Chief Minister Jayalalitha has termed custodial deaths as “travesty of justice.”Addressing a conference of police officers at the Secretariat on Dec 13, she said: “When the police are expected to protect the lives of citizens in their homes, work places and in public, it would be a travesty of justice if a citizen dies within the precincts of a police station.” She also told the police officers “an odd death in custody here and there” might appear to be “statistically negligible.” But “a dead man is not a mere statistic for his loved ones.”
In these days when sexual violence against women has taken centre stage in political and social discourse, custodial rape and death and gang rape by the custodians of law and order, the men in uniform, must be seen much more heinous. But, from Vachathi incident in 1992 when 269 police and Forest department personnel gang raped Tribal women of the village, a Dalit woman Padmini gang raped by 11 policemen in Annamalai Nagar Police Station after beating to death her husband Nandagopal in custody in 1992 to four Tribal women of Irula community gang raped by policemen in Villupuram district in July 2011, gang rapes by policemen and custodial deaths had taken place whenever Jayalalitha led the regime in Tamil Nadu.
Much worse is that when this lady presides over the regime, the government goes to any extent to defend and save the rapist and murderous policemen from punishment and the party led by her tries to tarnish the image of affected women by decrying their character.
The excruciating wait for justice for nearly two decades for the people of Vachathi, a tribal hamlet in Pappireddipatti taluk in Dharmapuri district, at last saw the light of the day on September 29, 2011 with Dharmapuri district and sessions court convicting all the 215 surviving persons involved in the blood-curdling Vachathi mass rape of 18 women and savage attack case in 1992 during the regime of Jayalalitha.
In June 1992, this tribal hamlet in northern Tamil Nadu was witness to what brutal law enforcers and callous government officials could do to the poor and the powerless. Women were raped, men were assaulted, houses were looted and destroyed, and cattle were killed, all in the name of upholding law, of preventing the illegal felling and smuggling of sandalwood. The planned, systematic attack on Vachathi was carried out quite brazenly. The 269 persons arraigned as accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation must have thought that they could get away with crimes against the hapless villagers, who were offenders in the eyes of the law. Nothing else can explain the seeming impunity with which they went about the assault on the village. While men in the lower ranks indulged in violence, senior officers watched from a distance. The subsequent attempts at denial and cover-up were indicative of sanction for the attack from elements at the highest levels of the ADMK government.
The then Forest Minister and now Agriculture Minister, K.A.Sengottaiyan, with the permission and blessing of their ‘Amma’, accused the entire village of being involved in sandalwood smuggling, and alleged that when a team of officials went there for investigation, the villagers had attacked them. In the same way the Assembly also was told. The ADMK regime placed a lot of hurdles for the victims in seeking justice.
The incident occurred on June 20, 1992. On June 22, when tribal people complained to Harur police of gang rape, damage to houses and property by members of the team, police refused to entertain the complaint. Only after three months on Sep.22, following court directions, Harur police registered a case.
As there was no progress in the name-sake investigation a petition was filed before Madras High Court by late A.Nallasivan seeking transfer of the case to CBI for investigation. When a single judge A.Hadi ordered for CBI investigation Jaya regime went on appeal against it to a Bench.
The High Court Bench of Justices D.Raju and K.Swami in May 1995 ordered:
“In the light of such a stand taken by the State Government, it becomes very difficult even for the CB-CID to independently investigate the matter, therefore, we are of the view that the stand taken by the learned single Judge that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the investigation should be entrusted to CBI is well founded and is also supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in R. S. Sodhi v. State of U.P.”
In the Annamalai Nagar police station incident, the Supreme Court passed the order on the 29th of March 2011 in Criminal appeal No. 1511 of 2003, filed by the convicted policeman of Tamil Nadu for the custodial death of one Nandagopal and the gang rape of his wife Padmini.
The Tamil Nadu policemen wrongfully confined Nandagopal in police custody in Annamalai Nagar on suspicion of theft from 30.5.1992 till 2.6.1992 and beat him to death there with lathis, and also gang raped his wife Padmini in a barbaric manner. The accused also confined several other persons (who were witnesses) and beat them in the police station with lathis. The Supreme Court referred to the evidence given by Padmini and held that her evidence discloses the inhuman and savage manner in which the accused, who were police personnel, treated Nandagopal and Padmini.
Parts of the testimony reproduced by the Supreme Court makes one sick. Most of it is not printable. Despite such compelling facts the charges levelled against the accused policeman did not include the charges of murder. Obviously the police cannot be expected to slap murder charges against their own kin.
The trial court had the powers and should have compelled the police to file charges for murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court failed in its duty and then the High Court also had the power and the duty to insist that charges under section 302 ought to have been filed. Yet both the Trial Court and the High Court did not charge them under section 302.
The Supreme Court was constrained to say that both the trial Court and High Court have failed in their duty in this connection.
