PEOPLES_UNION_FOR_CIVIL_LIBERTIES_TELANGANA [PUCL,TS]
# 16-8-913/D, Malakpet X Road, Hyderabad-24, Telangana State
Mobile: 9848055502/9440430263/9396320723/ 040-24414736
Email: jaya_pucl@yahoo.com/reddyk_pratap@yahoo.co.in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUCL Report on
Police killing 25 people in two encounters of Telangana State [5] and AP State [20]
The erstwhile combined state of Andhra Pradesh was notorious for `fake encounters’ in the country. After ten months of the bifurcation of the state into Telangana and Andhra Pradesh once again the police resorted to killing of 25 people on a bloody Tuesday, April 7, 2015.
In Telangana, the incident in Warangal district, the police escorting five under-trial prisoners, who were suspected terrorists, shot them dead on the pretext that one of them tried to snatch a firearm from one of the escorts in a bid to flee police custody;
In Andhra Pradesh, the incident where 20 men alleged to be smugglers of red sandalwood were shot dead in the Seshachalam forest of Chittoor district, near Tirupati in a joint-operation conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Police and Forest Officials.
The Fake Encounter at Telangana State incident took place in a prison van, where 17 security force members were taking 5 prisoners namely Vikhar Ahmmed @ Vikaaruddin, 30 years, (2). Syed Amjal Ali, 29 years, (3). Dr. Haneef, 32 years, (4). Mohammed Zakeer, 30 years, (5). Idaar Khan, 28 years all are under trials from Warangal Jail to a Hyderabad court. This encounter happened inside a jail van with all of the under trials killed, while handcuffed to their seats. The police claims that Vikar Ahmed, one of the under-trials, asked to be released in order for him to answer nature’s call. Upon his return he tried to snatch a weapon. The police opened fire when other under-trials allegedly tried to snatch weapons too and this led to all of them being killed.
The police version of the Andhra Pradesh encounter is that Red-sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force spotted footprints of the “smugglers” and came across around 100 of them felling trees in the Seshachalam Forest at the foot of the Tirumala Hills. Members of the Task Force challenged them to surrender, but the woodcutters responded by pelting stones. The Task Force in turn responded to the raining stones by firing randomly at the woodcutters, which led to death of 20 of them; the rest ran away.
It is surprising to note that a “random firing” in response to stone pelting has resulted in the death of 20 woodcutters. One wonders what could have been the toll had the Force targeted the woodcutters in self-defense. Let us not forget how disproportionate it is to use bullets for stones, even if the stones were “raining” down. The alleged encounter took place in a jungle after all and trees could have given ample protection till the Task Force was able to capture all the alleged smugglers.
Now coming to Warangal incident it has to be imagined how could Vikar Ahmed attempt to snatch a weapon from the security personnel, as under-trials are never let-off alone, not even to use the toilet? As standard operating procedure, security personnel always escort under trials. Furthermore, even if he did attempt to snatch weaponry, how come a 17-member security force failed to overpower him without firing? Were not remaining four, as per their own claims, still handcuffed. It is impossible to believe this obliviously and fictitious story weaved by the police.
The PUCL wishes to bring to the notice of one and all, particularly the police organization that there is no concept much less any legal provision for “Encounter Death” as manifested by the police. Neither the provisions of the IPC nor the provisions of the Cr.PC and nor the provisions of any other law dealing with any crimes and criminal investigation does the expression “Encounter Death” appear. It is mere invention created by the police without any basis of law. While the matter has been adjudicated several times by the courts not only the discountenancing but also condemning the action of causing deaths of the persons in the custody naming them as “Encounter Deaths” in the latest Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh comprising of five Judges it has been authoritatively laid down that in case of every unnatural death caused even by the police force under the pretext of self defense must be reported and made the subject of ordinary enquiry under the provisions of Cr.P.C and also naming all the police personnel causing deaths. Such police personnel must be left to defend themselves in one or the other provisions contained in the Chapter relating to “General Exceptions” in I.P.C. Putting in other words, every claim made by the police personnel claiming the defense “self defense” either under the guise of encounter or otherwise, must NECESSARILY be subjected to an adjudication by a competent court. Otherwise, all the deaths caused by the police under the ‘fictitious’ name of encounter will be a cases of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
We are also condemning killings of police at Suryapet and Janakipuram too.
PUCL Demands
1. A judicial enquiry headed by a former judge of Supreme Court on Fake Encounters. Also intense probe should be conducted in police and politicians collusion with red-sand smugglers in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh, suspect terrorists in Telangana.
