Death in Police Encounter or Custodial Killing?
The Case of Anju Devi’s Son and the Unanswered Questions of Police Accountability in Uttar Pradesh
Introduction
Deaths in police encounters remain one of the gravest human rights concerns in India. While the State often justifies such deaths as necessary law enforcement actions, families of victims frequently allege illegal detention, torture, extortion, and staged encounters. One such disturbing case is that of Anju Devi, a resident of Prayagraj, whose son allegedly died following police custody and a purported fake encounter.
This blog documents the facts as placed before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and raises critical questions about due process, custodial violence, and institutional accountability.
Background of the Case
According to complaints submitted to the NHRC by Anju Devi (mother of the deceased) and human rights defender Dr. Lenin Raghuvanshi, the sequence of events unfolded as follows:
-
On 10 September 2023, police personnel from Korav area allegedly picked up Anju Devi’s son from his residence.
-
Family members claim that no arrest memo, FIR, or legal grounds for detention were provided.
-
The victim was allegedly kept in illegal custody for nearly two days.
On 11 September 2023, Anju Devi sent an urgent complaint via email to senior police officials and the CM portal, stating that her son had been taken away by police and was untraceable.
Allegations of Torture and Extortion
The complaint further alleges:
-
During custody, the victim was beaten and tortured.
-
Police allegedly demanded ₹20,000 from the family for medical treatment after the victim sustained serious injuries.
-
The victim was later taken to Swaroop Rani Hospital, Prayagraj.
These allegations, if proven, would amount to serious violations of Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Indian Constitution, as well as NHRC guidelines on arrest and detention.
The Alleged “Encounter”
As per the family’s version:
-
On 12 September 2023, police took the victim to a forest area in Kaushambi district.
-
His hands and mouth were allegedly tied, and he was forced to pose with a pistol while a video was recorded.
-
Police allegedly fired at him, and the bullet hit his right shoulder.
-
He was then taken to Swaroop Rani Hospital, where he died during treatment.
The family asserts that the encounter was staged and meant to justify an earlier illegal detention and custodial torture.
NHRC’s Intervention
The National Human Rights Commission took cognizance of the matter and:
-
Clubbed the complaint of Anju Devi with the complaint filed by Dr. Lenin Raghuvanshi.
-
Issued directions to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh and the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, seeking an Action Taken Report (ATR).
-
On 08 July 2024, NHRC issued a reminder, noting that no report had been submitted despite earlier directions.
This delay itself raises concerns about institutional resistance and lack of transparency in encounter-related deaths.
Why This Case Matters
This case is not an isolated incident. It reflects a larger pattern where:
-
Marginalised families struggle to get FIRs registered against police.
-
Encounter narratives replace transparent investigations.
-
Families are forced to approach constitutional bodies for basic accountability.
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that every encounter death must be independently investigated, preferably by an agency other than the local police. NHRC guidelines also mandate magisterial inquiry, post-mortem videography, and compensation where violations are found.
Key Questions That Remain Unanswered
-
Was the victim legally arrested? If yes, where is the arrest memo?
-
Why was the victim allegedly kept in custody without judicial oversight?
-
Why has the Uttar Pradesh Police delayed submitting its report to NHRC?
-
Was an independent magisterial inquiry conducted?
-
Will the victim’s family receive justice, compensation, and rehabilitation?
Conclusion
The death of Anju Devi’s son highlights the urgent need to end the culture of impunity surrounding police encounters in India. Accountability cannot be selective, and the rule of law cannot survive if law enforcers themselves operate outside it.
The NHRC’s continued monitoring of this case is crucial. Civil society, media, and human rights institutions must remain vigilant to ensure that this case does not fade into silence like so many others.
Justice delayed is justice denied — especially when the State itself stands accused.
No comments:
Post a Comment