Editor,
Like many others we have been following media reports of the encounter death of the retired General Secretary of the HNLC, and the outpouring of grief of a family in trauma and the vocal solidarity of the people of Mawlai supported by mass community anger against excessive use of force by Meghalaya Police. We are compelled to write this letter at a time when the breach of peace requires to think beyond violence.
A single round fired from the weapon of a police official into the abdomen of (L) Bah Cheristerfield Thangkhiew at about 3 am on Friday the 13th has changed the narrative on the law and order situation in the Khasi Hills and brought back the dark days of turbulent Shillong of the 90s.
We have heard from the DGP’s press briefing that the police has incontrovertible evidence that the deceased was involved in the IED blasts at Khliehriat police reserve and Laitumkhrah market, and the police constable who discharged his firearm exerted his right to private defence of the body.
The Government has admitted from no less than the level of Chief Minister that police were acting upon credible intelligence from agencies, and were detailed to make an arrest where timing was of essence, and that the killing was unfortunate and unintentional.
Yet the prime question that regular people like us in civil society are asking is what happens when the constitutional right to life of a person, irrespective of his antecedents as a surrendered militant leader or the incontrovertible evidence against him, gets trampled in police action?
Fueled with this curiosity we did a little study and found out that the National Human Rights Commission had in 2010 recommended a procedure to be followed in cases of encounter deaths, and these guidelines have got the Supreme Court’s endorsement in 2014.
Both the DGP and the CM have touched upon reporting the incident to NHRC within 48 hours, and the CM has intimated that there will be a judicial inquiry by the Chairperson of the State Human Rights Commission. But there is more to the NHRC guidelines than just this. They include remedies open to the next of kin of (L) Bah Cheristerfield, whose right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution was not just infringed but ended by police action.
A specific complaint can be made against the police alleging commission of a criminal act amounting to a case of culpable homicide, and the NHRC guidelines mandate than an FIR to this effect must be registered under IPC; and such case shall be investigated by Crime Branch of state police CID or a specialized investigating agency.
The first report to be sent to the Commission within 48 hours has little scope for examining the relatives of the deceased, eye witnesses, etc. but in the second report to be sent within 3 (three) months there is mandatory provision requiring such examination of witnesses and evidences.
In the second report, the findings of the magisterial inquiry shall have to disclose the name and designation of the police official if found responsible for the death in police action, and whether use of force was justified and action taken was lawful.
Hence the right of private defence under IPC cited in favour of the police official who shot (L) Bah Cheristerfield will have to stand four tests: a) whether he was free from fault in bringing about the encounter, b) whether an impending peril to his life was present, c) whether there was no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat, and d) whether there was any necessity in taking the life.
On the face of it, the right exerted by the trigger-happy police official does not fulfill an essential principle, as the right of private defence is not applicable in a case where he himself is the aggressive party. From media reports we have enough information about details of the encounter to get a fair perspective.
There was no report of grievous injury to any of the personnel of the two police parties who came in the dead of the night to make the arrest, and so the second report will probably have nothing to say on the result of forensic examination of the deceased’s hands to ascertain the presence of residue of gunpowder and the result of ballistic expert examination on weapons used by the deceased; both results being required to justify the exercise of right of self-defence.
It therefore comes as comforting news that the Meghalaya Human Rights Commission had on August 15 taken suo moto cognizance of gross human rights violation in the case and has directed the State Government to submit a detailed report of the incident within 15 days and if not found satisfactory the Commission will conduct its own investigation.
As a civil society we cannot afford to keep the extra-judicial killing of (L) Bah Cheristerfield in the realm of suspense and secrecy. People at large want to know and are demanding an answer so that proper closure may bring the peace once again.
The NHRC has said in no uncertain terms that the police does not have the right to take away the life of a person. So any attempt to cover up will only put the credibility and reputation of Meghalaya Police at stake. Perhaps the Minister who relinquished the Home portfolio understands this all too well, that killing without obtaining a conviction after a fair trial is illegal, and has accordingly stepped aside to allow the start of hopefully an uninfluenced probe.
Yours etc.,
Hamehi Syiem &
Niuma Syiem
Shillong-12
Shillong deserves better
Editor,
The visuals of August 15 of the stolen police Scorpio and the rifle-brandishing person in the front seat have left a permanent mark on our minds. As a tribal but a non-Khasi born and brought up in Shillong I have been and still enjoy its pleasant weather and the warm company of its people. Over the decades, I have watched the steady regression of this city into something insidious; something I no longer recognise. Some might say that I should keep mum and refrain from commenting on recent events since I am not a “stakeholder” in this city but we are all stakeholders of the place we reside in.
No sooner had I posted the great Tagore’s poem “Where the Mind is Without Fear”, than terrifying scenes unfolded miles away. It is further alarming that sections of people and even our educated lot glorified and lauded the masked youths for their vandalism. We used to roam about this city even after dark and now even the thought of day movement elicits hesitation. Has it really come to this? That we are willing to pit two wrongs against each other? In the presence of weak leadership and violation of due process of law, do we want to bank on masked vigilantes who have nothing to lose to save the day? I hope not. We are better than that. In a democracy, it is the people who create the kind of society they want to live in. We can appeal to the good in us to clarify our clouded notions. However bleak the outcome, we must seek accountability and justice, but lawfully, because, if we do not play by the rules it is only chaos that await us. Let us not throw Shillong to the wolves. This city deserves better.
Yours etc.,
A concerned citizen
Name withheld on request