Justice Markandey Katju wrote, “If ever there was a case which cried out for death penalty it is this one, but it is deeply regrettable that not only was no such penalty imposed but not even a charge under Section 302 IPC (for murder) was framed against the accused by the Courts below”.
During the investigation in Padmini rape case, the ruling ADMK called her as a ‘loose woman of low character’. So also, in the case of rape of 4 Irula women 2011, the ADMK regime had submitted in the High Court that they were not raped by policemen. The question was then why did Jayalalitha sanction Rs. 5 lakhs each to those women as compensation.
The highhandedness of police during ADMK regimes was rebuked by courts several times in the past. Now the Madras High Court Bench in Madurai on Feb 13,2012 came down heavily on police officers “who think they are a “law unto themselves” just because they are vested with certain powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and that the common people are at their mercy.”
Disposing of a writ petition filed by a Muslim couple alleging harassment in connection with a case, Justice K.K. Sasidharan held that the police had no right to summon an individual for investigation without issuing a written notice. “When the Statute states that a particular thing has to be done in a particular manner, it should be done only in that manner. The police officers cannot be heard to say that they would summon anybody without issuing notice… The policemen are also public servants. The police officers cannot be heard to say that they would summon anybody without issuing notice…The police should equally respect law. They cannot expect the people to abide by the laws, unless the police themselves act in accordance with the Cr.P.C. and other relevant enactments. There should be proper records to show that a person was summoned to the police station in connection with a particular case or incident. The failure on the part of the police to maintain records alone gives them opportunity to use third degree methods and in the event of death during such custody or during the course of investigation, to destroy evidence and to escape from possible legal action. It is a matter of common knowledge that even in connection with non-cognizable (cases in which police cannot arrest a person without a warrant) cases and civil matters, the police make the people come to the police station and make them wait for hours together. Though there are few officers in the police force, who are a law unto themselves, the entire police machinery cannot be painted with the very same brush. There are also very good and efficient police officers, with a social outlook, maintaining dignity in office and conducting investigation in a fair and unbiased manner, respecting the right of people under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi defined real freedom for India, as the day on which young woman wearing lot of jewels can freely and safely walk alone in a road at midnight .Great poet Mahakavi Bharathi said “Let us set on flame the stupidity of disgracing women”.
But, in Tamil Nadu with a woman at the helm of regime, not only an individual woman but even groups of women have no safety even in broad daylight- more particularly women and their men relatives have no safety at all in the custody of the enforcers of law and order, policemen, who are invariably given license by her regime to function as they please, provided they keep the opposition parties and leaders of those parties at bay! And Jayalalitha’s sermons, they (police force) know, is just meant for the record, gullible people to take it seriously and servile media to make much of! r
In these days when sexual violence against women has taken centre stage in political and social discourse, custodial rape and death and gang rape by the custodians of law and order, the men in uniform, must be seen much more heinous. But, from Vachathi incident in 1992 when 269 police and Forest department personnel gang raped Tribal women of the village, a Dalit woman Padmini gang raped by 11 policemen in Annamalai Nagar Police Station after beating to death her husband Nandagopal in custody in 1992 to four Tribal women of Irula community gang raped by policemen in Villupuram district in July 2011, gang rapes by policemen and custodial deaths had taken place whenever Jayalalitha led the regime in Tamil Nadu.
Much worse is that when this lady presides over the regime, the government goes to any extent to defend and save the rapist and murderous policemen from punishment and the party led by her tries to tarnish the image of affected women by decrying their character.
The excruciating wait for justice for nearly two decades for the people of Vachathi, a tribal hamlet in Pappireddipatti taluk in Dharmapuri district, at last saw the light of the day on September 29, 2011 with Dharmapuri district and sessions court convicting all the 215 surviving persons involved in the blood-curdling Vachathi mass rape of 18 women and savage attack case in 1992 during the regime of Jayalalitha.
In June 1992, this tribal hamlet in northern Tamil Nadu was witness to what brutal law enforcers and callous government officials could do to the poor and the powerless. Women were raped, men were assaulted, houses were looted and destroyed, and cattle were killed, all in the name of upholding law, of preventing the illegal felling and smuggling of sandalwood. The planned, systematic attack on Vachathi was carried out quite brazenly. The 269 persons arraigned as accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation must have thought that they could get away with crimes against the hapless villagers, who were offenders in the eyes of the law. Nothing else can explain the seeming impunity with which they went about the assault on the village. While men in the lower ranks indulged in violence, senior officers watched from a distance. The subsequent attempts at denial and cover-up were indicative of sanction for the attack from elements at the highest levels of the ADMK government.
The then Forest Minister and now Agriculture Minister, K.A.Sengottaiyan, with the permission and blessing of their ‘Amma’, accused the entire village of being involved in sandalwood smuggling, and alleged that when a team of officials went there for investigation, the villagers had attacked them. In the same way the Assembly also was told. The ADMK regime placed a lot of hurdles for the victims in seeking justice.
The incident occurred on June 20, 1992. On June 22, when tribal people complained to Harur police of gang rape, damage to houses and property by members of the team, police refused to entertain the complaint. Only after three months on Sep.22, following court directions, Harur police registered a case.
As there was no progress in the name-sake investigation a petition was filed before Madras High Court by late A.Nallasivan seeking transfer of the case to CBI for investigation. When a single judge A.Hadi ordered for CBI investigation Jaya regime went on appeal against it to a Bench.
The High Court Bench of Justices D.Raju and K.Swami in May 1995 ordered:
“In the light of such a stand taken by the State Government, it becomes very difficult even for the CB-CID to independently investigate the matter, therefore, we are of the view that the stand taken by the learned single Judge that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the investigation should be entrusted to CBI is well founded and is also supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in R. S. Sodhi v. State of U.P.”
In the Annamalai Nagar police station incident, the Supreme Court passed the order on the 29th of March 2011 in Criminal appeal No. 1511 of 2003, filed by the convicted policeman of Tamil Nadu for the custodial death of one Nandagopal and the gang rape of his wife Padmini.
The Tamil Nadu policemen wrongfully confined Nandagopal in police custody in Annamalai Nagar on suspicion of theft from 30.5.1992 till 2.6.1992 and beat him to death there with lathis, and also gang raped his wife Padmini in a barbaric manner. The accused also confined several other persons (who were witnesses) and beat them in the police station with lathis. The Supreme Court referred to the evidence given by Padmini and held that her evidence discloses the inhuman and savage manner in which the accused, who were police personnel, treated Nandagopal and Padmini.
Parts of the testimony reproduced by the Supreme Court makes one sick. Most of it is not printable. Despite such compelling facts the charges levelled against the accused policeman did not include the charges of murder. Obviously the police cannot be expected to slap murder charges against their own kin.
The trial court had the powers and should have compelled the police to file charges for murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court failed in its duty and then the High Court also had the power and the duty to insist that charges under section 302 ought to have been filed. Yet both the Trial Court and the High Court did not charge them under section 302.
The Supreme Court was constrained to say that both the trial Court and High Court have failed in their duty in this connection.
Justice Markandey Katju wrote, “If ever there was a case which cried out for death penalty it is this one, but it is deeply regrettable that not only was no such penalty imposed but not even a charge under Section 302 IPC (for murder) was framed against the accused by the Courts below”.
During the investigation in Padmini rape case, the ruling ADMK called her as a ‘loose woman of low character’. So also, in the case of rape of 4 Irula women 2011, the ADMK regime had submitted in the High Court that they were not raped by policemen. The question was then why did Jayalalitha sanction Rs. 5 lakhs each to those women as compensation.
The highhandedness of police during ADMK regimes was rebuked by courts several times in the past. Now the Madras High Court Bench in Madurai on Feb 13,2012 came down heavily on police officers “who think they are a “law unto themselves” just because they are vested with certain powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and that the common people are at their mercy.”
Disposing of a writ petition filed by a Muslim couple alleging harassment in connection with a case, Justice K.K. Sasidharan held that the police had no right to summon an individual for investigation without issuing a written notice. “When the Statute states that a particular thing has to be done in a particular manner, it should be done only in that manner. The police officers cannot be heard to say that they would summon anybody without issuing notice… The policemen are also public servants. The police officers cannot be heard to say that they would summon anybody without issuing notice…The police should equally respect law. They cannot expect the people to abide by the laws, unless the police themselves act in accordance with the Cr.P.C. and other relevant enactments. There should be proper records to show that a person was summoned to the police station in connection with a particular case or incident. The failure on the part of the police to maintain records alone gives them opportunity to use third degree methods and in the event of death during such custody or during the course of investigation, to destroy evidence and to escape from possible legal action. It is a matter of common knowledge that even in connection with non-cognizable (cases in which police cannot arrest a person without a warrant) cases and civil matters, the police make the people come to the police station and make them wait for hours together. Though there are few officers in the police force, who are a law unto themselves, the entire police machinery cannot be painted with the very same brush. There are also very good and efficient police officers, with a social outlook, maintaining dignity in office and conducting investigation in a fair and unbiased manner, respecting the right of people under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi defined real freedom for India, as the day on which young woman wearing lot of jewels can freely and safely walk alone in a road at midnight .Great poet Mahakavi Bharathi said “Let us set on flame the stupidity of disgracing women”.
But, in Tamil Nadu with a woman at the helm of regime, not only an individual woman but even groups of women have no safety even in broad daylight- more particularly women and their men relatives have no safety at all in the custody of the enforcers of law and order, policemen, who are invariably given license by her regime to function as they please, provided they keep the opposition parties and leaders of those parties at bay! And Jayalalitha’s sermons, they (police force) know, is just meant for the record, gullible people to take it seriously and servile media to make much of! r
No comments:
Post a Comment