Human Rights in Punjab

Lawyers for Amreek Singh, father of the deceased Avtar Singh, moved the five-year-old murder case against Punjabi Police Inspector Gurmeet Singh Pinki to a Haryana Sessions Court from Ludhiana (Punjab) on Aug. 8. Inspector Pinki, who served two years of jail time on the charge of beating and shooting Singh (Jr.), continues to deny involvement in Avtar Singh’s murder and is accused of delaying justice.

This case began in 2001, when the now 65-year-old Singh (Sr.) received a desperate phone call from his son’s friend informing him that the 21-year-old Singh (Jr.) was being beaten by a group of drunken men, including four policemen in civilian attire.

The men had apparently been drinking in narrow lane and were clearly looking for a fight, and when Avataar walked by, they pounced on him.

Singh rushed to the scene, where he allegedly witnessed Inspector Pinki beating Singh (Jr.), after which Pinki shot him dead. Pinki’s gunman Bittoo also fired a shot at Singh Sr., grazing his head.

“They were beating my son. When we asked why, they turned on me and then Pinki took out his revolver and shot my son. They also shot at me, but the bullet just grazed my head,” says Amreek.

Singh (Sr.) states that after the assault, Inspector Pinki, his gunman Bittoo, and their other accomplices fled from the site. Available evidence supports his case: the two cartridges found on the spot proved to match the two guns issued to Pinki by the Punjabi Police. Also potentially implicating was Pinki’s behavior following the incident. The inspector went underground for 10 days until angry rallies forced him to surrender to officials. Conversely, Pinki insists that he was not present on the day of the crime, claiming that he was on an undisclosed national security mission at a secret location.

Avtar Singh’s case came to trial at the Chandigarh court in 2003, where three judges successively either refused to hear or recused themselves from the proceedings. Singh (Sr.)’s key witnesses then began distancing themselves from the incident. According to the original testimony Daljeet Singh, Singh (Sr.)’s friend and neighbor, accompanied him to the scene and witnessed Singh (Jr.) bleed to death. Recently, D. Singh denied his presence at the spot of the incident.

Simultaneously, Inspector Pinki and eight other men accused of involvement with Avtar Singh’s death were granted bail in 2003. The Punjabi Police reinstated Pinki, who Singh (Sr.)’s lawyers accuse of influencing the case.

“The accused police officer has filed time and again to delay the case. The father of the victim has had to appear 40 times before his testimony was recorded. Either the court was not sensitive enough or the accused managed to get his way,” said [R.S.] Bains, Punjab High Court Lawyer.    
  
Lawyers for Amreek Singh claim that they have evidence that Pinki and the others accused are trying to influence the verdict and would like the case to be transferred.

The petitioner’s lawyers convinced the court that the case be transferred out of Punjab in March. This month, it was transferred to the sessions court in Kurukshetra, Haryana. Amreek Singh, now the only eyewitness willing to stand trial, makes the journey to Kurukshetra each time to take part in the case.

It is important to highlight Gurmeet Singh Pinki’s history of leading false arrests and torture when considering Avtar Singh’s case. A good example is the illegal detention of 20-year-old Parvinder Singh, who was held in incommunicado detention for one week before formal arrest. The Fatehgarh Sahib police, led by Pinki, entered P. Singh’s home, and thoroughly searched it in the presence of his grandfather Sohan Singh. According to P. Singh’s father’s testimony, the police did not find any suspicious material. However, upon Parvinder Singh and his father’s return, they arrested and detained the former without further explanation. P. Singh’s father visited stations all over Punjab in search of his son, but to no avail. On June 11, 2005, he filed an application with the SSP. Finally,

The SSP of Ropar gave a press statement that Khanna police had arrested Parvinder Singh on June 16 and had registered a case under the Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, and various sections of Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code, dealing with waging war against the state. The police alleged that Parvinder Singh was a BKI militant with a hit list including the former director general of Punjab police, a senior Congress leader, and controversial cult leader Baba Bhaniaranwala. The police further claimed to have recovered ammunitions and explosives from Parvinder Singh: two sticks of RDX, two detonators, and 20 cartridges for an AK-47.