2. To register an FIR to book all the police personnel involved on charges of murder (Section 302, IPC).
3. Immediate suspension of the implicated personnel pending the investigation, and arrests with no delay.
4. Preservation of crime scenes, ballistic and forensic evidence, seizure of all weapons.
5. Full protection must be given to all witnesses.
Sd/- Sd/-
[K. Pratap Reddy] [Jaya Vindhyala]
President General Secretary
==========================================================
#Condemn_Targetting_of_Democratic_Rights_Activists_Team_in_quiring_into_Seshachalam_Killings
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) strongly condemns the slapping of cases against activists of a team of several civil liberties and democratic rights organisations from across the country who conducted a fact-finding into the recent killings of 20 red sanders "smugglers" in Chittoor district. Members of CDRO (Committee of Democratic Rights) and other human rights groups had visited the two 'encounter' sites on 10th April. When the team tried to speak to the forest officials to get their version of events they were threatened with dire consequences. Subsequently several team members were booked by forest officials yesterday, 11th April, for trespassing. Entering into a reserved forest area without authorisation is an offence under Sec 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1957. Other charges may also have been applied. That this is a targetted, selective, and blatant act of harassment is all too obvious as media teams have been freely visiting the sites since 7th April itself.
Significantly, those booked include Mr Chiluka Chandrasekhar- advocate and General Secretary, Civil Liberties Committee (CLC -erstwhile APCLC) - who filed a PIL into the killings. It was on this basis that the AP High Court issued directives including registration of the case as unnatural deaths, observing the SC guidelines into encounter killings, preserving the bodies and a post mortem by a team of forensic experts.
In a Press Conference held in Tirupati on 11th April the team had released an interim report of their investigation. The team particularly highlighted the cold-blooded killings of 20 persons which are being passed off in the police version as ‘random’ deaths which occurred in ‘self-defence’ when attacked with stones and axes by over 100 red sanders "smugglers", resulting in the deaths of 20 of the coolies. The rights' team when they visited the two sites found no other bullet marks, or blood spots except where the bodies fell, as should have happened in a random firing. The bodies were found in close proximity to each other rather than scattered over a large area. Moreover neither of the sites had no stones that the coolies could have hurled. The team questioned as to what happened to the rest of the coolies at least some of whom must have been injured in the "random", and allegedly untargetted firing.
In the light of the above, the registering of a case against the activists is obviously an obstructionist move intended to pressurise and prevent rights groups from actively pursuing the matter both in and outside the court. The Court clearly believes that the incident merits further inquiry. An independent fact-finding by a civil rights team is a civil society initiative in furtherance of the same. The registering of cases against the activists seems highly motivated and hints that a cover-up operation seems to have been already set in motion.
PUDR demands that:
1. An independent inquiry in which the AP police has no role as they are the accused.
2. The concerned policemen be booked under Sec. 302.
3. The charges against the 12 team members be dropped immediately
Megha Bahl, Sharmila Purkayastha
(Secretaries)
12th April 2015
======================================================
Dr.V. Suresh National General Secretary, PUCL <pucl.natgensec@gmail.com>
Date: 12 April 2015
Subject: PUCL Statement condemning prosecution of human rights activists for visiting encounter site in Chittoor district on 11.4.2015
To:
Please find below the PUCL statement issued condemning the launch of police prosecution on 11.4.2015 by AP Police and Forest Dept against human rights groups visiting the forest areas of Chittoor where encounter took place on 6.4.2015
Please see the URL of the report about FIR: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra_pradesh/Rights-Leaders-Find-Holes-in-Encounter-Theory/2015/04/12/article2760235.ece
Suresh
--------------------------------
PUCL strongly condemns the registration of a FIR by the AP Forest Department against a team of human rights activists drawn from national level human rights organisations which visited , on 11.4.2015, the site of the encounter in Chandragiri Mandal in Chittoor district, AP in which the police shot dead 20 wood cutters. The Fact Finding Team included human rights activists from Civil Liberties Committee - AP, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), Human Rights Forum (HRF), CPDR and other organisations.
It is learnt that the forest department officials booked criminal cases under AP Forest Act, 1957 against 12 human rights activist for visiting the site of the alleged encounter situated inside Reserved Forests without permission. In fact, when the FFT members met the DFO of the area, he reportedly threatened to launch the prosecution against them as a means of intimidating them
PUCL considers the criminal prosecution as an act meant to terrorise and intimidate the Fact Finding Team of human rights organisations from exposing to the world the utter lies and falsehoods of the AP police and forest department’s regarding the encounter which allegedly took place on 6th April, 2015 between 530 to 600 am . The action of registration of a criminal case against the team of human rights activists has to be seen as a hostile and bullying action to silence citizens from challenging the government about the total abuse of power leading to shooting to death of the wood cutters.
The sinister and motivated nature of the FIR registration has to be seen in the context of the fact that it includes Mr. Chikula Chandrasekhar, General Secretary, Civil Liberties Committee-AP, who had filed the PIL against the AP Government before the AP High Court seeking judicial enquiry and prosecution and arrest of police officials concerned. It is thus clearly an act to intimidate the PIL Petitioner from pursuing the PIL in which the High Court has expressed its mind about the need to register a FIR including offence of murder in encounter deaths, independent investigation and implementation of guidelines in encounter cases issued by the Supreme COur tin the case of `PUCL vs. State of Maharashtra'.
Such a hostile action could not be the action of local police and forest department alone but should be considered to reflect the official policy line of the AP Government which does not want the truth of the encounters to be exposed.
PUCL would like to highlight that the human rights team was visiting the encounter site only for the purpose of gathering information about the actual location and understand the context of the firing so as to check the veracity of the police story that they fired in `self defence’ against hundreds of wood cutters who rained stones, sticks, sickles and arrows against them. The FFT was visiting the area also because of the substantial allegation that the 20 persons were killed elsewhere and their bodies thrown at the site shown to be the encounter site. A site visit therefore was vital for the FFT to come to an independent, unbiased and factual assessment as to whether there was truth to the stand of the AP Government about the encounter.
PUCL stresses that visits of `Fact Finding Teams’ and their reports are well recognised by human rights bodies of the UN, NHRC and even courts in India as an accepted and legitimate way of bringing to the light of public scrutiny incidents of human rights violations committed by state forces.
Thus the fact Finding Team’s visit to the site of encounter, situated in Reserved Forest area, will have to be seen as a legitimate part of human rights groups’ activities which is distinct and different from other instances of entering into reserved forest areas without permission. Thus while technically entering into reserved forest areas may be a violation in law, the invocation of the law in the present circumstance is only indicative of the state using its coercive powers to silence, intimidate and stifle public exposure of its complicity in the cold blooded massacre of 20 wood cutters and passing it off as an encounter. PUCL calls upon all democratic minded citizens and human rights concerned persons to raise their voice demanding respect for `rule of law’ and against state resorting to encounters as a way of terrorising civil society.
Chennai, 12.4.2015
Dr. V. Suresh, National General Secretary, PUCL
--------------------------------
Dr. V. Suresh,
National General Secretary, PUCL - People's Union for Civil Liberties,
270-A, Patparganj, Opp. Anandlok Apartments,
Mayur Vihar - I, Delhi 110091, India.
====================================================
#Fresh_Evidences_In_AndhraPradesh_Encounter_Killings_Point_To_Cold_Blooded_Murder
By Countercurrents.org
09 April, 2015
Countercurrents.org
Fresh evidences emerging about the twin encounter killings in Andhra Pradesh in which 25 people lost their lives point to a pre-meditated cold blooded murder by the police force.
A red sanders smuggler had told Vellore police that five of the dead had been taken away from a bus as it neared Chittoor on Sunday night.
"We were going to fetch red sanders but the five people who were found killed were in the bus with me and were spotted by the Andhra police as they sat in a group whereas I sat with a woman passenger," the smuggler has allegedly told the police. A senior officer said the smuggler had gone back home to his village and narrated the incident to the panchayat head, who took him to the police.
After the incident, the Andhra police should have ordered an inquiry by a judicial magistrate as required by Section 176 1(A) of the CrPC. Instead the bodies were dispatched to Tirupati for post-mortem without waiting for the judicial magistrate, which proves that there is an attempt to cover up.
Most of the dead were from the Vanniyar community that dominates the border belt and the rest are Gounders. They are not tribals but daily wage labourers who live on the foothills of Javvaadhu Hills in Tamil Nadu and venture into the hills to cut and collect firewood. Since they are used to the rough terrain, they are employed by the red sanders smugglers to fetch the trees from Andhra.
Tamil Nadu has announced a compensation of Rs 3 lakh each for the families of the dead. The state is also planning to approach the National Human Rights Commission with the material collected by its police force that counters the Andhra police claim that they opened fire after coming under attack from around 100 smugglers, who targeted them with sickles and other sharp weapons.
