Wednesday, July 29, 2009

 

PRESS RELEASE: REJECT THE FARCICAL 'ENQUIRY' BY NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

PRESS RELEASE

24.07.2009

JAMIA TEACHERS' SOLIDARITY GROUP (JTSG)

ALL INDIA STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION (AISA)

ASSOCIATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (APCR)

 

                                                                                                                      

 REJECT THE FARCICAL 'ENQUIRY' BY THE NHRC ! STAND UP FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE

 

The National Human Rights Commission's so-called enquiry into the Batla House 'encounter' has pronounced the Delhi Police innocent of any foul play. Interestingly, the NHRC's investigations into the police action on 19th September are based on evidences provided by those accused of encounter alone.  The Commission's enquiry is based on the responses of the following officers of the Delhi Police:

1) R.P. Upadhayay, Additional Commissioner of Police, Vigilance;

2) Satish Chandra, Special Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), Delhi;

3) Neeraj Thakur, DCP (Crime & Rly.), Delhi;

4) Karnail Singh, Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, Delhi.

 

As it appears from the Report, the Commission did not even bother to pay a visit to the Batla House locality and Flat No. 108, L-18, the site of the said encounter. There has been no attempt to collect the versions of the eyewitnesses, neighbours or relatives of those killed. The Fact-finding reports of various civil rights groups including JTSG'sEncounter at Batla House: Unanswered Questions, a damning indictment of the police version with corroborative evidence has been given no cognizance. Applications filed by individuals from Azamgarh wishing to depose before the Commission were ignored and not even acknowledged.

The Commission also cites the post mortem reports of the deceased, which have thus far been treated as state secrets. While wounds suffered by the slain police officer has been provided with great detail such as the places in the body where bullet injuries were found, their impact, 'entry and exit points' etc. Even the injury suffered in the arm by injured Constable Balwant Singh carries all this information but the same treatment is curiously absent in the case of Atif and Sajid, the slain 'terrorists'. It mentions the injuries and bullet entry wounds on Atif's and Sajid's bodies but refuses to consider the fact that Sajid had several bullet wounds on his forehead and head regions, which suggests that he was shot while made to crouch or squat.

Further, in both Atif and Sajid's case, the postmorten report mentions 'several ante-mortem injuries including firearm wounds'. This only suggests that there were at least a few 'non-firearm wound'. In what circumstances were these caused? The enquiry team provides us with no explanation. In the absence of any description, the suspicion that they could have been tortured before being encountered gets strengthened.

In the police's defence, it cites the serological report which says that the blood group matching that of Atif, Sajid and Balwant Singh (the police man who was injured in the 19th September operation) was found on the floor, gate, drawing room, walls, gate and furniture of the flat No. L 18. So what does this prove or disprove? Except that two people were killed and another injured. But most interestingly, it does not mention at all whether the blood matching the blood group of Inspector Sharma was found in the flat.

This is glaring as the Commission's report in the very next few paragraphs confidently corroborates the police version that a "volley of bullets was fired on the police team as soon as it entered Flat no 108, L-18..through the side gate. …" If Balwant Singh was "also with Inspector Sharma" and sustained bullet injuries leading to the spilling of blood mentioned in the serological report, how is the serological report completely silent on the blood of Inspector Sharma?

The weapons which killed Inspector Sharma, W/2 and W/3, according the Commission, belonged to no one in the police party, and were therefore quite obviously it concludes, the possessions of the slain youth, Atif and Sajid. The NHRC here places an implicit faith in the Delhi Police, and chooses to ignore what the civil rights activists have been saying from day one, that no panchnama or seizure list was prepared in the presence of any independent witnesses, as is procedurally required.

It also refuses to comment on questions being raised on the police claim that two alleged terrorists escaped during the operation, declaring it to be beyond the scope of its enquiry. In fact, it seems to be accepting the police version that 'each flat has two doors and a crowd had gathered outside at the time when the exchange of fire was on'. Going by the police version the NHRC concludes, 'in the melee it was possible for some persons to escape'. But the contradiction in the police report itself is not taken note wherein it is claimed that while Inspector Sharma led a few staff inside the building, the rest of the team members were guarding the ground floor. Now, had the NHRC team visited the site, it would have noticed that even if the flats have two gates, but the entry gate to the building is only one, on the ground floor and that was being manned by the police party. The residents of the other flats had been told to stay inside, but this again could be gathered only if the NHRC team had recorded the eyewitness accounts. How could it be possible for the two alleged 'terrorists' to flee?

The NHRC has conveniently skirted all uncomfortable questions in its urgent rush to declare the innocence of the Delhi Police.  Coming as it does, in the wake of the botched up enquiry into the Shopian rape and murder case, raises serious doubts over the credibility of enquiry commissions and bodies such as the NHRC. By ignoring all contrary voices, the NHRC has proved itself to be a propaganda arm of the state, and not the independent custodian of human rights of the country's citizens, as it was created to be.

All those interested in the pursuance of truth and justice, reject this farcical, partisan and shameful mockery of an enquiry.

We reiterate our demand for an impartial judicial enquiry by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court to look into the entire issue emerging from the Batla House encounter.

 

 

 

Signed/-

Tanweer Fazal, Farah Farooqui,  Ghazi Shahnawaz, Harris, Ahmed Sohaib (Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Group)

 

Mahtab Alam (Association for the Protection of Civil Rights)

Aslam Khan (All India Students Association , Jamia Millia Islamia )

 

 


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?