During the week of illegal detention, the police tortured him with electric shocks, tore his legs apart, and caused a vertebrae disc in his back to dislocate. They also threatened to kill him repeatedly.

On July 7th, the Fatehgarh Sahib District administration distributed checks worth Rs 2 lakh to each of the 13 remaining families affected by the 1984 pogroms. The Indian government continues to improperly label the 1984 pogroms as riots, implying violence on both sides. The label of a “riot” not only mischaracterizes the massacre, but it also purposefully masks its most brutal dimensions, discussed in detail in ENSAAF’s report Twenty Years of Impunity.

On July 5th, Jalandhar District and Sessions Judge Karnail Singh sentenced two members of the Punjab Police to 10 years of “rigorous imprisonment” for torturing a Dalit man, known as Satpal, to death. The officers allegedly kept Satpal in illegal custody at the instance of an unidentified Congress leader. Satpal is survived by his wife, Jasbir Kaur.

In a long awaited court hearing, Kaur testified that the police summoned Satpal to the Lohian Police Station on Feb. 5, 2005, where he was “tortured ruthlessly.” They released Satpal the following morning. Kaur attributes this to the fact that Satpal’s condition deteriorated; he died in the hospital later that day.

Following this, the residents of the area gheraoed the police station in the evening on February 6 and pelted stones on it.

Police authorities denied the villagers’ accusations of torture. Intense public pressure finally led to the filing of Satpal’s case.

Judge Singh condemned the actions of the accused cops, a Punjab Police Head and Home Guard constable, respectively. He said that

the police [are] meant for the safety of public, but the accused had taken the law into their hands.

The cops were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment under section 302 of IPC and 6 months imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500 or imprisonment for another 15 days under section 342 of IPC.

Given Punjab’s history of condoning police misconduct, this case represents an anamoly. A Judicial Blackout: Judicial Impunity for Disappearances in Punjab, India examines similar cases in which the judiciary ignored police abuses such as faked encounters and disappearances during the police counterinsurgency movement of the 1980s and 1990s. By dismissing petitions based on delays or evidence manipulated by police, the courts reinforced impunity for police. The state’s advocate generals affirmed that impunity:

Hira Lal Sibbal had served as Advocate General for eleven years and was referred to as a “legend” by High Court justices. [79] However, he refused to believe the extent of the illegal cremations committed by the police in Amritsar and acknowledged by the NHRC. Instead, he referred to reports by human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and HRW, as “all nonsense.”[80]

When it came to the systemic nature of encounters, disappearances and abuse, the Advocate General claimed

“When the police tried to nab those who are not innocent, sometimes in an encounter against some guilty persons, some innocent persons were killed in the crossfire.” [81]

Lal justified police action by touting abuses as an unfortunate side effect to quelling militancy. On this perception, thousands of cases of human right’s abuse continue to be ignored altogether.

Moga Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Pawan Kumar Rai ordered an inquiry into the alleged torture of Karaj Singh while in custody at the Kot Isse Khan police station on July 21st.  Police arrested Singh on complaints lodged by Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Jarnail Singh and Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) SDO Charanjit Singh Mann. He has since been admitted to the Moga Civil Hospital.

Singh’s family members claim that a group of policemen and PSEB employees led by ASI Singh entered their home in Masita village late Friday night. They proceeded to assault the victim and his relatives. The group then took Singh to Kot Isse Khan police station, where the police further beat him and tortured him with electric shocks.

The victim’s family also states that the motivation for these acts of torture came from a query he posed to certain PSEB employees earlier Friday evening. On Singh’s return home from his shop in Fatehgarh Panchtoor village around 10 pm, he stopped to ask  PSEB workers about recent power shortages.

