COMPLAINT OF RAPE OF A POOR WOMAN BY SI MITHUN BANERJEE, OFFICER-IN CHARGE, BHADRESWAR PS IN HIS OFFICIAL QUARTER AND EXTRACTION OF A RETRACTION FROM THE VICTIM – AN APDR FACT FINDING REPORT. Date: 28 April 2012, Fact finding Team : Bapi Dasgupta, Amit Gosh, Gautam Munshi, Saibal Das, Amitadyuti Kumar, Sumanta Ghosh, Kamal Datta and Debashish GuptaContents: 1. Photocopy of the complaint of the rape victim received by the O/C Chandernagore PS on 23.04.2012 (Page-2)2. Photocopy of the official request made by APDR for Medical Examination of the Rape Victim received by the Emergency Medical Officer Chandernagore Hospital on 23.04.2012 at 9 PM (Page-3)3. Photocopy of the injury report prepared by the Emergency Medical Officer Chandernagore Hospital on 23.04.2012 at 9.30 PM. (Page-4)4. Photocopy of the receipt of APDR memorandum by the office of the SP. Hooghly. (Page-5)5. APDR FACT FINDING REPORT (Page-6-9)[Source: Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR), Hooghly District Committee]
9
1972-2012 APDR : 40 YEARS FIGHT FOR RIGHTS [1] COMPLAINT OF RAPE OF A POOR WOMAN BY SI MITHUN BANERJEE, OFFICER-IN CHARGE, BHADRESWAR PS IN HIS OFFICIAL QUARTER AND EXTRACTION OF A RETRACTION FROM THE VICTIM CONTENTS 1. Photocopy of the complaint of the rape victim received by the O/C Chandernagore PS on 23.04.2012 page 2 2. Photocopy of the request made by APDR for Medical Examination of the Rape Victim received by the Emer- gency Medical Officer Chandernagore Hospital on 23.04.2012 at 9 PM page 3 3. Photocopy of the injury report prepared by the Emergency Medical Officer Chandernagore Hospital on 23.04.2012 at 9.30 PM. page 4 4. Photocopy of the receipt of APDR memorandum by the office of the SP. Hooghly. page 5 5. APDR FACT FINDING REPORT. page 6-9 OUR DEMANDS 1. The allegation should be investigated by an agency which is not under the influence of the state police. The state Women's Commission may initiate such a process. The statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. obtained under duress from a traumatised victim must be kept in abeyance. 3. The allegation is of a non bailable offence and the accused must be dealt with as per provisions of the law. WE APPEAL T O statutory Human Rights Bodies including Women's Commission and Human Rights Com- missions and the Judiciary to step in to help the victim get justice. WE ALSO APPEAL TO different rights organisations, women's organisations and all democratic individuals and organisations to voice their dissent to this sinister design to deprive a rape victim of justice Contact : ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS (APDR) HOOGHLY DISTRICT COMMITTEE Senpara P.O.Burashibtala, Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly, W.B., PIN 712105 Phone 033/26801439 (M) 9433346109 [email protected]
Transcript
1972-2012 APDR : 40 YEARS� FIGHT FOR RIGHTS [1]
COMPLAINT OF RAPE OF A POOR WOMAN BYSI MITHUN BANERJEE, OFFICER-IN CHARGE, BHADRESWAR PS
IN HIS OFFICIAL QUARTERAND
EXTRACTION OF A RETRACTION FROM THE VICTIM
CONTENTS1. Photocopy of the complaint of the rape victim received by the O/C Chandernagore PS on 23.04.2012 page 2
2. Photocopy of the request made by APDR for Medical Examination of the Rape Victim received by the Emer-gency Medical Officer Chandernagore Hospital on 23.04.2012 at 9 PM page 3
3. Photocopy of the injury report prepared by the Emergency Medical Officer Chandernagore Hospital on23.04.2012 at 9.30 PM. page 4
4. Photocopy of the receipt of APDR memorandum by the office of the SP. Hooghly. page 5
5. APDR FACT FINDING REPORT. page 6-9
OUR DEMANDS
1. The allegation should be investigated by an agency which is not under the influence of the state police. Thestate Women's Commission may initiate such a process. The statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. obtained under duressfrom a traumatised victim must be kept in abeyance.