"First, no one in the task force suffered any major injuries to justify such a response. More important, the two spots where the firings reportedly happened showed no signs of any struggle or battle. Instead, two of our intelligence officers who were at the spot within two hours after information reached us found the bodies lined up, with bags, water sachets and chappals in matching pairs lying next to them, which exposed that the whole thing was set up post-mortem," A Tamil Nadu officer said.
Had the task force opened fire on a mob, the men would have started to run helter-skelter and would have got shot in any part of the body, especially the back or the legs, the officer said. Instead, all the 20 had bullet wounds either on their chest or on the forehead or the face, suggesting they were shot at close quarters after being secured.
"Also, the wounds would have looked fresh if they had been shot between 5am and 6am on Tuesday. Instead they looked at least a day old and a couple of bodies also had burn marks on them, as if there had been an attempt to cremate them," another senior officer said.
An officer who had served in Vellore district and had nabbed a few red sanders smugglers with the contraband argued that the logs found next to the bodies were another giveaway.
"None of them was freshly cut and instead had rounded edges as if they had been retrieved from one of the godowns. Also they had the dried look and paint patches on them - probably to cover the case numbers painted on them after they had been seized on a previous occasion," the officer explained.
Red sanders is a protected wood with a global demand and is found almost exclusively in southern Andhra.
In the other encounter in which five under trials were shot dead by the police, Viquar Ahmed, one of the five undertrials gunned down by police in Telangana on Tuesday, had expressed an apprehension that the police may kill him, his lawyer said on Wednesday.
Viquar had filed a petition in the trial court six months ago, expressing his apprehension that the police may kill him in a staged gunfight while bringing him from Warangal Central Jail to Hyderabad.
"He had complained that policemen are trying to attack him while transporting him and others from Warangal," said Abdul Azeem, who was representing Viquar and two others.
The defence counsel said Viquar's father had also submitted a petition to the chief justice of the high court and human rights commission stating that Viquar was facing threat to his life from the police.
On April 6, Viquar had requested the court to transfer him to a jail in Hyderabad. He had given this request in his hand writing and the court was to pronounce orders on it on April 7, the day when he and four others were killed.
The lawyer said the two cases against Viquar and his friends were in the final stage as only the statements of the investigating officers were to be recorded. "We were expecting judgment in a couple of months," he said.
Abdul Azeem dismissed the police claim that Viquar and four others were shot dead as they tried to snatch weapons from the accompanying policemen and flee.
He said all the undertrials were handcuffed and chained to the seats in the police vehicle and hence there was no question of their attempting to snatch weapons or escape.
Viquar and the four others were facing charges of involvement in various cases including killing of two policemen in Hyderabad. Police said he had formed a group called Tehreek Galba-e-Islam and was carrying out terrorist activities with his associates.
============================================================
#Dispatches_Indias_Police_Should_Arrest_Suspects_Not_Kill_Them [2]
April 8, 2015
[3]
Meenakshi Ganguly [3]
Follow @mg2411 [4]
Two new shooting incidents in India where suspects died under fire from the police shows once again the need for urgent reform.
During a police operation this week to combat sandalwood smuggling in Andhra Pradesh state, 20 loggers [5] were killed. Police say they were forced to open fire in self-defense when smugglers, on being asked to surrender, instead retaliated by hurling stones and attacking policemen with sickles and other tools.
On the same day, five terrorism suspects in Telangana state were killed in custody as they were being transported from jail to Hyderabad for a court hearing. Police say that one of the suspects snatched a rifle and tried to shoot at the police escort, while other prisoners helped him by physically attacking policemen. But activists dispute [6] this because the suspects were handcuffed at the time, and the five men should easily have been subdued by armed guards. Again, the police claim they acted in self-defense, but some fear this was a case of extrajudicial execution.
Both these violent incidents suggest that the police failed to respond according to Indian and international [7] law. Human Rights Watch found that police in India are often not held accountable for abuses they commit, and has recommended [8] several reforms including better training and working conditions for police officers. Security forces have the right to use lethal force when their lives or those of others are in imminent danger, but these latest shootings beg the question as to why armed police felt the need to use lethal force to overpower suspects.
India’s police have long been tainted by numerous credible allegations of abuse. Police and other security forces use torture to coerce confessions, or simply to punish suspects; use unnecessary force or live ammunition instead of trying to arrest suspects by using non-lethal weapons; and carry out extrajudicial executions of suspects instead of relying on evidence and properly protecting witnesses to ensure a conviction.
For their part, police argue that they do not have adequate means to do their jobs, and often face undue political pressure too. India’s police do of course need support to do their work properly. But they should also be held accountable when they themselves fail to abide by the law.
# 16-8-913/D, Malakpet X Road, Hyderabad-24, Telangana State
Mobile: 9848055502/9440430263/9396320723/ 040-24414736
Email: jaya_pucl@yahoo.com/reddyk_pratap@yahoo.co.in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUCL Report on
Police killing 25 people in two encounters of Telangana State [5] and AP State [20]
The erstwhile combined state of Andhra Pradesh was notorious for `fake encounters’ in the country. After ten months of the bifurcation of the state into Telangana and Andhra Pradesh once again the police resorted to killing of 25 people on a bloody Tuesday, April 7, 2015.
In Telangana, the incident in Warangal district, the police escorting five under-trial prisoners, who were suspected terrorists, shot them dead on the pretext that one of them tried to snatch a firearm from one of the escorts in a bid to flee police custody;
In Andhra Pradesh, the incident where 20 men alleged to be smugglers of red sandalwood were shot dead in the Seshachalam forest of Chittoor district, near Tirupati in a joint-operation conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Police and Forest Officials.
The Fake Encounter at Telangana State incident took place in a prison van, where 17 security force members were taking 5 prisoners namely Vikhar Ahmmed @ Vikaaruddin, 30 years, (2). Syed Amjal Ali, 29 years, (3). Dr. Haneef, 32 years, (4). Mohammed Zakeer, 30 years, (5). Idaar Khan, 28 years all are under trials from Warangal Jail to a Hyderabad court. This encounter happened inside a jail van with all of the under trials killed, while handcuffed to their seats. The police claims that Vikar Ahmed, one of the under-trials, asked to be released in order for him to answer nature’s call. Upon his return he tried to snatch a weapon. The police opened fire when other under-trials allegedly tried to snatch weapons too and this led to all of them being killed.
The police version of the Andhra Pradesh encounter is that Red-sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force spotted footprints of the “smugglers” and came across around 100 of them felling trees in the Seshachalam Forest at the foot of the Tirumala Hills. Members of the Task Force challenged them to surrender, but the woodcutters responded by pelting stones. The Task Force in turn responded to the raining stones by firing randomly at the woodcutters, which led to death of 20 of them; the rest ran away.
It is surprising to note that a “random firing” in response to stone pelting has resulted in the death of 20 woodcutters. One wonders what could have been the toll had the Force targeted the woodcutters in self-defense. Let us not forget how disproportionate it is to use bullets for stones, even if the stones were “raining” down. The alleged encounter took place in a jungle after all and trees could have given ample protection till the Task Force was able to capture all the alleged smugglers.
Now coming to Warangal incident it has to be imagined how could Vikar Ahmed attempt to snatch a weapon from the security personnel, as under-trials are never let-off alone, not even to use the toilet? As standard operating procedure, security personnel always escort under trials. Furthermore, even if he did attempt to snatch weaponry, how come a 17-member security force failed to overpower him without firing? Were not remaining four, as per their own claims, still handcuffed. It is impossible to believe this obliviously and fictitious story weaved by the police.
The PUCL wishes to bring to the notice of one and all, particularly the police organization that there is no concept much less any legal provision for “Encounter Death” as manifested by the police. Neither the provisions of the IPC nor the provisions of the Cr.PC and nor the provisions of any other law dealing with any crimes and criminal investigation does the expression “Encounter Death” appear. It is mere invention created by the police without any basis of law. While the matter has been adjudicated several times by the courts not only the discountenancing but also condemning the action of causing deaths of the persons in the custody naming them as “Encounter Deaths” in the latest Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh comprising of five Judges it has been authoritatively laid down that in case of every unnatural death caused even by the police force under the pretext of self defense must be reported and made the subject of ordinary enquiry under the provisions of Cr.P.C and also naming all the police personnel causing deaths. Such police personnel must be left to defend themselves in one or the other provisions contained in the Chapter relating to “General Exceptions” in I.P.C. Putting in other words, every claim made by the police personnel claiming the defense “self defense” either under the guise of encounter or otherwise, must NECESSARILY be subjected to an adjudication by a competent court. Otherwise, all the deaths caused by the police under the ‘fictitious’ name of encounter will be a cases of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
We are also condemning killings of police at Suryapet and Janakipuram too.
PUCL Demands
1. A judicial enquiry headed by a former judge of Supreme Court on Fake Encounters. Also intense probe should be conducted in police and politicians collusion with red-sand smugglers in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh, suspect terrorists in Telangana.
2. To register an FIR to book all the police personnel involved on charges of murder (Section 302, IPC).
3. Immediate suspension of the implicated personnel pending the investigation, and arrests with no delay.
4. Preservation of crime scenes, ballistic and forensic evidence, seizure of all weapons.
5. Full protection must be given to all witnesses.
Sd/- Sd/-
[K. Pratap Reddy] [Jaya Vindhyala]
President General Secretary
==========================================================
#Condemn_Targetting_of_Democratic_Rights_Activists_Team_in_quiring_into_Seshachalam_Killings
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) strongly condemns the slapping of cases against activists of a team of several civil liberties and democratic rights organisations from across the country who conducted a fact-finding into the recent killings of 20 red sanders "smugglers" in Chittoor district. Members of CDRO (Committee of Democratic Rights) and other human rights groups had visited the two 'encounter' sites on 10th April. When the team tried to speak to the forest officials to get their version of events they were threatened with dire consequences. Subsequently several team members were booked by forest officials yesterday, 11th April, for trespassing. Entering into a reserved forest area without authorisation is an offence under Sec 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1957. Other charges may also have been applied. That this is a targetted, selective, and blatant act of harassment is all too obvious as media teams have been freely visiting the sites since 7th April itself.
Significantly, those booked include Mr Chiluka Chandrasekhar- advocate and General Secretary, Civil Liberties Committee (CLC -erstwhile APCLC) - who filed a PIL into the killings. It was on this basis that the AP High Court issued directives including registration of the case as unnatural deaths, observing the SC guidelines into encounter killings, preserving the bodies and a post mortem by a team of forensic experts.
In a Press Conference held in Tirupati on 11th April the team had released an interim report of their investigation. The team particularly highlighted the cold-blooded killings of 20 persons which are being passed off in the police version as ‘random’ deaths which occurred in ‘self-defence’ when attacked with stones and axes by over 100 red sanders "smugglers", resulting in the deaths of 20 of the coolies. The rights' team when they visited the two sites found no other bullet marks, or blood spots except where the bodies fell, as should have happened in a random firing. The bodies were found in close proximity to each other rather than scattered over a large area. Moreover neither of the sites had no stones that the coolies could have hurled. The team questioned as to what happened to the rest of the coolies at least some of whom must have been injured in the "random", and allegedly untargetted firing.
In the light of the above, the registering of a case against the activists is obviously an obstructionist move intended to pressurise and prevent rights groups from actively pursuing the matter both in and outside the court. The Court clearly believes that the incident merits further inquiry. An independent fact-finding by a civil rights team is a civil society initiative in furtherance of the same. The registering of cases against the activists seems highly motivated and hints that a cover-up operation seems to have been already set in motion.
PUDR demands that:
1. An independent inquiry in which the AP police has no role as they are the accused.
2. The concerned policemen be booked under Sec. 302.
3. The charges against the 12 team members be dropped immediately
Megha Bahl, Sharmila Purkayastha
(Secretaries)
12th April 2015
======================================================
Dr.V. Suresh National General Secretary, PUCL <pucl.natgensec@gmail.com>
Date: 12 April 2015
Subject: PUCL Statement condemning prosecution of human rights activists for visiting encounter site in Chittoor district on 11.4.2015
To:
Please find below the PUCL statement issued condemning the launch of police prosecution on 11.4.2015 by AP Police and Forest Dept against human rights groups visiting the forest areas of Chittoor where encounter took place on 6.4.2015
Please see the URL of the report about FIR: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra_pradesh/Rights-Leaders-Find-Holes-in-Encounter-Theory/2015/04/12/article2760235.ece
Suresh
--------------------------------
PUCL strongly condemns the registration of a FIR by the AP Forest Department against a team of human rights activists drawn from national level human rights organisations which visited , on 11.4.2015, the site of the encounter in Chandragiri Mandal in Chittoor district, AP in which the police shot dead 20 wood cutters. The Fact Finding Team included human rights activists from Civil Liberties Committee - AP, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), Human Rights Forum (HRF), CPDR and other organisations.
It is learnt that the forest department officials booked criminal cases under AP Forest Act, 1957 against 12 human rights activist for visiting the site of the alleged encounter situated inside Reserved Forests without permission. In fact, when the FFT members met the DFO of the area, he reportedly threatened to launch the prosecution against them as a means of intimidating them
PUCL considers the criminal prosecution as an act meant to terrorise and intimidate the Fact Finding Team of human rights organisations from exposing to the world the utter lies and falsehoods of the AP police and forest department’s regarding the encounter which allegedly took place on 6th April, 2015 between 530 to 600 am . The action of registration of a criminal case against the team of human rights activists has to be seen as a hostile and bullying action to silence citizens from challenging the government about the total abuse of power leading to shooting to death of the wood cutters.
The sinister and motivated nature of the FIR registration has to be seen in the context of the fact that it includes Mr. Chikula Chandrasekhar, General Secretary, Civil Liberties Committee-AP, who had filed the PIL against the AP Government before the AP High Court seeking judicial enquiry and prosecution and arrest of police officials concerned. It is thus clearly an act to intimidate the PIL Petitioner from pursuing the PIL in which the High Court has expressed its mind about the need to register a FIR including offence of murder in encounter deaths, independent investigation and implementation of guidelines in encounter cases issued by the Supreme COur tin the case of `PUCL vs. State of Maharashtra'.
Such a hostile action could not be the action of local police and forest department alone but should be considered to reflect the official policy line of the AP Government which does not want the truth of the encounters to be exposed.
PUCL would like to highlight that the human rights team was visiting the encounter site only for the purpose of gathering information about the actual location and understand the context of the firing so as to check the veracity of the police story that they fired in `self defence’ against hundreds of wood cutters who rained stones, sticks, sickles and arrows against them. The FFT was visiting the area also because of the substantial allegation that the 20 persons were killed elsewhere and their bodies thrown at the site shown to be the encounter site. A site visit therefore was vital for the FFT to come to an independent, unbiased and factual assessment as to whether there was truth to the stand of the AP Government about the encounter.
PUCL stresses that visits of `Fact Finding Teams’ and their reports are well recognised by human rights bodies of the UN, NHRC and even courts in India as an accepted and legitimate way of bringing to the light of public scrutiny incidents of human rights violations committed by state forces.
Thus the fact Finding Team’s visit to the site of encounter, situated in Reserved Forest area, will have to be seen as a legitimate part of human rights groups’ activities which is distinct and different from other instances of entering into reserved forest areas without permission. Thus while technically entering into reserved forest areas may be a violation in law, the invocation of the law in the present circumstance is only indicative of the state using its coercive powers to silence, intimidate and stifle public exposure of its complicity in the cold blooded massacre of 20 wood cutters and passing it off as an encounter. PUCL calls upon all democratic minded citizens and human rights concerned persons to raise their voice demanding respect for `rule of law’ and against state resorting to encounters as a way of terrorising civil society.
Chennai, 12.4.2015
Dr. V. Suresh, National General Secretary, PUCL
--------------------------------
Dr. V. Suresh,
National General Secretary, PUCL - People's Union for Civil Liberties,
270-A, Patparganj, Opp. Anandlok Apartments,
Mayur Vihar - I, Delhi 110091, India.
====================================================
#Fresh_Evidences_In_AndhraPradesh_Encounter_Killings_Point_To_Cold_Blooded_Murder
By Countercurrents.org
09 April, 2015
Countercurrents.org
Fresh evidences emerging about the twin encounter killings in Andhra Pradesh in which 25 people lost their lives point to a pre-meditated cold blooded murder by the police force.
A red sanders smuggler had told Vellore police that five of the dead had been taken away from a bus as it neared Chittoor on Sunday night.
"We were going to fetch red sanders but the five people who were found killed were in the bus with me and were spotted by the Andhra police as they sat in a group whereas I sat with a woman passenger," the smuggler has allegedly told the police. A senior officer said the smuggler had gone back home to his village and narrated the incident to the panchayat head, who took him to the police.
After the incident, the Andhra police should have ordered an inquiry by a judicial magistrate as required by Section 176 1(A) of the CrPC. Instead the bodies were dispatched to Tirupati for post-mortem without waiting for the judicial magistrate, which proves that there is an attempt to cover up.
Most of the dead were from the Vanniyar community that dominates the border belt and the rest are Gounders. They are not tribals but daily wage labourers who live on the foothills of Javvaadhu Hills in Tamil Nadu and venture into the hills to cut and collect firewood. Since they are used to the rough terrain, they are employed by the red sanders smugglers to fetch the trees from Andhra.
Tamil Nadu has announced a compensation of Rs 3 lakh each for the families of the dead. The state is also planning to approach the National Human Rights Commission with the material collected by its police force that counters the Andhra police claim that they opened fire after coming under attack from around 100 smugglers, who targeted them with sickles and other sharp weapons.
"First, no one in the task force suffered any major injuries to justify such a response. More important, the two spots where the firings reportedly happened showed no signs of any struggle or battle. Instead, two of our intelligence officers who were at the spot within two hours after information reached us found the bodies lined up, with bags, water sachets and chappals in matching pairs lying next to them, which exposed that the whole thing was set up post-mortem," A Tamil Nadu officer said.
Had the task force opened fire on a mob, the men would have started to run helter-skelter and would have got shot in any part of the body, especially the back or the legs, the officer said. Instead, all the 20 had bullet wounds either on their chest or on the forehead or the face, suggesting they were shot at close quarters after being secured.
"Also, the wounds would have looked fresh if they had been shot between 5am and 6am on Tuesday. Instead they looked at least a day old and a couple of bodies also had burn marks on them, as if there had been an attempt to cremate them," another senior officer said.
An officer who had served in Vellore district and had nabbed a few red sanders smugglers with the contraband argued that the logs found next to the bodies were another giveaway.
"None of them was freshly cut and instead had rounded edges as if they had been retrieved from one of the godowns. Also they had the dried look and paint patches on them - probably to cover the case numbers painted on them after they had been seized on a previous occasion," the officer explained.
Red sanders is a protected wood with a global demand and is found almost exclusively in southern Andhra.
In the other encounter in which five under trials were shot dead by the police, Viquar Ahmed, one of the five undertrials gunned down by police in Telangana on Tuesday, had expressed an apprehension that the police may kill him, his lawyer said on Wednesday.
Viquar had filed a petition in the trial court six months ago, expressing his apprehension that the police may kill him in a staged gunfight while bringing him from Warangal Central Jail to Hyderabad.
"He had complained that policemen are trying to attack him while transporting him and others from Warangal," said Abdul Azeem, who was representing Viquar and two others.
The defence counsel said Viquar's father had also submitted a petition to the chief justice of the high court and human rights commission stating that Viquar was facing threat to his life from the police.
On April 6, Viquar had requested the court to transfer him to a jail in Hyderabad. He had given this request in his hand writing and the court was to pronounce orders on it on April 7, the day when he and four others were killed.
The lawyer said the two cases against Viquar and his friends were in the final stage as only the statements of the investigating officers were to be recorded. "We were expecting judgment in a couple of months," he said.
Abdul Azeem dismissed the police claim that Viquar and four others were shot dead as they tried to snatch weapons from the accompanying policemen and flee.
He said all the undertrials were handcuffed and chained to the seats in the police vehicle and hence there was no question of their attempting to snatch weapons or escape.
Viquar and the four others were facing charges of involvement in various cases including killing of two policemen in Hyderabad. Police said he had formed a group called Tehreek Galba-e-Islam and was carrying out terrorist activities with his associates.
============================================================
#Dispatches_Indias_Police_Should_Arrest_Suspects_Not_Kill_Them [2]
April 8, 2015
[3]
Meenakshi Ganguly [3]
Follow @mg2411 [4]
Two new shooting incidents in India where suspects died under fire from the police shows once again the need for urgent reform.
During a police operation this week to combat sandalwood smuggling in Andhra Pradesh state, 20 loggers [5] were killed. Police say they were forced to open fire in self-defense when smugglers, on being asked to surrender, instead retaliated by hurling stones and attacking policemen with sickles and other tools.
On the same day, five terrorism suspects in Telangana state were killed in custody as they were being transported from jail to Hyderabad for a court hearing. Police say that one of the suspects snatched a rifle and tried to shoot at the police escort, while other prisoners helped him by physically attacking policemen. But activists dispute [6] this because the suspects were handcuffed at the time, and the five men should easily have been subdued by armed guards. Again, the police claim they acted in self-defense, but some fear this was a case of extrajudicial execution.
Both these violent incidents suggest that the police failed to respond according to Indian and international [7] law. Human Rights Watch found that police in India are often not held accountable for abuses they commit, and has recommended [8] several reforms including better training and working conditions for police officers. Security forces have the right to use lethal force when their lives or those of others are in imminent danger, but these latest shootings beg the question as to why armed police felt the need to use lethal force to overpower suspects.
India’s police have long been tainted by numerous credible allegations of abuse. Police and other security forces use torture to coerce confessions, or simply to punish suspects; use unnecessary force or live ammunition instead of trying to arrest suspects by using non-lethal weapons; and carry out extrajudicial executions of suspects instead of relying on evidence and properly protecting witnesses to ensure a conviction.
For their part, police argue that they do not have adequate means to do their jobs, and often face undue political pressure too. India’s police do of course need support to do their work properly. But they should also be held accountable when they themselves fail to abide by the law.
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக