Archive for the 'Indian Police' Category

Interpol’s Most Wanted – NRI Grooms Not Wanted

This post is  about contrasting the dangerous fugitives wanted by Interpol with the bogus ones (non resident Indian, NRI, grooms) designated as such by the Indian police.  As expected, NRI victims of the 498A extortion racket are not on the Red Corner Notice (RCN) list of the most dangerous fugitives wanted by Interpol.

You can see the list of Interpol’s most wanted here:

http://www.interpol.int/Public/NoticesUN/Search/Recent.asp

To all of you NRIs threatened with RCN notices and extraditions, don’t worry about it. It is not going to happen.

This is how it worked.  If an NRI had marital issues, his Indian bride would run back to India and file a 498A case against him. If he failed to pay the demanded amount, the bride, in collusion with the police would try to bring him back to India — to have him arrested on arrival. If all attempts to entice him to India failed, the police issued an RCN against him.  Before long, Interpol was receiving numerous RCNs from India; mostly for 498A cases. “Pussy Politics” Umapathi used to boast about the effectiveness of this tactic in coercing NRIs to settle their 498A cases.

Interpol stopped issuing  RCNs in 498A cases — effectively ending a tool of extortion used by the corrupt AP Police. They realized that they were being used in this extortion racket.

Here is a picture of this myopic IPS officer, hobnobbing with the likes of Indira Jaising. Our man had been out playing pussy politics instead of working to end the trafficking of vulnerable Indian women.

IGP-Umapathy

To put things in perspective, lumping NRIs (mostly techies), battling 498A charges in India, with the likes of Dawood Ibrahim and Osama Bin Laden, is ridiculous. This is a very poor reflection on the integrity and intelligence (or lack of) of officers of the Indian police force, such as “Pussy Politics” Umapathi.

SIF volunteers designated him a pinhead for these actions. You can read about that below:

Umapathi-Pinhead

“Pussy Politics” Umapathi is supposed to have lobbied hard to re-instate RCNs against NRI grooms — to no avail.  I’m sure it hurt to see the end of such a profitable revenue stream.

You can read about that here:

While on the topic of pussy politics, let this be a warning to all you officers of the Indian police force indulging in the same — you are being watched.

Interpol’s decision to eliminate 498A RCNs is a result of persistent efforts by US based NRIs caught up in this racket.  You can read about the elimination of one such RCN against an NRI  here:

A 498A Fighter Gets Interpol To Cancel His RCN

Thank you Interpol for waking up to this extortion racket !!!

Given below is the Interpol most wanted list. As you can see, NRI grooms aren’t amongst them !

Interpol-Most-Wanted____________________________________

Indira Jaising Was Paid US $1,40,000 For “Staying Alive”

Folks,

I have always maintained that pussy politics is a very profitable venture.

How profitable?

A whopping US $1,40,000 or Rs 60,00,000 Lakhs (approx) a report profitable.

What am I talking about ?

Staying Alive for a $1,40,000 is what I am talking about.

Okay. Still didn’t get it?

You will…

On the first anniversary of the “clumsily drafted” domestic violence act, Indira Jaising had moaned  that an year after the law to protect women from domestic violence was enacted, it was being defeated by social prejudice, blindspots, brickbats from bloggers and searing criticism from the Justices of the Supreme Court in the form of Batra Vs Batra, 2007.

If you don’t know who Indira Jaising is, check out her resume to get an Idea:

Jaisin’s Bio

And here’s her picture:

In an article published in the Indian Express, titled Family against woman, she wrote that:

“One year is an appropriate time to evaluate the functioning of a law. However, there are no systems to do this on a systematic basis since there are no computerised data bases of orders and judgments. Given this, the Lawyers Collective, which was largely involved with this law in its formative stages, undertook the task of evaluating enforcement, using available data. The chief justice of India facilitated the collection of data from different high courts. Our report, ‘Staying Alive’, is based on this.

I started to read the report and realized it was nonsense. Bored me to death. (You can’t download the report as the Unifem link is dead)

Here is copy from 2012:

http://www.lawyerscollective.org/files/Staying%20Alive%205th%20M&E.pdf

I wondered about the time spent on developing this report; the pretty graphics to adorn it; the money spent on it. It must have taken many man hours to write that report and I am sure that unlike us activists, the practitioners of pussy politics don’t do things for free. After all, their livelihood is based on peddling slogans about “protecting women”.

To illustrate, A Guide To Surviving IPC 498A has been downloaded close to 100,000 times as of today. I wrote it at no cost except for the investment in time.

That brings us to the question. How many people do you think would have read ‘Staying Alive’? Ain’t that a colossal waste of cash?

I actually thought (for a short while) that she did it for free as part of her commitment to women’s issues. I can get a little delusional at times !

Here is a revelation.

UNIFEM paid the Lawyers Collective (meaning Indira Jaising) a whopping $1,40,000.00 US Dollars to write that report. That means Rs 60,00,000.00 (approx).

To truly understand the meaning of this princely sum, I want you to ask yourself if you’ll ever see that kind of money in your life, in one cheque, and for doing just one task.

I know that I won’t.  At least for not indulging in pussy politics.
Think about it this way: can you imagine the Chief Of Army Staff walk away with Rs 60,00,000 upon retiring, and after putting in 30+ years in the country’s service?

What about your neighborhood bank manager. Can you see him walk away with half that amount in his PF fund ?

And here is my question. What did she do with all that money? Please don’t tell me that the shoddy report consumed all the $1,40,000.00 US Dollars !

Here’s a snippet from the report: 

Here is the UNIFEM annual report that shows the breakdown of payments. The payment to Indira Jaising’s Lawyers’ Collective is on page 23:

http://www.unifem.org/attachments/products/AnnualReport2006_2007_eng.pdf

Here is the extracted page that shows the funding received by the Lawyers Collective:

Lawyers Collective UNIFEM $140K USD Payment For Report (extract)

Indira Jaising is the architect of the clumsily drafted Indian domestic violence Act whose most egregious provision is the right to residence.  She has been paid to do an assessment on her own work. Would you expect her to do an impartial assessment and not paper over the flaws in the law affecting the rights and lives of millions ?

Where is the integrity in this process?

Since we are talking about Indira Jaising,  I think you need to know about she said about the Indian police force.  See the article below:

Indira Jaising: “Torture And Police Brutality Are Endemic In India”

She should know. She enabled the extortion of Rs 40 Lakhs from an NRI  by aiding the jailing of his Delhi resident sister in a Calcutta jail for a month. The jailed lady was released after her NRI brother paid Rs 40Lakhs to his estranged wife. You can read about this here:

And did anyone wonder why the woman was jailed though she didn’t commit any crime…?

Hey ! What about due process rights of the jailed lady protected in Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP? Did Indira Jaising think about the seminal judgment of the Supreme Court or for an instant?

And this egregious action was done by a supposed defender of Human Rights  and a constitutional lawyer !!

Aaaaaaahhhhhh!!

This is what pussy politics is about folks. The practitioners scream and shout about women’s right, but in reality, there is nothing done to empower women. There is nothing noble about this.  It is a business — a very profitable business where $1,40,000 can be paid for producing a silly report!!!

Is it a wonder that there is such a strong opposition by Indian pussy politicians to the amendment of 498A and the domestic violence act ?

Darn !

I am on the wrong side of pussy politics. There is a load of money to be made + the perks and lifestyle and access to power and privilege. All you need to do is shout yourself hoarse and claim your commitment to “womens issues” and play ostrich to the fact that over a 1,20,000 women have been illegally arrested by the corrupt and brutal Indian police since 2004.

It’s no wonder that the Indian police force is jumping on this  gravy train too, all in the name of protecting women

I leave you with what Madhu Purnima Kishwar has to say about feminism in India:

“Feminism in India has no integrity. You can’t trust it”

She is sooooo right !!!

_________________________________________________________________________________

Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP – 1994

For reasons unknown, I decided to revisit, possibly, the most important judgment ever delivered by an Indian court.

These words of  Justice MN VENKATACHALLIAH renewed my determination to fight.

No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do.

Here is this seminal judgment again, reformatted and presented anew:

Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP – 1994

Original link to Judis: http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=11479

Given below is the 3rd report of the National Police Commission that this judgment draws on:

Third Report Of The National Police Commission (From BPRD)

Also given below is a fragment of the First Police Commission:

First Report Of The National Police Commission (Fragment From BPRD)

Compliance orders:

____________________________________________________________

NCRB: Over 1,30,000 Women Arrested Under 498A Since 2004

Over 1,30,000 Women Have Been Arrested Under Section 498A Since 2004.

I pulled the data from the NCRB annual publications on Crime In India. You can find this data under the tables section, specifically, TABLE-12.2,  Persons Arrested Under IPC Crimes (Crime Head-Wise And Gender-Wise). Links to these tables are given below:

The NCRB compiled data from the above links is given below and highlighted in yellow:

The next thing to look at are the number of Final Reports that were submitted. The data below gives you the true picture of what the police have been doing. The 498A cases are highlighted in yellow.

Disposal Of IPC Cases By Police (NCRB) 2004-2006

Why is there such a large discrepancy in the ratio of cases closed with a final report to those which were charge sheeted ? It is obvious that the police aren’t doing their work. And why would they, these women were easy pickings for these hyenas. All they had to do was swoop in and scoop up these women, ignoring their rights against arbitrary arrest. These women include young  girls to grandmothers.

To truly understand the scope of this egregious act by the Govt Of India, here is some data from the days of the British raj.

In 1930, the British govt arrested 17,000 women for their involvement in the Dandi Yatra (Salt March). During 1937 to 1947 (10 Years), they arrested 5,000 women involved in the freedom struggle.

The Govt of India, under the sway of the radical feminists of India, has been arresting over 27,000 women/year of all ages since 2004. In all these cases, these women, including nursing mothers, little girls and grandmothers, were arrested without an investigation into the veracity of the complaints filed.

The Indian police know about the abuse of this law as they are the primary beneficiaries of this extortion racket.

The Indian courts know this this too. The Higher judiciary is cleaner than the lower judiciary, which is nothing short of a sewer, that people entangled in this mess fall into.

Worse, officials and agencies of The Govt Of India know about it. I quote:

  • The idea should be to see how the police system works, the concerned official out there should not lodge an FIR and arrest the groom and his side before investigating. These kind of shortcuts are mainly tainting the image of the prevailing law. The way uncles, aunts are also humiliated is not fair, we agree that they should not be booked until a full-proof investigation is carried out. Instead of amending the law we should try to improve our police system and investigating procedure. Spokesperson Of The NCW, 14 /Jan /2007, TOI Article: “NRIs cry foul over IPC 498A, dowry law”
  • I object to this exploitation of the law. It is wrong to misuse the law. The law is for those who need it. -Union Minister For WCD, Renuka Chaudhary, on the Arjun Singh 498A episode.

So why isn’t this law amended to at least introduce some checks and balances to prevent its abuse?

The answer lies in the fact that this whole thing is a profitable venture for all concerned, including internationally funded NGOs like CSR

Finally, take a look at total number of people arrested under this law.

Total Arrests Under 498A Since 2004 (NCRB)

There are more people arrested under this law than those accused of MURDER!

It is the families, especially women, who get caught up in this extortion racket who pay for the perfidy of this establishment !

Shame !!! Shame !! Shame !!

________________________________

A Compilation Of Police Interrogation Tactics

I pulled this from various sites on the net. The most common tactics of interrogation, used by the Indian police, is to beat a confession out of a suspect or intimidate the suspect into signing a confession.

My family was subjected to the tactic of intimidation. Among the many indignities heaped upon them, they were made to watch a suspect subjected to third degree treatment in their presence.

Here is a list of the most common interrogation techniques:

  • Exaggerating the strength of their case: They tell you that they have recordings, fingerprints, documents, eyewitnesses, etc. All of this may true or all may be false but you simply don’t know because you are isolated. They try and get to you as soon as possible to play on your fears and work that confused state of mind to their advantage.
  • Good cop, bad cop: this is an age-old tactic. The police will work in teams of good cop and bad cop. The bad cop will shout at you and attempt to intimidate you, and may even rough you up. The good cop walks in and will apply the healing solution. He may even yell at the bad cop. Apart from exchanging pleasantries, speak to him about all other things at your own risk.
  • Comparison: They will convince you that they think you are the least to blame for what happened and that, therefore, you will not suffer as severe a sentence. It’s the other guys they are really after and if you cooperate, they will put a good word in for you.
  • Small talk/Chit chatting: What is critical to getting the ultimate admission is to get you talking in the first place – about anything – usually in a “friendly” manner. They will try and find something that you have in common and just have a regular conversation. Then, when you feel comfortable just talking, they will move into the area of the crime. It’s the old story about the frog – try and place him in the boiling pot and he will jump out immediately. But put him in a cold pot and then slowly turn up the heat, he will die before he knows what happened to him.
  • Separation: if the accused, like in most 498A cases, belong to a family, then the family members may be separated and each will be told that the other confessed. Watch out for this. This is the most pernicious tactic in my opinion.
  • Threats And Intimidation: This is the standard operating procedure. The police may threaten to book you under more charges. Wish them the best. These charges need to be proven in court and lies don’t stand up to impartial, intelligent scrutiny. There will threats of physical violence, direct or suggested. Just stand up to it.
  • Promises: They will cut a “deal” with you or “put a good word in” for you. Don’t be fooled. They have no power whatsoever to make deals – only prosecutors can do that and, even then, the judge is never bound by any bargain.
  • Furniture And Spatial Psychology: When in the interview room look out for use of furniture. The power of persuasion is greater when the interviewer removes the barrier of the desk that creates a division of “their” space and “your” space. It is common for the interviewers to touch the suspect in a gesture of support and friendship. If the interviewer is on the opposite side of the table, such a gesture is limited. You best defense is to SHOW NO EMOTION. The whole atmosphere inside a police station is geared towards creating an environment of stress so as to break down the suspects morale. It is easy to accept the hand of friendship in such a situation, DON’T break your silence. You, as the suspect, will have your back to the door. This is done to make you feel apprehensive each time someone comes into the room. In addition, the seat for the solicitor will be out of your eye line. The interviewer will often fall silent, putting pressure on you to fill in these “pregnant pauses” – maintain your silence.
  • Expressions Of Approval: Look out for expressions of approval, both verbal and non verbal. Verbal: “That’s good”, “Yes, go on” and “I like that approach”. Non verbal: smiling, nodding, looking at a fellow interviewer as if to say “She’s/he’s right you know.” These are all indications of the frame of mind of the interviewer. You may be offered compliments e.g. “You’re no fool”, etc. Non verbal compliments such as a little shake of the head as if to say that I admire you for saying that. The principle behind all this is to make the suspect feel good and to encourage further dialogue.

CHRI has brought out a flier about police interrogation —> CHRI Police Interrogation

Have your lawyer with you at all times and maintain your silence. The right against self incrimination is a fundamental right.

The police cannot torture you or extract a confession out of you either. This is illegal and if they do so, they are in contempt of the many judgments of the Supreme Court in this regard.

_____________________________________________

NHRC Publications: Priced And Non Priced

NHRC Publications

The Publications brought out by the National Human Rights Commission are either free or priced. In case it is a priced publication, then a Demand Draft for the amount that covers the cost of the book has to be made in favour of the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi payable at New Delhi . Some Publications are available in electronic format on this website. To view or download, simply click on the appropriate link given below:

http://nhrc.nic.in/publications.htm

___________________________________________________

National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Guidelines On Arrest

Here is the original : Guidelines on Polygraph Tests And Arrests

You can download the pdf of my version, for printing here:

NHRC GUIDELINES REGARDING ARREST (pdf)

Need for Guidelines:

Arrest involves restriction of liberty of a person arrested and therefore, infringes the basic human rights of liberty. Nevertheless the Constitution of India as well as International human rights law recognise the power of the State to arrest any person as a part of its primary role of maintaining law and order. The Constitution requires a just, fair and reasonable procedure established by law under which alone such deprivation of liberty is permissible.

Although Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides that every person placed under arrest shall be informed as soon as may be the ground of arrest and shall not be denied the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of his choice and S.50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) requires a police officer arresting any person to “forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest”. in actual practice these requirements are observed more in the breach. Likewise, the requirement of production of the arrested person before the court promptly which is mandated both under the Constitution [Article22(2)] and the Cr. PC (Section 57] is also not adhered to strictly.

A large number of complaints pertaining to Human Rights violations are in the area of abuse of police powers, particularly those of arrest and detention. It has, therefore, become necessary, with a view to narrowing the gap between law and practice, to prescribe guidelines regarding arrest even while at the same time not unduly curtailing the power of the police to effectively maintain and enforce law and order and proper investigation.

PRE-ARREST

Ø The power to arrest without a warrant should be exercised only after a reasonable satisfaction is reached, after some investigation, as to the genuineness and bonafides of a complaint and a reasonable belief as to both the person’s complicity as well as the need to effect arrest. [Joginder Kumar’s case- (1994) 4 SCC 260).

Ø Arrest cannot be justified merely on the existence of power, as a matter of law, to arrest without a warrant in a cognizable case.

Ø After Joginder Kumar’s pronouncement of the Supreme Court the question whether the power of arrest has been exercised reasonably or not is clearly a justiciable one.

Ø Arrest in cognizable cases may be considered justified in one or other of the following circumstances:

(i) The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc. and it is necessary to arrest the suspect to prevent him from escaping or evading the process of law.

(ii) The suspect is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit further offences.

(iii) The suspect requires to be prevented from destroying evidence or interfering with witnesses or warning other suspects who have not yet been arrested.

(iv) The suspect is a habitual offender who, unless arrested, is likely to commit similar or further offences. [3rd Report of National Police Commission]

Ø Except in heinous offences, as mentioned above, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to the person to attend the police station and not leave the station without permission. (see Joginder Kumar’s case (1994) SCC 260).

Ø The power to arrest must be avoided where the offences are bailable unless there is a strong apprehension of the suspect absconding .

Ø Police officers carrying out an arrest or interrogation should bear clear identification and name tags with designations. The particulars of police personnel carrying out the arrest or interrogation should be recorded contemporaneously, in a register kept at the police station.

ARREST

Ø As a rule use of force should be avoided while effecting arrest. However, in case of forcible resistance to arrest, minimum force to overcome such resistance may be used. However, care must be taken to ensure that injuries to the person being arrested, visible or otherwise, is avoided.

Ø The dignity of the person being arrested should be protected. Public display or parading of the person arrested should not be permitted at any cost.

Ø Searches of the person arrested must be done with due respect to the dignity of the person, without force or aggression and with care for the person’s right to privacy. Searches of women should only be made by other women with strict regard to decency. (S.51(2) Cr.PC.)

Ø The use of handcuffs or leg chains should be avoided and if at all, it should be resorted to strictly in accordance with the law repeatedly explained and mandated in judgment of the Supreme Court in Prem Shanker Shukla v. Delhi Administration [(1980) 3 SCC 526] and Citizen for Democracy v. State of Assam[(1995) 3 SCC 743].

Ø As far as is practicable women police officers should be associated where the person or persons being arrested are women. The arrest of women between sunset and sunrise should be avoided.

Ø Where children or juveniles are sought to be arrested, no force or beatings should be administered under any circumstances. Police Officers, may for this purpose, associate respectable citizens so that the children or juveniles are not terrorised and minimal coercion is used.

Ø Where the arrest is without a warrant, the person arrested has to be immediately informed of the grounds of arrest in a language which he or she understands. Again, for this purpose, the police, if necessary may take the help of respectable citizens. These grounds must have already been recorded in writing in police records. The person arrested should be shown the written reasons as well and also given a copy on demand. (S.50(1) Cr.PC.)

Ø The arrested person can, on a request made by him or her, demand that a friend, relative or other person known to him be informed of the fact of his arrest and the place of his detention. The police should record in a register the name of the person so informed. [Joginder Kumar’s case (supra)].

Ø If a person is arrested for a bailable offence, the police officer should inform him of his entilement to be released on bail so that he may arrange for sureties. (S.50(2) Cr.PC.)

Ø Apart from informing the person arrested of the above rights, the police should also inform him of his right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of his choice. He should also be informed that he is entitled to free legal aid at state expense [D.K. Basu’s case (1997) 1 SCC].

Ø When the person arrested is brought to the police station, he should, if he makes a request in this regard, be given prompt medical assistance. He must be informed of this right. Where the police officer finds that the arrested person is in a condition where he is unable to make such request but is in need of medical help, he should promptly arrange for the same. This must also be recorded contemporaneously in a register. The female requesting for medical help should be examined only by a female registered medical practitioner. (S.53 Cr.PC.)

Ø Information regarding the arrest and the place of detention should be communicated by the police officer effecting the arrest without any delay to the police Control Room and District / State Headquarters. There must be a monitoring mechanism working round the clock.

Ø As soon as the person is arrested, police officer effecting the arrest shall make a mention of the existence or non-existence of any injury(s) on the person of the arrestee in the register of arrest. If any injuries are found on the person of the arrestee, full description and other particulars as to the manner in which the injuries were caused should be mentioned in the register, which entry shall also be signed by the police officer and the arrestee. At the time of release of the arrestee, a certificate to the above effect under the signature of the police officer shall be issued to the arrestee.

Ø If the arrestee has been remanded to police custody under the orders of the court, the arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained Medical Officer every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory. At the time of his release from the police custody, the arrestee shall be got medically examined and a certificate shall be issued to him stating therein the factual position of the existence or nonexistence of any injuries on his person.

POST ARREST

Ø The person under arrest must be produced before the appropriate court within 24 hours of the arrest (Ss 56 and 57 Cr.PC).

Ø The person arrested should be permitted to meet his lawyer at any time during the interrogation.

Ø The interrogation should be conducted in a clearly identifiable place, which has been notified for this purpose by the Government. The place must be accessible and the relatives or friend of the person arrested must be informed of the place of interrogation taking place.

Ø The methods of interrogation must be consistent with the recognised rights to life, dignity and liberty and right against torture and degrading treatment.

ENFORCEMENT OF GUIDELINES

1. The guidelines must be translated in as many languages as possible and distributed to every police station. It must also be incorporated in a handbook which should be given to every policeman.

2. Guidelines must receive maximum publicity in the print or other electronic media. It should also be prominently displayed on notice board, in more than one language, in every police station.

3. The police must set up a complaint redressal mechanism, which will promptly investigate complaints of violation of guidelines and take corrective action.

4 The notice board which displays guidelines must also indicate the location of the complaints redressal mechanism and how that body can be approached.

5. NGOs and public institutions including courts, hospitals, universities etc., must be involved in the dissemination of these guidelines to ensure the widest possible reach.

6. The functioning of the complaint redressal mechanism must be transparent and its reports accessible.

7. Prompt action must be taken against errant police officers for violation of the guidelines. This should not be limited to departmental enquiries but also set in motion the criminal justice mechanism.

8. Sensitisation and training of police officers is essential for effective implementation of the guidelines.

________________________________

Sex Tourism In Goa: What Are The NCW And WCD Doing ?

Normally I restrict my posts to the Indian Criminal Justice system and 498A related issues. But the fact that paedophiles have found a haven in my country enrages me. Trafficking in women and children is a great threat to the well being of women and children in India. By not taking stringent action to put an end to this menace, the state is complicit in the exploitation of these innocents.

ECPAT and UNICEF estimate that approximately 4 to 5 lakhs women and children are traficked into prostitution in India annually.

It is a disgrace that govt agencies such as the National Commission For Women (NCW) and NGOs like CSR are doing nothing about this issue. These agencies and the Ministry of WCD get millions of rupees annually in funding from the government of India.

On the flip side, one has to remember that these agencies are very much a part of an establishment that adheres to the philosophy of symbolism over substance, which directly translates to the fact that fighting a dirty battle like sex slavery and trafficking of women and children is not a profitable or “sexy” headline grabbing venture, like the Pooja Chauhan episode.

One also needs to look at the fact that the women and children who are trafficked are from poverty stricken backgrounds and we live in a system where it is profitable to exploit the misery of the millions than to alleviate their suffering. After all, poverty is the worst form of violence that can be inflicted on an individual, at least, that is what Gandhiji believed.

Here is an judgment which is based on a situation that backs up my assertion. Policemen and politicians sexually exploited a poor and underage girl. The SC canceled their Anticipatory Bail granted by the High Court.

I just need to remind you, again about Nithari and the Pooja Chauhan episode to back up my assertion.

Googling has revealed that pedophilia in Goa has been highlighted as an issue since a decade.

The link to the Tehelka article is here: Sin In Paradise

A pdf of the article is here if the link goes dead: Sin In Paradise : Sex Tourism In Goa

(I created the pdf so that it is easy for the reader to print and disseminate. Full credit and all copyrights belong to Tehelka)

Here are some excerpts from the expose by Tehelka from 2004:

  • The report goes on to reveal that “it is apparent that there are large numbers of children entering Goa from other states. The nomadic Lamani tribe from Karnataka has a large floating population which enters Goa during the tourist season. Numbers vary but the tourist industry generally agrees that there are between 15,000 and 20,000 in the season. A large proportion of this group consists of children under the age of 14. They are easy targets for paedophiles since they are, emotionally needy and materially deprived.” Goa’s Tourism Director N. Suryanarayana, in the course of Tehelka’s undercover operation, affirmed Wood’s assessment. He told a Tehelka reporter, who posed as a social science researcher from an American university, that the government estimates that 40,000 migrant children are vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Superintendent of Police Inder Dev Shukla also revealed that the police knows that migrant children are exploited by pederasts.
  • The investigation reveals an interesting trafficking dimension to Goa’s sex tourism. “Disturbingly, there is a huge increase in the amount of young girls travelling into Goa from Andhra Pradesh (ap). There are two trains per week arriving in Vasco (Goa’s main railhead) from ap. At the beginning of the tourist season, there are approximately 50 girls (aged between 13 and 17), arriving on these trains each week”.
  • Throughout the 1990s there were enough warning signs, but successive governments ignored them. It’s been almost a decade since Interpol declared Goa as the upcoming paedophile destination. In fact, six years ago the then British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook had warned at the second Asia-Europe (aesem ii) meeting in London that Goa is one of three areas in the world “worst hit by the evils of child sex tourism.”
  • This year’s annual ‘Trafficking in Persons Report’ of the us State Department categorically asserts that India is a source and destination for children trafficked for sexual and labour exploitation. The report also says “India is a growing destination for sex tourists from Europe, the us and other Western countries.”
  • This exposé is finally about failures of governance. According to the Goa Children’s Act, 2003, “The state shall ensure that the children and the young are protected against exploitation and that they are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. Childhood and youth shall be protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.” But the Goan government has failed to protect the children. It is also a failure of governance and administration at the federal level. It’s a national issue and must be dealt with seriously. All it takes for a foreigner to declare himself an ‘Indian inhabitant’ is a sworn affidavit on a Rs 20 stamp paper. This exposé is about the nexus of silence — of the fleet footed machinations that bind the police, the judicial officers and the immigration officials in one encompassing web of corruption. The government has only to launch a full-scale investigation and protect children from being exploited.

More articles and information are listed below:

________________________________________

Nandini Satpathy Vs PL Dani: Right Against Self Incrimination

Nandini Satpathy – former Chief Minister of Orissa – against whom a case had been registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, was asked to appear before the Deputy Superintendent of Police [Vigilance] for questioning. The police wanted to interrogate her by giving her a string of questions in writing. She refused to answer the questionnaire, on the grounds that it was a violation of her fundamental right against self-incrimination. The police insisted that she must answer their questions and booked her under Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which prescribes punishment for refusing to answer any question asked by a public servant authorised to ask that question. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Nandini Satpathy had a right to silence and whether people can refuse to answer questions during investigation that would point towards their guilt.
Supreme Court Observations:
Article 20 (3) of the Constitution lays down that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against her/himself. Section 161 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], casts a duty on a person to truthfully answer all questions, except those which establish personal guilt to an investigating officer.
The Supreme Court accepted that there is a rivalry between societal interest in crime detection and the constitutional rights of an accused person. They admitted that the police had a difficult job to do especially when crimes were growing and criminals were outwitting detectives. Despite this, the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution is of utmost importance, the Court said. In the interest of protecting these rights,we cannot afford to write off fear of police torture leading to forced self incrimination.
While any statement given freely and voluntarily by an accused person is admissible and even invaluable to an investigation, use of pressure whether ?subtle or crude, mental or physical, direct or indirect but sufficiently substantial? by the police to get information is not permitted as it violates the constitutional guarantee of fair procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed that the accused has a right to silence during interrogation if the answer exposes her/him into admitting guilt in either the case under investigation or in any other offence. They pointed out that ground realities were such that a police officer is a commanding and authoritative figure and therefore, clearly in a position to exercise influence over the accused.
Supreme Court Directives
1. An accused person cannot be coerced or influenced into giving a statement pointing to her/his guilt.
2. The accused person must be informed of her/his right to remain silent and also of the right against self incrimination.
3. The person being interrogated has the right to have a lawyer by her/his side if she/he so wishes.13
4. An accused person must be informed of the right to consult a lawyer at the time of questioning, irrespective of the fact whether s/he is under arrest or in detention.
5. Women should not be summoned to the police station for questioning in breach of Section 160 (1) CrPC.14
An essential element of a fair trial is that the accused cannot be forced to give evidence against her/himself. Forcing suspects to sign statements admitting their guilt violates the constitutional guarantee against self incrimination and breaches provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). It is also inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. In addition, causing ‘hurt’ to get a confession is punishable by imprisonment up to seven years.

Here is the judgment: Nandini Satpathy Vs PL Dani: Right Against Self Incrimination

_______________________________________

Police Interrogation & The Role Of Judiciary

Here is the link: http://thedailystar.ws/law/2004/11/03/index.htm

______________________________

The Definition Of Torture, As Per The Supreme Court Of India

The Supreme Court in Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P, 1994, described how the police treated Nidhi, the victim, in the following manner:

“On a careful consideration of all the evidence on record in the light of the surrounding circumstances I accept the claim of Nidhi that she was tortured by the police officers on 24th, 25th and 26th July, 1993. On 24.7.93 she was pressurised by J.C. Upadhyaya S.H.O., Sukhpal Singh, S.S.I, and Narendrapal Singh S.I. and threatened and commanded to implicate her husband and his family in a case of abduction and forcible marriage thereafter. She was threatened with physical violence to her husband and to herself in case of her default and when she refused her family members were brought in to pressurise her into implicating them. On 25th July 1993 she was jolted out of sleep by Sukhpal Singh S.S.I. and made to remain standing for a long time. She was abused and jostled and threatened by J.C. Upadhyay, Sukhpal Singh and Narendrapal Singh with injury to her body if she did not write down the dictated note. Sukhpal Singh SSI even assaulted her on her leg with Danda and poked it in her stomach. She did not yield to the pressure.”

The Ho’nble judge then went on to define torture:

“Torture is not merely physical, there may be mental torture and psychological torture calculated to create fright and submission to the demands or commands. When the threats proceed from a person in Authority and that too by a police officer the mental torture caused by it is even more grave”

From this judgment, it is very clear that each time our families are threatened by the police with the old threat of “Pay up, or else…”, they are subjecting them to torture.

Torture, in the words of the Supreme Court of India is “is not merely physical, there may be mental torture and psychological torture calculated to create fright and submission to the demands or commands”

SC: The Definition Of Torture Given In Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P

_________________________________________

Saheli Vs Comm Of Police: The Indian Police Murder A 9 Year Old-1989

Saheli v. Commissioner of Police, 1989, is the case where a 9 year old boy died after being beaten by the Indian Police. The Court directed a payment of Rs 75,000 to the mother of the deceased child and permitted the Delhi Administration to take appropriate steps for the recovery of the amount paid as compensation or part thereof from the officers responsible for this dastardly act.

This was among the path breaking judgments that allowed for compensation in the event  of excesses by the lawless Indian police force.

The 9 year old was, Naresh, who succumbed to his injuries, sustained while clinging to his mother while she was being assaulted by the police. God knows if Naresh was clinging to her for protection or to protect her. The description of the event churned my stomach and months later, I was unable get over the assaulting of a woman and her child by the Indian police.

This is very personal to me as my sister faced intimidation and threats of other charges being filed against her by the SHO. For me the image of Kamlesh Kumari, the mother of the murdered 9 year old, and my sister have morphed into one.

How does one forgive something like this?

