Mookhep firing incident report tabled in Assembly
SHILLONG: The administrative inquiry into the Mookhep firing incident in which two people lost their lives on September 24, 2014 has said that on September 23, after the violent incident, where the district SP was injured, there was vacuum in the hierarchy as the Additional SP was on casual leave.
The report submitted by Commissioner and Secretary, Education, D.P. Wahlang, which was tabled in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly on Wednesday, said there was nobody to take decisions on the field and the Assistant SP who is very junior was left to fend for himself.
The report also said that at a critical juncture, when a phone call was made by the Deputy Commandant to the SP to request the latter to release the arrested volunteer, it did not fructify as the SP did not pick up the phone.
The report revealed that despite law and order detailment, the presence of police force was hopelessly inadequate on that fateful day.
According to report, in the mob was about 200 plus women and there was not even a single policewoman to tackle them. In fact, only one sub inspector ranked women officer was posted in the whole district and she was present in the place of occurrence. The report said mentioned the absence of fire tenders and also the non utilization of tear gas to disperse the mob. It was informed that the district does not have fire tenders to deal with the situation and the SP informed that tear gas is never used after sunset.
“The fact of the matter was that it (tear gas) could have proved as a strong deterrent if used on time as the crowd had gathered at Wapungskur from the afternoon onward besides there was no arrangement of a public announcement system to ask the people to disperse and to declare the assembly of people unlawful,” the report said.
The report also asserted that the crowd on that day was violent and not at all democratic and peaceful.
“The claim of the leaders of MIPRL that the crowd was instructed to follow the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi to be peaceful in their protest was a shallow claim as neither the leaders were present on that day on the spot to lead the crowd nor any of the witnesses in the crowd claimed that such instructions were given,” the report added.
The report also concluded that the assembly was unlawful as they met all the ingredients of unlawful assembly.
The report also stated that the mob was violent, aggressive and uncontrollable and had a specific purpose of attacking the police outpost to free the arrested volunteer. The magistrate in charge shouted at the crowd to stop and disperse as they had violated Section 144 CrPC but no one listened to him and the mob proceeded forward to attack the officers in uniform and the magistrates.
The report said that attempt was made to use minimum force with a lathi charge but this was thwarted as the police were outnumbered. The other option of tear gas and water cannon were not available, hence the police had to resort to firing,” the report said.
“Although the magistrate had given an order to fire to the nearest officer (the ASP), it was clear from his deposition that adequate warning was not given by making a clear and concise announcement that if the crowd does not disperse firing will be made, and made effective too. This was due to the fact that the officers had to run for cover as the crowd was approaching them,” the report said.
The report said that tear gas could have been used before resorting to fire and there is no evidence anywhere that the tear gas equipment was issued.
The report further said that too much time was taken by the two magistrates – H.K. Thabah and D.V. Lyngdoh – to reach Wapungskur (they actually stopped at Mookhep as the mob had advanced towards Mookhep from Wapungskur) to negotiate with the crowd. Since they were detailed by the district magistrate, he is to answer the question on delay.
The report also added that though the district magistrate was not clear on why he did not explore the decision to enforce curfew, he should be given a proper opportunity to explain.
The report also stated that one of the biggest handicaps during the agitation period was total absence of intelligence inputs from the special branch on the likelihood of the situation taking an ugly turn, and inputs on those who were responsible for instigating the crowd so that action could be taken.
“I can safely conclude that shortcomings apart, there was no malafide intention of any official to fire at the crowd, but it was more of a panic reaction which I can say was not even negligence; hence no mens rea (criminal intent) in their act,” the report said.