FOCUS AUGUST 2020

MURDER IN UNIFORM CUSTODIAL DEATHS IN INDIA

Police or policing presupposes the concept of protection of law and order within an area of civil administration of a government. Law enforcement, either compulsively or voluntarily is one of the functions of police. Law enforcement uses the rule of law and the threat of punishment to enforce obedience. However, it is also argued that policing is intended to deal with behavior through community relationship and addressing root causes. But at the end of the day police men anywhere in the world are there to protect law abiding citizens and to detain, arrest and punish in accordance with the law of the land those who are enemies of general public and public order.

However, we are all privy to the truth, for varieties of reasons, police have resorted to violence with both, who are criminals and those who are innocents. The stories of heavy hand methods, or 3rd degree methods of obtaining confessions from detained persons, sometime even juveniles, have been around for a long time from police stations all across the country.

Although there have been attempts by NGOs and individuals to highlight and draw attention of the government, the civil society and police establishment on this macabre development called custodial deaths in police stations, nothing serious has happened to hold men in uniform responsible and make them accountable for the unnatural death of detainees within police station premises.

The latest custodial death of father & son duo of Jairaj & Beniks which can even be called murder, in the Sathankulam police station in Tamil Nadu, has brought the issue of this bizarre happening into the national consciousness, as never before. The matter has reached Madras High Court as well.

We all know that the issue of death within the premises of police stations all over India has been attracting the attention of all those who are makers of law, executors of law and also those who interpret and protect the law by imposing punishment within the law and the interpretation of those responsible for interpretation and enforcement.

The problem of police excesses leading to loss of life in police custody has been around ever since the police station came into existence the world over. It is a very complex issue concerning the protection of law and order so also protection of human rights of detainees or those arrested on charges of crime, public disorder etc.

It is true that the police have the unenviable task of detaining or arresting the right person for the crime in question. It is also true that there are seasoned hard core criminals who are used to police detentions and certain degree of police methods. They do get hardened and handling such criminals becomes dicey for the honest and law abiding policemen. That’s when methods of interrogation change tracks. And sometime, policemen lose control on themselves and have caused irrepairable damage to the persona of the suspected criminal. Then inevitable happens. While it is true, at times police may be forced to adopt strong-arm tactics while dealing with hard core criminals, but when citizens with no criminal history are subjected to third degree measures; it is time to pull those policemen over the coal.  

But can there be a line of control, to draw the line, for police-thus far and no further.

There have been apex court interventions to regulate and control these police interrogation methods. But somehow, things within the multiple walls of police stations have not improved even to this day, when father and son duo died in Sathankulam police station, the latest instance of brutality in uniform. So what could be the road map ahead!

Way back in 2005, to be exact on 27th September one Uday Kumar was picked up by the Fort police station of the city of Thiruvanantapuram. Udaykumar was working at a scrapyard and had his salary paid on the same day. So he had money in his pocket, Rs. 4500/- to be precise. He was sitting, in a park with his friend Suresh Kumar. Police found the money in possession of Uday Kumar and suspected it to be stolen money. Both were taken to police station, and Uday Kumar in particular was questioned about the money in his possession and about the alleged theft the police were investigating. They subjected him to torture of all kinds to extract confession. The third degree methods adopted by the police included making him lie on a wooden bench and rolling a heavy iron pipe on him which led to his death. 

A massive public protest followed against the brutal treatment and the resultant death of Uday Kumar in police custody. Uday Kumar was only 26 years when he died in police custody. His septuagenarian mother relentlessly followed the case. Prabhavathi Amma, mother of Uday Kumar, wanted justice for her dead son and did not give up under trying conditions of police apathy and antipathy. In 2008, Kerala High Court asked the state government to handover the case to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). On 24th July 2018, after 13 long years, CBI judge in Kerala found two civil police officers, K. Jithakumar and SV Sreekumar, guilty of murdering Uday Kumar. Another civil officer accused in the case had died in the meanwhile. Three others, ACP Haridas, Circle Inspector Sabu, SI Ajith Kumar were found guilty of abetment to crime by fudging records and destroying evidence. The following day, both Jithakumar and Sreekumar were given death sentence and imposed a fine of Rs. 2 lakh each to the mother of Uday Kumar. CI & SI were sentenced to 6 years and ACP 3 years with 50000 each as fine. CBI judge reportedly remarked, he found no mitigating circumstances to reduce the quantum of punishment while adding, “Law enforcers are protectors of life and property and not death dealers. The accused had killed an innocent person in their custody. They deserve no clemency”. 