Here is an excerpt that details the incident:

“On November 14, 1987, Kamlesh Kumari was attacked by Shambu Dayal, his brother Prakash Chand accompanied by Lal Singh in civilian clothes and Sham Lal, Sub-Inspector in uniform accompanied by two others. They beat Kamlesh Kumari, tore her clothes and molested her. Her nine year old son clung to his mother to protect her when Lal Singh took him away and forcibly threw him on the floor. Lal Singh also asked Shambu Dayal to beat Naresh. Kamlesh Kumari was dragged away to the police station and a criminal case was imposed upon her of trespass. She was sent to Tihar Jail and her lawyer got her released on November 16, 1987. Kamlesh Kumari on her release came back and found that her child, Naresh was in a very bad condition. The children took shelter at a neighbour’s house and the neighbours had got local doctors to look after Naresh. On the advice of the doctors, Naresh was admitted to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on November 18, 1987. However, no medical legal case was registered. Kamlesh Kumari’s lawyer tried to get a medical legal case registered. At last medical legal case was registered on November 23, 1987 by the ACP, Patel Nagar at 11.30 p.m. In the FIR No. 143/87 the said ACP had written that she had said that no policeman had beaten her son although she had specifically named Lal Singh and others. On November 26, 1987, Naresh died in hospital”

Here is the link to the judgment in Judis:

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx?filename=7710

Here is the pdf of the judgment: Saheli Vs Comm Of Police-1989

__________________________________________________________

SC: Compensation For Illegal Detention-1994

Here is the judgment of the Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P, 1994. In this judgment, the SC laid down that the state shall pay compensation to all persons illegally detained and humiliated for no fault of theirs. A perfect remedy for all the parents and siblings arrested in 498A cases despite the judgment of Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP.

This judgment takes on greater importance in light of the murder of Rizwanur. The cops didn’t torture Priyanka Todi because she happened to be the daughter of an industrialist. Unfortunately, Nidhi, the victim in this case, didn’t have the privilege of being born into the house of a rich industrialist.

Here are a couple of excerpts:

  • Torture is not merely physical, there may be mental torture and psychological torture calculated to create fright and submission to the demands or commands. When the threats proceed from a person in Authority and that too by a police officer the mental torture caused by it is even more grave.
    5. This clearly brings out not only highhandedness of the police but also uncivilised behaviour on their part. It is difficult to understand why Sukhpal Singh, S.S.I. assaulted Nidhi on her leg with Danda and poked it in her stomach. Where was the need to threaten her? As rightly pointed out in the report that torture is not merely physical but may even consist of mental and psychological torture calculated to create fright to make her submit to the demands of the police. A further reading of the report shows:
    (i) fabrication;
    (ii) illegal arrest;
    (iii) without personal knowledge or credible information that the arrested persons were involved in a congnizable offence; and
    (iv) illegality of verbal order of arrest not contemplated under Section 55 Cr. P.C.
    This again is a blatant abuse of law.
  • The detention of a married woman in custody who is not an accused on the pretext of her being a victim of abduction and rape which never was to her knowledge and to the knowledge of the police officers concerned aforesaid is itself a great mental torture for her which cannot be compensated later but here we have found that she was tortured otherwise also by threats of violence to her and to her husband and his family and was given physical violence calculated to instil fear in her mind and compel her to yield and to abandon her marriage with Charanjit Singh Bagga which had been duly performed in Arya Samaj Bhoor and which had been duly registered in the office of Registrar of Hindu Marriages under the U.P. Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1973 framed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No. XXV of 1955). She was made to write a statement as commanded by J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O. and Sukhpal Singh SSI on 26.7.93 which was reproduced by the I.O. in the case diary as her statment under Section 161 Cr. P.C. The physical and mental torture was given to Nidhi on 24th July, 1993 and 25th July, 1993 by J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O., Sukhpal Singh and SSI and Narendrapal Singh S.I. but on 26.7.93 it was done by only J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O. and Sukhpal Singh S.S.I. and there was no participation of K.C. Tyagi I.O. in the torture and harassment dated 24.7.93, 25.7.93 and 26.7.93.

The hon’ble judges directed the state govt to pay compensation to the victims. Here is the excerpt:

“2. The State shall pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 to Nidhi, Rs. 10,000 to Charanjit Singh Bagga and Rs. 5,000 to each of the other persons who were illegally detained and humiliated for no fault of theirs. Time for making payment will be three months from the date of this judgment. Upon such payment it will be open to the State to recover personally the amount of compensation from the concerned police officers.”

Here is this judgment: SC: Compensation For Illegal Detention Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P

Justice Dhingra explains when to file for compensation in case of illegal arrest in this judgment:

Delhi HC: When To File For Compensation On Illegal Arrest/False Complaint

_______________________________________________________

Issues Of Compensation In Police Atrocities

Here are some articles:

_____________________________________

A Judge In Handcuffs: The Arrest Of Justice Bains In Punjab – 1992

Of course, this was prior to Joginder Kumar and DK Basu.

Here is the link to the article from PUCL:

http://www.pucl.org/from-archives/Police/human-rights.htm

________________________________________

The Murder Of Rizwanur Rahman

I am almost certain that he was murdered. The Indian police have a long history of filing charges of abduction and forcible marriage against young grooms in cases of elopement.

In one such case, in 1994, the goons in uniform illegally detained and tortured a young bride, in order to force her to renounce her marriage. Fortunately, the story had a happy ending. The Supreme Court stepped in upon being approached, and granted her compensation and gave the goons what was due to them. Despite a judgment like this, former Kolkota Commissioner and moron, Prasun Mukherjee, had Rizwan persecuted by his goons. I hope that the CBI nails his sorry ass to the wall.

Here is a picture of former Kolkota Police Commissioner, Prasun Mukherjee:

You can read about it here: Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P-1994. The Rizwanur Story With A Happy Ending
Earlier this year (2007), Justice Dhingra had ruled that: A Minor can elope to save her love: Justice Dhingra
Priyanka and Rizwanur were not minors. So what gave the police the right to persecute them? Worse, Prasun Mukherjee, walked away from the press conference when faced with a bunch of questions:

Questions For Prasun Mukherjee

Can the netizens and citizens of Kolkota file a contempt of court petition against this moron and his goons for willfully ignoring orders of the Supreme Court of not harassing young couples that choose their partners ?

Here is the link to the full story:

You can catch up on developing news about Rizwanur here:

_______________________________________________

Allahabad HC-No Arbitrary Arrests In Cognizable Cases – 2004

Here is a judgment by Justice Markandeya Katju while he was serving as a judge of the Allahabad HC.
He says:
“After the promulgation of the Constitution individual liberty has become of great importance particularly in view of Article 21, which is a fundamental right. Hence it cannot be lightly interfered with. Moreover, section 157(1) Cr.P.C. States :-

“157. Procedure for investigation – (1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officer not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf to proceed, to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender.”

The above provision clearly shows that it is not necessary to arrest in every case wherever a FIR of cognizable offence has been registered. No doubt investigation has to be made in every case where a cognizable offence is disclosed but in our opinion investigation does not necessarily include arrest. Often the investigation can be done without arresting a person, and this legal position becomes clear from section 157(1) of the Cr.P.C. because that provision states that the Police Officer has to investigate the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the arrest of the offender. The use of words ‘ if necessary’ clearly indicates that the Police Officer does not have to arrest in every case wherever FIR has been lodged and this position has been clarified in Joginder Kumar’s case (supra).

In our country unfortunately whenever an FIR of a cognizable offence is lodged the police immediately goes to arrest the accused. This practice in our opinion is illegal as it s against the decision of the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar’s case, and it is also in violation of Article 21 of theConstitution as well as section 157 (1) Cr.P.C. No doubt section 157(1) Cr.P.C. gives a police officer discretion to arrest or not, but this discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily and it must be exercised in accordance with the principles laid down in Joginder Kumar’s case (supra).”

Here is the judgment: Allahabad HC-No Arbitrary Arrests In Cognizable Cases

_____________________________________________________

PWTN.ORG

Here is the link to the website of these guys: http://www.pwtn.org/

They have a great collection of judgments and bare acts here:

http://www.pwtn.org/pictures/EU_pics/FINAL_STANDARDS/standards/nationaldoc.html

I sourced quite a few of the judgments that based my work on, especially those relating to police powers, from these guys.

________________________________________

Understanding Issues Of Jurisdiction In A 498A Case

Here is a pdf that explains the rules governing jurisdiction of cognizable offenses (498A cases).

Understanding Issues Of Jurisdiction In A 498A Case

Here are a couple of the judgments of Justice Dhingra where I pulled all this information from.

  1. Delhi HC: 498A Jurisdiction Explained
  2. Justice Dhingra Settles Jurisdiction In NRI 498A Case- Jan 2008

I couldn’t find the Satvinder Kaur Judgment, but here is another judgment on jurisdiction by the Supreme Court, the Ajith Abraham case (Chennai).

SC Judgment On Jurisdiction-Ajith Abraham (Chennai)

Finally, NRIs, you are governed by Section 188 of the IPC and to understand it, please read this judgment by Justice Dhingra:

  1. Justice Dhingra Denies A 498A FIR Quash Petition Citing Section 188
  2. Justice Dhingra Settles Jurisdiction In NRI 498A Case- Jan 2008

___________________________________________________________

Purging The Police Ranks In UP

Here is the link to the article. What is remarkable is the fact that most of the jobs in the police force were obtained by bribing the recruiting officials. This shows the endemic rot within the system.

These are the morons that are supposed to handle domestic disputes like 498A.

Here is an excerpt: “It is no secret that, throughout India, some candidates hoping to join the police pay to secure a post. The starting salary for a police officer in Uttar Pradesh is 3,500 rupees a month – a low wage by Indian standards. But if an officer can supplement his income by taking bribes, the relatively high entry fee could be seen as a sound investment.”

______________________________________________________


Visitors Since Mar/14/07

  • 3,308,367

Cluster Map

Live Traffic

Archives

Top Rated Posts

Some Interesting Stats On Arrests Of Women

In 1930, the British govt arrested 17,000 women for their involvement in the Dandi Yatra (Salt March). During 1937 to 1947 (10 Years), they arrested 5,000 women involved in the freedom struggle. From 2004 to 2006, the govt of India arrested 90,000 women of all ages under 498A. On the average, 27,000 women per year are being arrested under this flawed law. These are stats from the NCRB.

Copyright Notice:

The content of this blog is copyrighted. You are required to obtain prior permission before locally hosting or reproducing online or in print, any or part of the content. You are welcome to directly link to the content from your site. Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape MyFreeCopyright.com Registered & Protected Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

Disclaimer:

The family of the writer was tortured by the Indian Police in an attempt to extort over a $100,000 by holding them in custody for over a week. The police, in cahoots with the magistrate and the PP, did this due to the ridiculous allegations made in a 498A case by his embittered ex-wife. She filed the case years after he and his family had last seen her. Thousands of 498A cases are filed each year in India by women seeking to wreak vengeance on their husbands and in-laws. Enormous sums are extorted from intimidated families implicated in these cases by corrupt Indian police officers and elements of the Indian judiciary. The author and his family haven't bribed any public official nor have they given in to the extortion. This blog aims to raise awareness of due process in India. The content of this blog constitutes, opinions, observations, and publicly available documents. The intent is not to slander or defame anyone or any institution and is the manifestation of the author's right to freedom of expression – with all the protections this right guarantees.

Get Adobe Acrobat Reader

You will need adobe acrobat to read most of the documents. Please download adobe acrobat reader. Get Adobe Acrobat For Your System
July 2020
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

%d bloggers like this: