From Our Correspondent
TURA: The Frontier headquarters of BSF, Shillong, has denied covering up the gruesome murder of a seven-year-old boy whose father is a member of the force and issued a strong rebuttal claiming that it was the BSF which first informed the civilian authorities about the missing boy.
“It was the BSF authorities who insisted and persuaded district police to investigate the case and informed about suspicious activities of BSF personnel and their connection with the tantrik,” claimed the BSF PRO from Shillong.
Interestingly, ever since the issue was blown wide open BSF officers tried to down play the allegation claiming that the Tantrik was never allowed to enter the campus.
Police investigations and eye witness accounts from within the force now reveal that the Tantrik was spotted inside the camp in the company of two BSF jawans.
The BSF top brass in Shillong, however, indicate otherwise, claiming that their own BSF IG went to the extend of bringing to the notice of the senior police officers about the case leading to the filing of an FIR on the missing boy.
“BSF played a proactive role in bringing out the facts to police authorities and insisted on detail investigation,” claimed the BSF PRO.
However, the ground situation indicates otherwise with the BSF top brass in Praharinagar camp repeatedly denying the presence of the tantrik.
Ever since the body of the innocent child was retrieved on Thursday morning BSF officials have categorically stated that the tantrik was not allowed entry inside the campus premises.
Details of the investigation now prove otherwise.
This is not something new for the force which prides itself on denials.
When the forest department in South Garo Hills seized several logs of precious teak and sal logs that were being illegally felled and exported to Bangladesh allegedly by BSF jawans under the direction of their commandant, the top officials of the force in Shillong refused to buy into the story.
The top brass of the department refused to acknowledge the crime even though circumstancial evidence proved otherwise.
Comments are closed.