Supreme Court Forms SIT to Probe Allegations of Torture in Custody by RG Kar Protesters

The Supreme Court today constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate allegations of torture in custody of two women arrested during the protests in West Bengal. RG Kar Medical Faculty rape-murder event.

a bench Judges Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan He was dealing with the State of West Bengal’s appeal against the Calcutta High Court order. CBI investigation into the subject. While broadcasting before don’t noticeThe court stayed the Supreme Court’s decision in this regard. He asked the state government to submit a list of IPS officers (including women officers) who could be included in the SIT instead of the CBI to investigate the custodial torture case.

Taking into account the list of officers provided by the State, the Court constituted an SIT consisting of officers who do not belong to the State of West Bengal today but are serving there. It includes:

(1) Mr. Akash Makharia, IPS, DIG Headquarters;

(2) Ms. Swati Bhangalia, Superintendent of Police, Howrah (Rural); And

(3) Ms. Sujata Kumari Veenapani, IPS, Deputy Commissioner (Traffic), Howrah.

As per the instructions, the SIT will immediately take over the investigation and submit weekly status reports to the bench of the Calcutta High Court (to be constituted for the purpose by the Chief Justice of the High Court). The SIT may seek further directions from the said board to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.

The SIT may also depute some other police officers to assist if necessary. Victims, on the other hand, will have the freedom to approach the SIT to ensure that their lives and freedoms are not harmed. In this context, SIT “We will take the necessary steps without delay”.

While passing the order, the court also said that routine handover of investigations to the CBI could have a demoralizing effect on senior state police officers.

“The routine entrustment of investigation of matters to the CBI not only creates a burden on the country’s premier investigative agency but also has a very serious demoralizing effect on state police officers. Persons allotted to the West Bengal cadre of senior officers must be fair, independent and is inadequate or inefficient in conducting an impartial investigation and finding the truth.”

Before leaving, the court clarified that the observations made in the impugned Supreme Court order cannot be construed as a statement regarding the allegations made and the SIT should continue the investigation independently of the same.

Background

It was stated that two women also participated in the Nabanna Abhijan march organized after the RG Kar Medical College incident. During this protest, they allegedly made objectionable remarks against Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee’s younger daughter.

A complaint was lodged at the Diamond Harbor police station and the police took action against the 2 women under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, POCSO Act and the Information Technology Act. After they were taken into custody, they alleged that police officers assaulted them while in custody.

Initially, the Single Bench of the Supreme Court ordered a CBI inquiry into the allegations. On appeal, the Divisional Board upheld the decision of the single panel, stating that medical reports at the correctional facility indicated torture in custody.

“What bothers us the most is the inconsistency in the recording of the applicants’ health conditions by different authorities. The POCSO judge ordered the defendant to be placed under judicial custody. The medical officer of the prison noted that he had hematomas on his legs and back, and was in pain. This recording was made due to the documents submitted Surprisingly, when the accused was earlier brought to the government hospital in Diamond Harbour, it was said that there were no external injuries, this trauma clearly occurred while the petitioner was in police custody. It’s obvious.”

It was also stated that, due to the nature of the incident, allowing the police to investigate would lead to a conflict of interest.

He approached the State Supreme Court of West Bengal against the order of the Division Bench.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for West Bengal); Senior Advocate Narendra Hooda and Ranjit Kumar (for respondents)

Case Title: WEST BENGAL AND ORS STATE. REBEKA KHATUN MOLLA v. REBEKA MOLLA AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 15481/2024