|
INDIA: COORDINATION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS
Members Organizations: PCHR (J&K), AFDR(Punjab), PUCL (Rajasthan),
PUCL (Jharkhand), PUCL(Chhattisgarh), PUCL(Nagpur), COHR (Manipur),
MASS(Assam), NPMHR (Naga Areas), APDR(West Bengal), Bandhi Mukti
Morcha (West Bengal), LHS (Maharastra), APCLC (Andhra Pradesh), HRF
(Andhra Pradesh), PUDR(Delhi), PDF (Karnataka), OPDR (Andhra Pradesh),
Campaign for peace and Democracy in Manipur
Dt:22.08.2010
Preliminary Report of the All India Fact Finding Team on the Killing
of Azad and H. C Pandey
Released to the media at Hyderabad on 22 August, 2010
CDRO put together a team of concerned citizens consisting of Prof.
Emeritus Amit Bahaduri, J.N.U., Delhi, Senior Counsel of Supreme Court
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Kavita Srivatsava, Human Rights worker from
Rajasthan, Gautam Navlakha writer & from PUDR, Delhi, Kranthi
Chaitanya, Advocate and General Secretary of APCLC, D. Suresh Kumar,
Advocate, APCLC, Ch. Sudhakar Rao, President of OPDR, D.
Venkateswarlu, OPDR. The team visited Wankadi Mandal, Adilabad
District on 20th & 21st of August, 2010 where the alleged encounter of
Mr. Azad @ Cherukuri Rajkumar who was spokesperson of CPI Maoist
Central Committee Member and Journalist Hemachandra Pandey took place
on the intervening night of 1st and 2nd July, 2010. Three fact
findings had earlier already carried out spot investigations. The team
met the local villagers, local police, and local media personal and
perused FIR, inquest and postmortem report.
The FIR No.(Crime ) 40/2010 registered at the Wankadi P.S. of Adilabad
District by the Station House Officer, Mr. Mansoor Ahmed at 9.30 am of
2nd July, 2010 in the English Language gives the following account.
1. The Spl. Intelligence police provided the information that a group
of 20 CPI Maoist had crossed into A.P. from Maharastra and moving
about the forest.
2.The police attached to Asifabad P.S. along with Spl. Party police,
Equipped with “night vision device†went to search for them and found
them between Tarkepalli and Welgi Forest Hillock.
3. On being intercepted the Maoist opened fire and the police also
fired in self defence. The firing lasted for 30 minutes after which
the police climbed the Hill top and halted there for the night. Next
morning during the search they found two unidentified bodies one with
AK -47 Rifle lying next to a 50 years old man and the other 30 years
old “wearing sandals†with 9 mm pistol. This story raises several
questions.
a. How the police were able to pin point the location of the Maoists
in a forest several hundred square kms along with the boarder of A.P.
and Maharashtra.
b. Why did the police plan this location? As the villagers clearly
told us that therein recent years there had been no Maoist activity in
the region.
c. Despite 30 minutes, from 11 pm to 11.30 pm of firing not a single
police personal suffered any injury, whereas only Azad and Hemachandra
Pandey are killed.
d. If there were twenty Maoists as stated in the FIR, howcome, the
police found only 2 kit bags and two weapons? In any escapade there
would be more belongings left behind.
e. If Azad was traveling with a dalam of 20 Maoists then surely he too
would have been in Olive Green dress rather than in civilian dress.
f. If the police were unaware of the identities of the two deceased
upto 9.30am at the time of filing the FIR, then how did the electronic
media learned by 6.00am on 2nd July that Azad had been killed in an
encounter. Several electronic media channels have also announced his
death. So, it clearly shows that the police knew who they had killed.
g. Overwhelming doubt about the police version is raised by the
postmortem report of Azad which shows that the fatal bullet entry
wound from the chest “at the left 2nd intercestal space†had
“darkening burnt edges†. The burnt mark at the entry wound are a clear
indication of a bullet being fired from a very close range (no more
than a foot). The corresponding exit wound is at the 9th & 10th inter
vertebral space and depth is 9 inches. That means the bullet entered
from upper chest and traveled downwards. This questions the police
version that Maoist were on the top of the hill and they were below.
It was widely known and reported that the Union Ministry of Home
Affairs, through Swami Agnivesh was engaged in exploring the
possibility of a dialogue with C.P.I. Maoist and the person with whom
Swami Agnivesh was talking with CPI Maoists was Cherukuri Rajkumar @
Azad.
5. The alleged encounter in these circumstances and such a time raises
important questions.
a) How could the Spl. Branch of A.P. Police dedicated to combating
Maoists, murder Azad in this manner without knowledge of the Union
Home Minister as well as the State Government particularly when the
Union Home Ministry is said to be leading the joint offensive against
the Maoists.
b) Why has the Union Home Ministry not interested in seeking an
independent investigation/enquiry into the encounter, despite so many
demands for the same.
c) If the Union Government was sincere in seeking a peace dialogue, it
would have been natural for the Home Minister Mr. Chidambaram to
express concern about the execution of the key actor from the Maoist
side with whom he was exploring the peace dialogue. His explanation on
the floor of the Parliament was that the enquiry is a State subject.
This is unacceptable because the A.P. State Government is run by
Congress Party and had the Union Home Minister sought an enquiry they
could not have refused.
In any case the Central Government is empowered to constitute an
enquiry under the Commission of Enquiries Act,1952.
DEMANDS:
1. In the light of the significance of the assassination, which has
scuttled the peace process, it is imperative that the Government
institute a high level independent enquiry headed by a Sitting/Retired
Judge of the Supreme Court of India, nominated by the Chief Justice of
India.
2. Register an FIR against the police who killed Mr. Azad and Hem
Chandra Pandey and the case be independently investigated in
accordance with the NHRC Guide Lines.
1. Prof. Emeritus Amit Bahaduri,
2. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Senior Counsel Supreme Court of India.
3. Kavita Srivatsava, General Secretary of PUCL Rajasthan,
4. Gautam Navlakha writer & PUDR, Delhi,
5. Kranthi Chaitanya, Advocate, General Secretary of APCLC,
6. Ch. Sudhakar Rao, President of OPDR,
7. D. Venkateswarlu, OPDR
8. D. Suresh Kumar, Advocate, APCLC,
http://icawpi.org/en/analysis/factsheets/519-faking-an-encounter-killing-the-peace-process | |
No comments:
Post a Comment