Plea Seeking Independent Probe Into Alleged Extra-Judicial Executions of Tribals in Chhattisgarh: Supreme Court Reserves Judgement

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved the judgment on a 2009 plea for an independent investigation into alleged incidents of extra-judicial executions of tribals in Chhattisgarh.On Tuesday, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, for the petitioner, had advanced before the bench of Justices A. M. Khanwilkar and J. B. Pardiwala, "The killing was pointed out by the petitioner (no. 1- Himanshu Kumar) in the petition who went to the area and collected the information. The state of Chhattisgarh decided to keep quiet. Statements were converted into complaints and sent to the SHO with a request that you register an FIR. To this date, those FIRs on the basis of 16 or so individual complaints made have never been registered according to me. Where are those FIRs? There is no FIR, no chargesheet, no closure report that has been placed on record". Justice Khanwilkar had asked SG Tushar Mehta to indicate to the bench the FIRs pertaining to the incidents of 17 September, 2009 and October 1, 2009. Justice Khanwilkar had assured Mr. Gonsalves, "If it is not done, we will direct the registration of FIRs..."The SC on February 15, 2010 had asked Mr. G.P. Mittal, District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi to record the statement of the tribals who were joined as petitioners by Kumar, in the presence of interpreters and Kumar himself and videograph the entire incident. The bench on Tuesday had asked Mr. Gonsalves to show where the averments in the writ petition (about the gruesome assaults and killings by the police, security forces of the family members of petitioners no.s 2-12) were repeated by the petitioners in their statements before the district judge. Mr. Gonsalves had responded, "Please see the nature of the questions and the answers- 'You know for what purpose you have been brought here?'- 'A person from my family had died and that is why I am here'...'You know for what purpose you have come here?'- 'I have come to make a statement about the killing of my son'...(continuing to read from the record of the statements) 'I would not be in a position to identify the assailants, there was open fire from the jungle'...". Justice Khanwilkar had then observed, "Nobody is doubting that there was a firing and people died. Where is that statement made that the police came into my house and killed me? All you say before the district judge is that somebody is coming from the jungle, assaulting and going back to the jungle. Your petition makes specific averments, but nothing of that sort before the district judge? Nobody said that somebody coming in police uniform did it?". Mr. Gonsalves had submitted, "They have not made a statement that the security forces attacked them...they were brought from Chhattisgarh to Delhi by the security forces. They were produced before the district judge by the security forces. When they finished, they were sent back with the security forces...". Justice Khanwilkar had remarked, "For the registration of FIRs with regard to statements made before the district judge, we can direct that. But if you want something more, there has to be some material, it cannot be unsubstantiated"On Wednesday, the SG told the bench, "This public-spirited person yesterday had said no FIRs are there. It was his duty to find out. FIRs were filed, chargesheets are there. Affected parties or victims are also FIR informants. This clearly shows that petitioner number one is litigating, the rest (petitioners 2-12) have only only lent their names, they are not there"Justice Khanwilkar to Mr. Gonsalves: "If an FIR is registered, it is investigated by local police, we will assume that if you are not convinced by the investigation, you would file a protest petition against the closure report. In either case, now you cannot be raising a grievance. Take us through any documents that you want, but all that was available to you even then, you should have produced it in those proceedings. Did you do that is the question"Mr. Gonsalves: "No FIR, no chargesheet was given to us"Justice Khanwilkar: "The point is an FIR is registered, you are the complainant, you stepped in as witness in those proceedings. Now you say you are not aware? This is ipse dixit. Can we accept this? You are appearing before the court, you are the petitioner before us. You may keep saying this but this does not become the correct position in law. FIR is registered at your instance,, you are the complainant in that FIR. If you were not the complainant, we can understand. But the petitioner himself was the informant. The Informant also has the right to file a protest petition. Did you bring it to the notice of that court then? If you are the informant, you must be the witness in those proceedings. How can you say no FIR was served on you?"SG: "Their statements are recorded. From where is he arguing? In 2010, the central government mentioned the FIR before your lordships!"Mr. Gonsalves: "How do we know that?"Justice Khanwilkar: "At the highest level, we cannot countenance this kind of...

Plea Seeking Independent Probe Into Alleged Extra-Judicial Executions of Tribals in Chhattisgarh: Supreme Court Reserves Judgement

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain

Plea Seeking Independent Probe Into Alleged Extra-Judicial Executions of Tribals in Chhattisgarh: Supreme Court Reserves Judgement

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers