GUNNING FOR TROUBLE
The custodial killing of the four accused in a recent rape and murder case sparks vengeful celebration and reveals the dark underbelly of Indian policing
The killing of suspects in a gang-rape and murder case raises questions about the abuse of power by law enforcement agencies
The law has done its duty. That’s all I can say.” That was how V.C. Sajjanar, 51, the police commissioner of Cyberabad, described the police killing of the four men accused of the rape and murder of 27-year-old Disha at Chatanpally in the suburbs of Hyderabad on December 6. He was responding to questions during a media briefing some nine hours after the killings, having been asked if his deputies had taken the law into their own hands. He also clarified his position, stating that the police will take cognisance of any inquiry into the incident. But soon after the briefing concluded, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) announced that it would be sending a seven-member team, headed by IPS officer Manzil Saini, to investigate the incident the next day.
What Sajjanar and the Telangana police perhaps did not expect was the sharply polarised reactions the killings would provoke, from celebration to condemnation. The former was perhaps inevitable. With impatience at the slow pace of justice in such cases—the capital punishment awarded to the accused in the 2012 Nirbhaya case is yet to be carried out—the national mood has turned ugly. This appeared as shrill support for Telangana police.
“People seem to have lost patience with our justice system,” says Neeraj Kumar, Delhi’s police commissioner at the time of the 2012 Nirbhaya case. “Today, cases of rape, particularly of the Hyderabad variety, cause sharp public reaction and demands for immediate justice. The demand becomes magnified as a result of the wide and instant dissemination of information on social and electronic media. Public opinion gets consolidated into a war cry.”
Delayed is denied
Some of the anger also has to do with how frequently these depravities take place
and how often power plays a role in delaying or denying justice.
On December 5, a day before the Chatanpally killings, a 23-year-old gang-rape survivor, who had spent years pursuing legal action, was attacked by five men, including two of her alleged rapists, at her village in Uttar Pradesh’s Unnao district. She was beaten, stabbed, doused in petrol and set ablaze while she was on her way to Rae Bareli to meet her lawyers. She suffered 90 per cent burns on her body and reportedly had to walk a kilometre after the attack to find help, even needing to call the police helpline herself. She was then shuttled from a primary health centre in Unnao to government hospitals in Kanpur and Lucknow before finally being transported to Delhi, where she died.
While the accused were arrested in both cases, those in Telangana met a swift and brutal end while those in
Uttar Pradesh were out on bail. The accused in the former case were poor school dropouts earning a living as a lorry crew, while those from Unnao are both affluent and influential. These two incidents—taking place in a span of 48 hours across December 5 and 6—lay bare how economic power, social status and political connections can influence justice in India. They reveal how, often, the law is broken with impunity, with victims being left to their fate or to the mercy of a corrupt system. “There is a feeling of licentious indulgence,” says Maxwell Pereira, former police officer and author of The Tandoor Murder. “The experience we had invariably is of Uttar Pradesh criminals surrendering before Delhi Police and taking refuge in Tihar jail, preferring this kind of incarceration to sure death at the hands of the UP police. Moreover, the encouragement given to encounter killings in the state by Yogi Adityanath is not lost on us.” Perhaps that is why the father of the Unnao rape victim has demanded ‘Hyderabad-like’ justice for his daughter’s suffering.
Frontier justice
The clamour for speedy trials and capital punishment was heard in the political world as well. On December 2, addressing the Lok Sabha, Union minister of state for home affairs, G. Kishan Reddy, declared that the government would amend the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to ensure swift justice. On December 9, Andhra Pradesh chief minister Jagan
Mohan Reddy congratulated his Telangana counterpart K. Chandrashekar Rao and the state’s police officers, saying, “As a father of two daughters, the incident left me deeply agonised.” Pushing for stronger laws, he added, “Punishment should happen within three weeks of the crime.” He also hit out at the NHRC, saying, “Some people from Delhi [arrive on the scene] all of a sudden in the name of human rights and condemn the encounter [and] question officials .... If the hero in a film kills someone in an encounter, we all clap and say the film is good, but if a daring person does that in real life, it is questioned.”
However, the killing of the four accused in Chatanpally has also led to accusations of frontier justice and questions regarding whether all four were indeed guilty of the crime. The parents of two of the accused—Jollu Shiva and Jollu Naveen—have also said that their sons were under the age of 18, making them juveniles. And so, as the celebratory images fade—of police officers being feted, showered with rose petals and lifted into the air by cheering crowds— the questions regarding the legality of their actions have begun to grow louder. Some ask why the police swing between inaction and overzealousness, noting that three police personnel were suspended for delaying the filing of an FIR in this very case. Others criticise the events leading to the shoot-out between the accused and the police.
“It was quite unnecessary for the police to have taken the accused in the twilight hours to reconstruct the scene of crime,” says Prakash Singh, chairman of the Indian Police Foundation and Institute, a former DGP of Uttar Pradesh who has been a consistent votary of police reforms. “Police undertake an operation in the wee hours only when they have to catch [an accused] off-guard.” However, he also offers context—explaining the fact that the four accused were not handcuffed at the time—saying, “The use of handcuffs has become [tricky] with the Supreme Court’s direction against using them except in exceptional circumstances and, even then, only with
THE NATIONAL CONVERSATION SUGGESTS A BELIEF THAT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS FAILING, THAT POLICE INVESTIGATIONS ARE SHODDY AND FAVOUR THE RICH AND POWERFUL
the prior permission of a magistrate. It places severe constraints on the police and it would be [appropriate] if the court is moved to review its directions on the subject.” While noting that the story of the four accused attacking the police with sticks and stones and snatching their firearms “does not appear very convincing”, he also says that “considering that this is going to be the subject of a magisterial and a judicial inquiry, it would not be proper to offer a definitive opinion”. According to Pereira, “the most credible precaution would have been the presence of one or two respectable public witnesses which is a requirement of the panchnama in the CrPC. Sufficient force (for the escort and against escape or possible violence) and video recordings are some of the other precautions the police could have ensured.” He, however, admits that it is easier said than done.
A failing system
The national conversation suggests a belief that the criminal justice system is failing, that police investigations are shoddy and favour the rich and powerful and that trials often drag on interminably with no guarantee that convicts will be punished. This has fuelled impatience and outrage, leading to many across the country saying that they support the ‘instant justice’ that took place in this case. The fact is that killings like these have a decades-long history, especially among the police in both Telugu-speaking states. The history of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh is marked by many instances of triggerhappy police responsible for extra-judicial killings of left-wing extremists, Islamic radicals and criminals of all hues (see box: A Litany of Killing).
Since 1993, there have been as many as 2,560 cases of extra-judicial killings in India, of which the NHRC identified 1,224 as ‘fake encounters’. “The police resort to this only if there is tacit approval by the political establishment and overwhelming pressure from the public, media and government for quick results,” says Singh, adding that “the police take this short-cut only in an enabling environment”. To this point, Kumar adds: “This approach on the part of the police is in vogue when it comes to terrorists and dangerous gangsters. Usually, cases involving such criminals do not succeed in the courts as witnesses do not come forward to testify and there isn’t enough physical or forensic evidence to prove the charges.”
Nonetheless, this is clearly a worrying trend. Left unchecked, it leads to the police assuming the role of judge, jury and executioner. This is especially dangerous because checks and balances are an essential principle in the exercise and distribution of state power. Police work manuals and standing orders clearly lay out the due processes to be followed in such cases, including precautionary measures to ensure that there are no doubts
about the police’s role when it comes to custodial deaths. In this case, the police should have ensured that the accused were not carrying anything that could be used as a weapon; that they were in full physical control of the accused; and were well-prepared to foil any escape attempt. Analysts argue that in the normal course of events, these precautions would have prevented any situation requiring the police to open fire.
As a result, though many across the country have lauded the Chatanpally killings, the incident has also raised uncomfortable questions.
Tales of encounters
The right to private defence of person and property, enshrined in sections 96106 of the IPC, has often come in handy for police officers involved in such incidents. These sections allow the use of necessary force to protect oneself or others when aid from the state machinery is not immediately available. The police have often taken refuge behind this for custodial deaths, several of which were later shown to be extrajudicial killings via fake encounters.
This is perhaps what led a Telangana High Court bench headed by Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan to show its displeasure over the Chatanpally killings, ordering that the bodies be preserved until it has heard the matter. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Chauhan and Justice A. Abhishek
Reddy, asked if the state had followed due process or the Supreme Court guidelines for investigations of police encounters and incidents like the Chatanpally killings.
Advocates G.S. Mani and Pradeep Kumar Yadav have, in petitions to the Supreme Court, alleged that the Chatanpally killings were a deliberate attempt to distract public attention from the police’s inability to prevent such crimes. They also allege that the police have no evidence to prove that the four accused were actually guilty. In an unprecedented order, on December 11, the Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde along with Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna decided to appoint a retired apex court judge to inquire into the Chatanpally killings.
Clearly, there are several lessons to be learned. Reforms are required in both police functioning and the criminal justice system. Importantly, legal experts maintain that senior judges should be appointed to fast-track courts to hear such cases, that such courts should be under the direct control of the high courts, and that trials should conclude within three months.
And at the end of it all, there is another grim fact: with Chatanpally a mere 39 km from the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy, this sorry saga could well become a case study for years to come for those joining the Indian Police Service. ■
The ruling BJP’s sweep of the Karnataka assembly by-election has secured its government in the state, but Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa faces the onerous challenge of accommodating the new MLAs in his cabinet. Of the 15 seats where elections were held, the BJP won 12, taking its tally in the 225-member assembly to 118 (including the speaker and one independent)—past the simple majority of 112.
The December 5 by-elections followed the disqualification of 17 MLAs by the assembly speaker in July, which eventually brought down the H.D. Kumaraswamy-led Congress-Janata Dal (Secular) government in a trust vote. With the effective strength of the assembly reduced by the disqualifications, the numbers swung in the BJP’s favour and brought the Yediyurappa government to power.
In November, 16 of these disqualified MLAs joined the BJP when the Supreme Court, while upholding their disqualification, permitted them to contest elections. All 13 BJP candidates in the bypolls were from this group, which was promised cabinet posts by Yediyurappa for joining the party.
Leading the list of ministerial aspirants, sources say, is Ramesh Jarkiholi, who won the Gokak seat. He is lobbying for the deputy chief minister’s post. “Jarkiholi allegedly worked tirelessly for almost 10 months to bring down the Kumaraswamy government. It will be interesting to see how the BJP handles him,” says Rajesh Patil, a Dharwad-based political historian. Another aspirant for deputy CM is Anand Singh, a mine owner from Ballari who won the Vijayanagara seat. Yediyurappa already has three deputies.
Yediyurappa’s cabinet has 16 vacancies. If all 16 BJP entrants and disgruntled ministerial aspirants in the party are to be given berths, he may have to sack a minister or two. The challenge is to strike a balance between the new MLAs and the existing ministers.
Analysts say Yediyurappa may try to manipulate the situation. “The two new entrants who lost have less bargaining power now. To be appointed ministers, they must be nominated to the Upper House, which will not be easy,” says Bengaluru-based political commentator Dr A. Veerappa. The BJP has promised R. Shankar, the disqualified independent who joined the party, a ministerial berth as he made way for the party’s candidate in Ranebennur. He, too, will need entry into the legislature through the Upper House. “Two others, Mahesh Kumatalli and Shrimanth Patil, may get alternative offers. Eventually, only 12 of the 16 may make it to the cabinet,” adds Veerappa.
The other challenge will be portfolio distribution as some newly-elected MLAs, such as B.C. Patil, K. Gopalaiah, B.A. Basavaraja, K.C. Narayana Gowda and Anand Singh, may insist on plum portfolios. “We delivered as promised. The government is safe now. We expect
key portfolios, considering the political risk we took,” says one MLA.
On the speculation that Yediyurappa himself may be replaced a year down the line, Veerappa says: “The BJP leadership is unlikely to disturb him for now. The party’s by-election victory margins are huge as Lingayats, the community Yediyurappa belongs to, dominate these constituencies.”
The results came as a rude shock to the opposition and forced heads to roll. Siddaramaiah, who led the Congress campaign, resigned as leader of the legislature party. Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee chief Dinesh Gundu Rao and working president Eshwara Khandre followed suit. Siddaramaiah, who had predicted 12 seats for his party, said: “We thought the voters would teach opportunistic politicians a lesson. Our expectations failed.”
The JD(S) had expected wins in at least three seats: Krishnarajapet, Hunsur and Yeshvanthapura. Krishnarajapet went to the BJP while the Congress won from Hunsur. “This is an eye-opener for the JD(S) that it can no longer rely on Vokkaligas (secondlargest community in Karnataka) alone. Vokkaligas are patronising other parties too,” said Prakash L., a political analyst from Mysuru. ■