Reportedly, the accused officers wept, when they realized the gravity of the order. The question was why didn’t these perpetrators of brutal killing thought even for a moment that the innocent man they killed also had an old mother, who pined for 13 long years for the soul of her dead son, only 26 then, when killed by these hyenas called police officers? 

Going by the history of the case, even for a straight forward case like this, it took 10 years for CBI to complete. While, it is good that CBI managed to complete the investigation while the mother of the victim was still alive. Many times uncertain infiniteness of snail paced system can be devastating in its labyrinthine ways. However, the most important dimension in handling such cases, is the need for sensitivity of the mental agony the immediate family members are enduring post tragedy of the custodial death of its near and dear ones.

Look at this case of young Sachin Jaiswar who died in hospital, while still being in custody of Dharavi police station in North Central Mumbai.

On alleged theft of a cell phone, 17 year old Sachin was taken into custody. After over 27 hours police returned an unconscious Sachin to his parents. He died in Sion Hospital in Central Mumbai without recovering. Reportedly, he was tortured on the night of 12th July 2018. On 13th night he was admitted to the hospital by his parents in an unconscious state. His body is still in J.J hospital mortuary and his parents are refusing to take the body of this young boy, because Dharavi police refused to file an FIR against its officers. “They took my son at night and beaten him badly because of which he died. They do not have any evidence in the case. They forced my son to confess the crime, but he refused do so and they tortured him” complains bitterly, Ravindar Jaiswar, the father of their only child Sachin. 

Dharavi police have refused to provide even CCTV footage of the 12th July 2018, of the interrogation area under RTI, the night when young Sachin was tortured. 

According to report, the case has been transferred to CBI. But every time Ravindar Jaiswar visits CBI office in Mumbai, “investigation is going on” has been the standard answer, while there is no one to wipe the tears of the mother who lost her young son to the police brutality. 

And comes this news from Wadala Mumbai, Vijay Singh, a resident of Sion in north central Mumbai who worked as a medical representative in a pharmaceutical firm, died after he was detained at the Wadala Truck Terminus police station for questioning in an assault case. According to report in the print media Vijay was picked up on 27th October, but died before 29th October itself. Report informs that he collapsed at the gate of police station itself after he was released when he complained of chest pain. It was an advocate Arvind Tiwari who moved the Bombay High Court to seek probe into the death of Vijay Singh. And the police moved to suspend five policemen including two junior officers. A Minister in the coalition government of Maharashtra demanded strict action against policemen responsible for beating up Vijay so also denying him timely medical treatment. 

Then comes this report courtesy Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court. Amol Pimple, son of Pushpa Pimple had died in police custody, allegedly due to extreme torture by the Newasa police station personnel. According to Pushpa Pimple, her son was picked up on the suspicion of theft and trespass in August 2017. 

Apparently police closed the case as suicide in the lock-up with the two towels provided to him. Judicial magistrate who went into the case agreed with the police version saying there were no signs of torture on Amol’s body. Mothers being mother, Pushpa Pimple approached the High Court. After 2 years, court heard her petition and expressed suspicion on the police version and took judicial magistrate to task for failing to ask pertinent questions to really understand the case. 

According to judges, Tanaji Nalawade and Kishor Sonawane, autopsy report had mentioned injury to the head and no explanation provided by the police, why and how of it. The magistrate failed to ask for explanation from police. High Court also debunked the theory that two towels provided to Amol were used to commit suicide, also since no fixture was mentioned as to from where the towels were tied! The bench also expressed shock, how the co-prisoner in the cell did not know anything about the suicide of Amol. Besides no reference to CCTV was there – neither asked by the magistrate nor provided by the police. Accordingly Bombay HC ordered Aurangabad SP for a fresh probe. The last word on what the police under SP at Aurangabad have done is yet to be publicly known.