3. The allegation is of a non bailable offence and the accused must be dealt with as per provisions of the law.
WE APPEAL TO statutory Human Rights Bodies including Women's Commission and Human Rights Com-missions and the Judiciary to step in to help the victim get justice.
WE ALSO APPEAL TO different rights organisations, women's organisations and all democratic individualsand organisations to voice their dissent to this sinister design to deprive a rape victim of justice
Contact :
ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS (APDR)HOOGHLY DISTRICT COMMITTEESenpara P.O.Burashibtala, Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly, W.B., PIN 712105Phone 033/26801439 (M) [email protected]
1972-2012 APDR : 40 YEARS� FIGHT FOR RIGHTS [2]
Photocopy of the complaint of the rape victim received by the O/C Chandernagore PS on 23.04.2012
1972-2012 APDR : 40 YEARS� FIGHT FOR RIGHTS [3]
Photocopy of the request made by APDR for Medical Examination of the Rape Victim received by the Emer-gency Medical Officer Chandernagore Hospital on 23.04.2012 at 9 PM
1972-2012 APDR : 40 YEARS� FIGHT FOR RIGHTS [4]
Photocopy of the injury report prepared by the Emergency Medical Officer Chandernagore Hospital on23.04.2012 at 9.30 PM. Note that the MO used the words "as per statements of the victim's husband', but thevictim herself narrated her plight and categorically stated in presence of the APDR team that she had beenraped by the O.C. Bhadreswar P.S
1972-2012 APDR : 40 YEARS� FIGHT FOR RIGHTS [5]
Photocopy of thereceipt of APDR memorandum by the office of the SP. Hooghly. Though the SP himself fixedan appointment today ( 30 APr 2012) at 11 am, he was unwell and could not attend office, we were told. ASPAshesh Biswas , IPS received the 6 member APDR team and listened to our views for over an hour. He didnot commit anythingexcept that he will report the whole discussion to the SP. However he did not categori-cally deny thatrape was committed.
1972-2012 APDR : 40 YEARS� FIGHT FOR RIGHTS [6]
COMPLAINT OF RAPE OF A POOR WOMAN BYSI MITHUN BANERJEE, OFFICER-IN CHARGE, BHADRESWAR PS
IN HIS OFFICIAL QUARTERAND
EXTRACTION OF A RETRACTION FROM THE VICTIM-AN APDR FACT FINDING REPORT.
On 23 April, 2012, at about 8-30 PM, APDR came to learn that a young woman was raped by SI MithunBanerjee, Officer-in Charge, Bhadreswar PS. We were informed that the young couple is seeking justice, but aretoo afraid to move alone and lodge a complaint. We asked them, whether they can go to the nearest GovernmentHospital and get medically examined first. They were even reluctant fearing that the Hospital authorities willrefuse. Finally they agreed to come the nearest Government Hospital, the Chandernagore Sub-Divisional Hospi-tal. We assured them that we will intervene if the Hospital authorities refuse.
They reached the Hospital by 8-45 PM, and requested for medical check up against their complaint ofrape. As they feared, the Emergency Medical Officer on duty refused to entertain them and get the womanmedically examined.. In about 15 minutes an APDR team also reached the Hospital and tried to reason with theMO for arranging medical check up. Finally after an official request on behalf of APDR, an outdoor ticket wasprepared and after getting instruction from the Superintendent of the Hospital, necessary papers were beingreadied for her admission.
While all these were taking place, an well-built person was frequently coming in and going out of theemergency room and making calls with his cell phone. The Hospital staff revealed that he was a police personnelin plain dress.
In the meantime APDR also contacted the Chairperson, West Bengal Women's Commission (WBWC)and also met the Superintendent of the Hospital in his quarters. The Chairperson, WBWC also called the Super-intendent of Police, Hooghly. While the APDR team was discussing the matter with the Superintendent of theHospital, he received a phone call and informed us that a police team is coming to the Hospital and if they makea formal requisition, necessary medical examination to ascertain the truth of allegation of rape will be conducted.
Within a few minutes, a large contingent of police appeared, first led by the SDPO, Chandernagore,followed by IPS Amitabha Verma, ASP. They interrogated the victim woman and her husband for about an hourand in another hour the woman's handwritten complaint was received by the Officer-in Charge, ChandernagorePS, in which the victim categorically stated that she was raped by the Officer-in Charge, Bhadreswar PS in aroom of the OC's quarter..
THE INCIDENT : ACCORDING TO THE VICTIM AND HER HUSBAND
1. The husband was arrested in a dacoity case and after 45 days in custody was released on 21/04/12. On the verynight, two policemen from Bhadreswar P.S. chanced on him and asked him to come to the P.S. Accordinglythe husband visited Bhadreswar P.S. on 22/4/12. As asked by O.C., Bhadreswar P.S. the husband summonedhis wife to the P.S. over phone. At that time the O.C. took the mobile no. of the victim and her husband.
2. On 23/04/12, at about 3-30 PM, the O.C. asked the victim to visit the P.S. immediately in connection with herhusband's case.
3. She proceeded to the P.S. in an Auto (According to media reports a police vehicle was sent to the victim'shouse to fetch her to the P.S.)
4. When the victim reached the P.S. the O.C. took her to his quarter. There was nobody in the quarter at that time.The O.C. took the victim to a room of the quarter and closed the windows. He threatened that if she did not
1972-2012 APDR : 40 YEARS� FIGHT FOR RIGHTS [7]
obey her husband would be in grave danger. After that he pounced on her. According to the victim she tried toresist but did not shout out of fear that she might be killed. She was raped forcibly.
5. She reported the whole episode to her husband and the husband tried to contact some media from the numbersscrolled below the channel programmes.
6. After that he also contacted APDR.
MEDICAL EXAMINA TION AND AFTERMA TH:
1. After receiving the formal complaint from the victim, the O.C., Chandernagore P.S. made a formal requisitionfor medical examination on her for alleged rape. The examination was done at Chandernagore Sub DivisionalHospital. at around 12 P.M. Interestingly, the Emergency Medical Officer noted the allegation of rape "as perstatements of the victim's husband', but the victim herself narrated her plight and categorically stated in pres-ence of the APDR team that she had been raped by the O.C. Bhadreswar P.S The discrepancy was pointed tothe Emergency Medical Officer immediately thereafter. He admitted his mistake. The matter was also commu-nicated to the superintendents of the Hospital at 11.30 P. M.
2. On 24/04/12 morning the victim was discharged from the Chandernagore Hospital. The husband along withher 5-6 years old son was waiting for whole night at the hospital, hungry and unfed. When the family wasemerging from the hospital, they were forcibly placed in a police vehicle.
3. They were taken to Imambara Sadar Hospital. Sri Tanmoy Roy Chowdhury. IPS, SP Hooghly, Basab Talukdar,Special IG and other officials were present at the Imambara Sadar Hospital. There was another round ofgrilling of the victim and her husband at the hospital. The victim was also subjected to a fresh medical exami-nation.
4. Though the victim made a formal complaint of rape against the O.C., Bhadreswar, P.S. , no action was takenagainst the O.C. was taken till then. Only towards the afternoon the media reported the O.C. is 'closed'.
5. After medical examination, the whole family was again put on a police vehicle at about 2 P.M. and was takento the District Women P.S. situated at the Chinsurah PS premises. At 3 P.M. they were again taken to theImambarah Sadar Hospital and after about half an hour taken back to the District Women P. S.
6. At 5 P.M. we learnt that the whole family was then at Bhadreswar P.S.
7. At about 9 P.M., after the whole day's ordeal without sleep or rest accompanied by continuous grilling by a topbrass of the police hierarchy, they probably left the PS. But they could not be found in their home and re-mained incommunicado for the next 36 hours.
8. According to media reports, on 25.04.2012 they were taken to the CID Headquarters at Bhawani Bhawan, theaccused O.C. was also asked to report there. Another round of grilling followed.
9. Towards the afternoon of 25.04.2012, the media quoting police sources reported that the accuse O.C. has beensuspended. About three hours later, the media, again quoting police sources, further reported that the victim'retracted' her allegation against the O.C.
OUR OBSERVATIONS :
1. The initial reluctance of both the hospital and police administration to entertain and act on the complaint ofrape and subsequent warlike activities--both were aimed at suppressing the allegation and fact of the rape anddeprive the woman of justice.
2. The couple is in their twenties and the husband returned home after 45 days in custody barely 40 hours priorto the incident of rape. In this situation vaginal rupture during rape is quite unlikely. The only substantivemedical evidence will be cross matching of the vaginal swab of the victim with the accused's semen. It is not
1972-2012 APDR : 40 YEARS� FIGHT FOR RIGHTS [8]
known, whether such medical examination was conducted. So far as we know the victim's clothing at the timeof rape were not seized and not examined forensically for evidences of rape which is a must in such cases.
3. Like other such incidents of gross human rights violation, the police fed the media with misinformation atregular intervals like 'no evidence of rape in medical examination', 'the woman has two marriages and is of badcharacter', ' the woman admits she is mentally disbalanced' so on and so forth.
4. It is not known whether the following bits of vital investigation were conducted by the police :
(a) Why the accused Bhadreswar PS O.C. was using an unregistered SIM for communicating with the woman, ifsuch contacts were necessary as part of his official duty.
(b) The examination of Bhadreswar PS personnel to verify the victim's presence in the PS at the time of allegedcrime.
(c) Cross checking the description of the room of alleged crime at OC's quarter as given by the victim and as itactually is.
(d) Cross matching of vaginal swab of the victim with the accused's semen and forensic examination of victim'sclothes at the time of alleged rape as mentioned before are absolutely necessary to rule out the allegation ofrape.
4. The police tried to break the moral of the victim and subjected her to tremendous mental and physical stressfrom 4 pm, 23 April to 25 April afternoon- almost for 48 hours at a stretch. The resulting trauma made her ill-she felt acute pain in the head and felt mentally agonized to such an extent that she could not remember whatshe said earlier to the police. The victim is a patient of Thyroid disorder. Two days without necessary essentialmedication invariably disturbs the physical and mental equilibrium of the patient. This was the opportunity thepolice was looking for and without wasting a moment she was taken to a magistrate to record an statementextracted in the face of severe trauma.
5. Media reports suggest that the victim made a statement u/s 164 of CrPC retracting the allegation of rape,which was also repeated by the Hon'ble CM, during her press meet on 27/0/4/12 The sub section 6 of section164 states that The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to theMagistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried.
The following questions need to be answered.
(a) How the police/media knew the contents of her sec 164 statement, when the law specifically meant it forthe judicial magistrate.
(b) Whether the victim was provided with legal advice/opinion on the concequences before she was forcedto make a statement u/s 164 CrPC.
(c) Even if the victim retracts her complaint can the accused absolved before getting the forensic test reportsand till then shall the accused not to be dealt with as per law.
(d) Why the victim was taken to a magistrate to record a statement before the completion of the investigationbased on her already registered complaint. Can this be explained without questioning the motive- waspolice anxious to give justice to the victim or they were hell-bent in rescuing their collegue from the longhand of law?
6. The whole chain of events does not suggest that the victim's allegation was untrue. It rather points out how farand further the police can traumatise a victim of rape to get her retract her allegation. The treatment meted outto the victim is in blatant disregard of all human right standards. The traumatisation was aimed towards thewhole family including the victim's 5/6 year child, to subjugate the victim.
OUR DEMANDS TO THE POLICE and THE STATE AUTHORITIES :
1972-2012 APDR : 40 YEARS� FIGHT FOR RIGHTS [9]
1. The allegation should be investigated by an agency which is not under the influence of the state police. Thestate Women's Commission may initiate such a process. The statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. obtained under duressfrom a traumatised victim must be kept in abeyance.
3. The allegation is of a non bailable offence and the accused must be dealt with as per provisions of the law.
WE APPEAL TO statutory Human Rights Bodies including Women's Commission and Human Rights Com-missions and the Judiciary to step in to help the victim get justice.
WE ALSO APPEAL TO different rights organisations, women's organisations and all democratic individualsand organisations to voice their dissent to this sinister design to deprive a rape victim of justice
Fact finding Team :Bapi Dasgupta, Amit Gosh, Gautam Munshi,Amitadyuti Kumar, Sumanta Ghosh, Kamal Datta, (Amitadyuti Kumar)Debashish Gupta President, APDR, Hooghly Dist Committee28 April 2012 On behalf of the fact finding Team
Contact :
ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS (APDR)HOOGHLY DISTRICT COMMITTEESenpara P.O.Burashibtala, Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly, W.B., PIN 712105Phone 033/26801439 (M) [email protected]
