Annual Report - National Human Rights Commission

Complaints Before the Commission
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○
and the SP (HR), HQ DGP, UP. The magisterial inquiry found that the allegations of custodial
torture was proved on the basis of evidence including the medical report and Shri Lal Singh,
In-Charge of the police outpost was identified as the delinquent public servant.
4.80 Upon consideration of the reports, the Commission vide its proceedings dated 16.01.2002
held that a strong prima facie case of violation of human rights was made out. The Commission
therefore directed to issue a notice to the Government of Uttar Pradesh to show cause as to why
‘immediate interim relief’ u/s 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 not be granted
to the victim.
4.81 In spite of a show cause notice, no reply to the show cause notice was received from the
UP administration as well as the SSP, Bulandshahar. Vide proceedings dated 22.05.2002, the
Commission therefore directed Government of UP to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as immediate
interim relief to victim Zamir Ahmed Khan for the custodial torture inflicted on him. The
Commission also directed the SSP, Bulandshahar to send report about the disciplinary action
taken against the delinquent police personnel within four weeks.
4.82 In response to the above direction of the Commission, reports dated 31.5.02 and 3.8.02
respectively received from the SSP. Bulandshahar and the Government of U.P. indicated
that though the magisterial inquiry in the matter indicated beating of the victim Zamir Ahmed
by the police, there was no serious injury to victim which had come to the notice and
therefore, payment of financial relief in this matter would not be proper. In addition to
this, it was also submitted that in view of the serious financial problems being faced
by the State Government, it would not be appropriate to give financial relief in such type
of matters.
4.83 Upon consideration of the above reports received from the Government of Uttar Pradesh,
the Commission vide its proceedings dated 9.9.2002 held that the custodial torture is the clear
finding reached in the magisterial inquiry itself. The insensitivity depicted in the letter of the
Government of Uttar Pradesh where it says that the payment of the amount does not appear to be
proper because there was no serious injury caused to the victim, is disturbing. Custodial torture
even without inflicting any visible injury would justify award of some compensation and
disciplinary action against the delinquent police personnel. It is not necessary to say anything
further in this connection except to reiterate the recommendation for payment of the above amount
to the victim.
4.84 The Commission considered a further response received from the Secretary, Government
of UP vide fax message dated 20.1.2003 which indicated that (i) disciplinary action had been
initiated against the delinquent police officials: and (ii) there was no justification to award interim
relief to the victim on the grounds that the victim did not receive any serious injury by police as
per Magisterial Inquiry Report.
National Human Rights Commission Annual Report - 2004-2005
39
AR-Chapter-1-19-10-6-06.p65
59
7/17/06, 6:29 PM