of the investigation had not been forthcoming, the Commission had continued to pursue the matter with the State Government.
The Commission meanwhile received another petition form the wife of the deceased alleging that the local police had been threatening her and had been trying to compel her to stop pursuing the case of custodial death of her husband. Upon the Commission’s direction to SSP, Ghaziabad, the SP (Rural), Ghaziabad reported to the Commission that no local police officer had extended any such threat.
As the report of the investigation conducted by the State CID was not received till October 1995, the Director General (Investigation), NHRC personally asked the Director General of Police, UP requesting him to look into the matter. He was asked to get the investigation of the CID completed urgently and send a report to the Commission without further delay. The matter was pursued by the Commission by issuing a number of reminders and finally on 26 June 1997, Director General of Police, UP sent a report stating the outcomes of the investigation conducted by the CID:
· death of the deceased was due to heart problem, which he had prior to his arrest;
· two police officers and the employer of the deceased had been found guilty and charge-sheet would be submitted against them;
· departmental action had been recommended against the ASP and SI of the area for the lapses committed during the supervision of the case.
· departmental action had been recommended against the Medical Officer for giving incorrect postmortem report.
· departmental action had also been recommended against the SP (Rural), Ghaziabad and SDM, Modi Nagar for lapses committed by them.
The Commission also received another report from DIG (Operations), UP, intimating that upon the investigations by the State CID, it had come to light that the employer of the deceased had handed the latter over to the police in an unconfirmed case of robbery. He was kept in illegal police custody and tortured during his detention as a result of which he had expired. During his postmortem though the cause of death was stated to be ‘not known’, anti-mortem injury marks were found on his body. The report claimed that action was being contemplated against all the guilty officers. Later upon reminders sent to the State Government on 3 October 1997, the Commission was informed that the ASP, Modi Nagar had been found guilty of misconduct, destroying evidence and hushing up of this case. A warning had been administered to the officer. However, the Commission noted that the State Government had not confirmed the action against the other police officers and the medical officer. It appeared to be shielding the guilty officers and the reports to the Commission were not totally above board.
On 27 January 2000, the Commission was constrained to record its deep distress at the continued apathy of the Government of Uttar Pradesh in this case in as much as the report and material required from it had not yet been submitted. Thus, the Commission issued summons to the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police to appear before the Commission on 8 March 2000 or submit the necessary report before that date. Pursuant to the conditional summons issued by the Commission, a façade of compliance was received from the UP Government reporting the purported action sought to be taken by it. However, these were not compliance of the conditional summons. Hence, looking at the seriousness of the case, the Commission issued unconditional summons to the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, UP on 8 March 2000.
The officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh informed the Commission that after conducting detailed investigation, charge-sheets had since been submitted by the State CB CID against the employer of the deceased, the then Police Inspector in-charge and the Sub-Inspector involved in the case. Warnings had been issued to the ASP and adverse entry had been recorded in the service records of the Sub Inspector and the Assistant Sub Inspector. The State Government has also taken departmental action against the Medical Officer, the Superintendent of Police and the Sub-divisional Magistrate involved.
After all these, the UP Government is yet to confirm to the Commission about the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings taken against various officers as well as the current status regarding the filing of charge-sheet against the guilty. However, since the fact of the prosecution of public servants is itself sufficient proof and justification for award of “immediate interim relief” under section 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to the next of the kin of the deceased, the Commission has issued notice to the Government of UP to show-cause as to why immediate interim relief be not granted to the next of kin of Shri Ram Kishore.
The Show-cause notice was issued to the UP Government on 25 September 2001 and the UP Government has been asked to report to the Commission within 4 weeks.