Kot Isse Khan Station House Officer (SHO)/Sub-Inspector (SI) Ravinder Singh denied beating and shocking Singh. The SI instead contended that Singh and his family members attacked the police team that entered the house to investigate a First Information Report (FIR) complaint by PSEB SDO Mann. He also stated that ASI Singh registered a separate FIR complaint against seven of Karaj Singh’s family members after the incident.

The PSEB gives a different version of the motivation for police involvement in this case. According to PSEB Xen. City Mohinder Singh Brar, an openly drunk Singh, impersonating a police sub-inspector, misbehaved with PSEB employees. SDO Mann went to the Kot Isse Khan police station following the incident to register an FIR against him.

Karaj was not beaten up by PSEB employees, [Brar] added.

The probe is currently under the review of Dharmkot (Firozpur) Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Chaman Lal.

This case illustrates the complications that arise in the presence of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs). In India, an FIR is a written document prepared by the police when they receive information about the commission of a cognizable offence. A cognizable offence is one in which the police may arrest a person without warrant. This means they hold authorization to start an investigation on their own: they do not require any court orders to do so.

An FIR is the first step in the cycle of Indian criminal justice. However, FIRs carry risk of fabrication, misinterpretation, and dismissal by police officials.

The police may not investigate a complaint even if you file a FIR, when:
(i) The case is not serious in nature;
(ii) The police feel that there is not enough ground to investigate.
However, the police must record the reasons for not conducting an investigation and in the latter case must also inform you.

Essentially, police officials hold final say into which FIR merits cognizable offence. Judicial impunity is an inevitable result if a high court accepts police reasons against investigating an FIR without considering their ability to intimidate victims, such as alleged in Karaj Singh’s case, or penchant for manipulating/refuting witness statements.

Punjabi Chief Minister Amarinder Singh ordered a magisterial inquiry into Madan Lal’s case on June 30th, following a similar action by Firozpur DC Dr. Arvinder Singh the day before. The 20-year-old Dalit died in police custody on June 28th.

Newer evidence showed that Lal died within a half hour of being taken to the police station from his Basti Shekhan Wali home. Lal’s relatives contend that the police beat him to death.

Despite orders of inquiry,

the police administration had not taken any action against the police staff posted at the city police station.

Once again, Lal’s case is threatened by the tendency of police abuse investigations to run dry after inquiry. The case of Human Rights Attorney Sukhwinder Singh Bhatti illustrates this threat. Twelve years ago, security forces from Punjab abducted Bhatti in broad daylight. They secretly detained and tortured him. No one has been held accountable for his torture and disappearance.

The Jagraon Police “nabbed” Kulbir Singh, Kehar Singh and Harmesh Singh on the evening of June 17th, charging them with arms and narcotics possession. Amar Singh, whom the trio called “a friend,” came under police custody with similar allegations to his name. 

The three Sultanpur Lodhi (Kapurthala District) men claimed to be in their fields sowing paddy when arrested. The men, who were released on bail June 23rd, accuse the Jagraon Police of “unprovoked intimidation and torture.” Amar Singh remains in prison.

“We were taken to Jagraon and given third-degree by the cops…The police wanted us confess that we smuggled drugs and possessed arms.’’

The Jagraon SSP R.K. Jaiswal denied the trio’s allegations. Jaiswal contends that Kulbir Singh, Kehar Singh and Harmesh Singh held links to Amar Singh, who was a hardcore narcotics smuggler operating in Jagraon, Moga and Kapurthala Districts. Jaiswal also stated that medical examination of the trio proved “no injuries to their body.”

An angry mob vandalized a Firozpur police station on June 28th in reaction to the alleged suicide of 20-year-old Dalit Madan Lal (alias Tinku) while in police custody. The crowd blocked traffic around the station, threw stones at the building and destroyed windows of police vehicles.

The police arrested Lal earlier that morning on a complaint filed by junk dealer Joginder (alias Biloo), who “caught [Lal] red-handed while [Lal] was attempting theft at his shop.” Two hours later, the Basti Shekhan resident was rushed to the local Civil Hospital. Doctors declared that he was “brought dead.”

SSP Aprit Shukla said Tinku committed suicide by hanging himself in the toilet using his shirt.

However:

[The] parents of the deceased charged police personnel with thrashing their son to such an extent that he died in police custody. Meanwhile, two cops have been suspended.

The mysterious death of Madan Lal holds added controversy due to his title of “Dalit boy.” A Dalit, otherwise known as an “untouchable,” is the lowest caste in India’s four caste system. This caste’s history is marked by systemic discrimination. Although the Indian government officially abolished the caste system in the 1960s, this trend against Dalits continues today.

At press time, no inquiry was made into the custodial death. The suspension of two officers seems an afterthought to the allegations of beating by Lal’s family.

Cable operator employee Vinod Kumar suffered acute renal failure after officers beat him “for bribe.” Kumar’s afflictions, according to a medical report from PGI, were a direct result of being “thrashed with a rod” in police custody.

“Where should I go for justice now? My family made a representation to almost every top government functionary, including the administrator, but they took no punitive action against the guilty.

I still get threats from police officers to withdraw my case from Punjab and Haryana High Court,” said Vinod Kumar, who still can’t exert himself much due to his debilitating condition.

According to an inquiry by DSP PK Dhawan, 27-year-old Kumar was arrested on April 22 after he and his employer scuffled with a businessman. Soon after, Kumar was beaten “mercilessly” by a sub-inspector. The victim checked into General Hospital two days later, where he underwent dialysis several times for his kidney condition.

Kumar’s family registered a complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) the day of his arrest, which was later confirmed by the station. At the time of Kumar’s admittance to medical care facilities, however, senior police officers, including DSP (East Division) Vijay Pal Singh, denied the allegations of beating. Vijay Pal Singh claimed it to be “an ‘afterthought’ by the accused.”

At press time, Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Gaurav Yadav promised to look into the matter, in spite of the fact that “he did not remember the exact details of the case.” In the mean time, the UT Police transferred the accused sub-inspector. Kumar remains shocked at the leniency of action taken in wake of his report.

Unfortunately, cases such as Vinod Kumar’s are almost never investigated past statements as those made by SSP Yadav.

Over the July 4th weekend in the Amritsar district of Punjab, the Dhariwal police arrested one constable and suspended three others on allegations of abuse inflicted upon a pregnant woman, Simranjit Kaur, and her father-in-law, Tarsem Singh. These individuals were identified as constable Sukhpal Singh, head constable Chanchal Singh, constable Gurdev Singh, and driver Raghubir Singh.

The beating resulted in a stillbirth for seven-month pregnant, 21-year-old Simranjit Kaur, who is now recovering in the Gurdaspur Civil Hospital. The four policeman allegedly entered Kaur’s home with “a score to settle” against her husband, Kamaljit Singh Ladda. Kaur was assaulted while attempting to save her father-in-law Tarsem Singh from attack.

While seemingly condemning this act, DGP S. S. Virk himself has been accused of committing serious human rights violations, such as torture and extrajudicial executions, in Punjab during the police counter-insurgency operations of 1984-1995. Virk remains in office on request of the Punjabi Government.

Ensaaf has released the June 2006 issue of its quarterly newsletter, the Ensaaf DISPATCH, available at:
http://www.ensaaf.org/dispatch-june06.pdf

This DISPATCH includes the following articles:

* US Extradites Sikh Activist Kulvir Singh Barapind
* The Disappearance of Rights Attorney S.S. Bhatti
* International Groups Call for the Prosecution of K.P.S. Gill for
Murdering J.S. Khalra
* UN Human Rights Council Approves Disappearance Treaty: Will India
Comply?
* Ensaaf Welcomes its Advisory Council
* Ensaaf Founders Win Echoing Green Award