8 September 2015
To
The Acting Chairman
National Human Rights Commission of India
Manav Adhikar Bhawan
Block-C, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi – 110023
Ref.:- NHRC Case no. 1123/25/15/2013-PF
The Commission’s letter dated 2.6.2015
My complaint dated 29.8.2013
Sub.:- Appeal against the decision of the Commission
Respected Sir,
I have received the Commission’s letter dated 29.8.2015 in connection with the above referred case.
Upon perusal of the letter I found that the Commission closed the case on the ground that the charge sheet has been filed against the victim in Swarupnagar Police Station Case no.376/2013.
I am aggrieved with the decision of the Commission on the ground that the decision is not just and proper.
It is important here to mention that I had duly sent my comments on the police and BSF report before the Commission through my letter dated 9.7.2014.
From the police report it appeared that the victim Anup Kumar Ghosh was examined and he corroborated the allegation made in my complaint. During examination by the enquiring officer i.e. the Additional Superintendent of Police, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, the victim Anup Kumar Ghosh stated that on 16.6.2013 when he was coming from from Hakimpur Bus Stand in his own Tata Sumo vehicle bearing no. WB-26C-3279, he was intercepted by BSF personnel and was assaulted, hackled and thereafter released but his Tata Sumo vehicle was withheld by the BSF personnel without seizure list being given to him. On the other hand the BSF report claimed that on 17.6.2013 at 8.15 hours the victim’s car was intercept. There was clear contradiction between the BSF version and the victim’s statement made before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Barasat, North 24 Parganas. Such contradiction has been clearly discussed in my comments on the reports submitted by police and BSF. But it appears that the Commission was not inclined to adjudicate the case by digging out the truth behind such contradiction.
It is true that the charge sheet has been filed against the victim Anup Kumar Ghosh in connection with Swarupnagar Police Station Case no. 376/2013 and in the charge sheet the BSF and police personnel were cited as witnesses. There is no independent witness in the charge sheet to prove the allegation of BSF. Even in the seizure list prepared by BSF there was no sign of any independent witness.
Therefore, it is unfortunate that the Commission closed the case solely on the ground that the charge sheet has been filed against the victim without adjudicating the present case properly. The decision of the Commission is not just and proper and such decision will surely hurt the victim’s expectation of justice. I further assume that such decision will encourage the perpetrators to go undaunted with impunity.
I hope that the Commission would recall its decision on closing the case and pass appropriate recommendations so that the victim is not denied of justice.
Your kind action in this matter would be highly solicited.
Thanking you,
Yours truly
Kirity Roy
Secretary, MASUM
OUR REPLY SENT ON 9TH JULY 2014
| 09/07/2014 | |||
| ||||
9 July 2014
To
The Chairman
National Human Rights Commission
Manav Adhikar Bhawan
Block – C, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi – 110023
Ref. – Your letter dated 30.05.2014 in connection with NHRC case no. 1123/25/15/2013-PF
Our complaint dated 29.08.2013
Sub: – Reply/comments on police and BSF report
Respected Sir,
We received your letter dated 30.5.2014 in connection with NHRC Case No. 1123/25/15/2013-PF. We perused the copy of the police report and BSF report which were attached with your letter.
In the police report it came up that the enquiring officer took statement of the victim during inquiry. The victim stated before the enquiring officer that on 16.6.2013 when he was coming from Hakimpur Bus Stand in his own Tata Sumo vehicle bearing no. WB-26C-3279 he was intercepted by BSF personnel and was assaulted, hackled and thereafter released but his Tata Sumo vehicle was withheld by the BSF personnel without seizure list being given to him.
It is relevant here to mention that the victim also stated the same facts of BSF torture upon him in his complaint before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Basirhat on 2.7.2013.
We have perused the BSF report wherein it was alleged that on 17.6.2013 at about 8.15 hours the BSF personnel intercepted the victim’s car, but the driver of the said car escaped. One FIR was lodged from the end of BSF in this regard on 17.6.2013 at 19.35 hours. The BSF report does not explain why there was delay of lodging the FIR.
Therefore, the police report and BSF report prima facie established that the version of the victim and the version of BSF are contradictory with each other with regard to the date and time, place and alleged facts from both sides.
Since the version of the victim with regard to the alleged incident corroborated in his statement before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Barasat, North 24 Parganas and in his complaint before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Basirhat, we assume that the victim stated the truth. And if the victim’s was truth then there is probability that the BSF manufactured false documents by lodging false FIR at police station in order to conceal their misdeeds. But in this regard the Additional Superintendent of Police, Barasat, North 24 Parganas who was the enquiring police officer did not make any attempt to verify the truthfulness of the version of the BSF. The said enquiring officer did not bother to visit Hakimpur Bus Stand i.e. the alleged place of incident and talk with the available witnesses. We being the complainant in this case were also not examined during the course of inquiry.
Under the abovementioned facts and circumstances we demand that an investigation must be directed in thiscase by the Commission’s own investigation wing to dig out the truth behind the disparity between the version of the victim and the version of Border Security Force in this case.
Thanking you
Yours truly
Kirity Roy
Leave a Reply