From the above details, it is very clear Maharashtra is sadly emerging as one of the major Custodial Death states of India. According to reports available in the public space, during the last 3 years over 3400 deaths have taken place in police stations all over India, with UP leading with 1140 cases followed by Maharashtra with 365 deaths. There’s lot both these states can do to eradicate the scourge of this unnatural deaths in police custody. Of the 36 states including Union territories reportedly there are 5 states with no reported record of custodial deaths, which include J&K and Chandigarh. However, unfortunately the conviction rate of policemen is deplorably very poor. There are many sad and unfortunate dimension of this macabre problem. Not only police have become sadists to treat even small children in their early teens to have suffered immensely at the hands of men in uniform, when their seniors were engaged in cover-ups to protect their ‘fair name’. Then you have judiciary at different levels not truly applying themselves to the suffering of these men within the multiple walls of police stations. While courts do take up suo moto number of cases, no court has so far felt it necessary to take up cases of cries of these hapless victims including juveniles, mostly innocents who sadly end up as aranya rodhana or cry in the wilderness.  This is not to say all are bad; there are instances of sparks of commitment in addressing such cruel state of things in the name of protection of law and order.

Sometime in July 2019, a Lucknow datelined report informed “14 years old boy allegedly tortured in police custody; 3 officers suspended”. Manish Gautham, the 14 years old victim, was caught on suspicion of theft, was allegedly tortured by station-in-charge Rajneesh Verma, head constables Dinesh Tripathi and Sandeep Singh in Telibagh police station. Reportedly, based on the medical report of the boy, the trio has been suspended by Senior S.P. Kalanidhi Naithani.

Reportedly, senior policemen in Lucknow acted rather very fast. They took action in matter of days on policemen responsible for the physical torture of the teenager. This is certainly welcome development. But what next, it is yet to be heard.  

Coming to Sathankulam episode, father Jairaj was picked up for being late in closing his shop during corona lockdown timings. His son Beniks who followed his father to the police station was also detained for protesting the beating up of his father. Both were mercilessly subjected to third degree methods. They were not only thrashed mercilessly, they did the most barbaric and perverted. Some five policemen shoved batons into their anus. This was clearly not interrogation. But police wanted to teach lessons to father & son duo, not to be questioning police and their methods. Bleeding Jairaj & Beniks were produced before the magistrate, who without ascertaining the causes for bleeding and injuries on them casually remanded the duo in a cavalier fashion. In the absence of any medical treatment both father aged 58 & son aged 31, died in police custody. ‘These were murders most foul’, said columnist Arun Ram.

RS Ravindran, an advocate at the Madras High Court, writes “The deaths of P. Jairaj and son J. Beniks have shaken the collective conscience of civil society. The reluctance of the police department to take responsibility for the illegal actions of its personnel is a huge cause of concern and challenges the rule of law upon which society is founded”. This is an expression of concern and exasperation of civil society at the rot that has set into the policing in India. The question is from where do these policemen draw their authority to use violence against people in their custody ‘Clearly a case of barricades eating the grasses’?

The above description of different incidents clearly tells the innumerable unending stories of atrocity in uniform within the multiple walls of police stations across the states of India. This is only a tip of the iceberg. What is indeed sad is, in spite of constitutional guarantees, a number of statutory protections and guidelines, police excesses have continued unabated. However what is also true is the political class, which control the police has not been honest in bringing about the required teeth in the law to punish erring policemen. Reportedly the 273rd Law Commission had also recommended various amendments to the code of criminal procedure of 1973, the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 and submitted a draft of “Prevention of Torture Bill, 2017. But no progress has been reported so far. Even in Maharashtra an attempt was made by setting up “Police Complaints Authority (PCA) in 2014, which is still not functional due to lack of both political and bureaucratic will. However under the circumstances there is scope for the courts to take the call. If the CBI court judge in the case of Uday Kumar’s custodial death, in Fort Police Station, in Thiruvananthapuram, can give death sentence to two police civil officers, the precedent has been set. Until the law makers of the land who have vested interest in ignoring police reforms, the above judgment of CBI judge can be the lamp post for judges for similar cases under their jurisdiction to take the call. Will custodians of justice rise to the occasion where political class has failed?!   

J. Shriyan