Custodial
deaths: Let's bell the cat
Barrister
M. Moksadul Islam
No one is safe anywhere in this
country. It simply has become a dangerous place to live. The entire
nation is living in fear. Unnatural deaths in the hands of terrorists
have become a common phenomenon of this country. Last year on average
10.5 people were murdered everyday. On top of that scores of people
are dying in the police and jail custody under suspicious circumstances.
This has made people more fearful for their safety and lives. There
is nothing call safe custody in this country. It is not the foreign
terrorists but it is the insiders the people are scared about. People
are pointing their fingers towards the law enforcing agencies as well.
On many occasions people are not hesitating to term the police as the
lawful terrorists of the country. It is not desirable that the force
which supposed to protect us can possibly torture us to death.
Under
the guise of actions like 'Operation Clean Heart' or otherwise people
are dying in the police and jail custody allegedly due to cardiac attack.
General people, however, are not readily willing to buy this cheap excuse
without a convincing corroboration. People are a bit suspicious about
all these custodial deaths.
There
are safeguards in our Constitution against violation of human rights.
Article 32 states that 'No person shall be deprived of life … save in
accordance with law'. An arrested person must be produced before the
nearest magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest is a mandatory requirement
under Article 33 of our Constitution. Similar provisions are also present
in Sections 60 and 61 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C) and
Section 324 of the Police Regulations of Bengal (P.R.B). Section 467
of PRB has explained the duties of a Magistrate in this connection elaborately
and clearly. Besides the abovementioned there are many judicial pronouncements
and observations made by our Courts in different landmark cases. For
example Easmin murder case observed investigation by someone else other
than the police when the police themselves are the accused. And in the
case of 'Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and others
vs. Bangladesh' the High Court Division gave 15 point directives in
aid of Sections 54 and 167 of the Cr. P. C. However, nothing is working
and still people are dying in police and jail custody under suspicious
circumstances. We are not sure whether the police or the Magistracy
are following any of the provisions narrated in the book.
No
one knows why all these custodial deaths are not properly investigated.
Is closing or transferring or even suspension of a police officer is
enough punishment for all these alleged unnatural deaths?
Police
takes recourse to section 167 to take a detainee to their custody or
remand on the plea that they need more time to investigate the matter.
The very word 'remand' is missing in this section. However, this taking
to the police custody is popularly known as 'taking on remand'. Oxford
Dictionary of Law (New Edition) defines remand as 'to commit an accused
person to custody.' However general people of this country by the word
'remand; understand inhuman torture, assault, beating up and death.
Any
evidence extracted by oppression is not admissible. Then what is the
reason behind the alleged tortures inside the police custody? It is
alleged by many that to extract money illegally from the accused or
his relatives police inhumanly tortured them. Many other alleged that
they were tortured at the instigation of interested quarter e.g. political
opponent.
Law
and order of this country is going down to bad to worse everyday. Government
has taken different kind of measures including draconian action like
Operation Clean Heart, RAT etc. However, it has failed to control the
uncontrolled insecurity. In an independent country all her citizens
want to think that they are safe at least in their own country. But
the reality is different. Let's not count the number of people who died
in police custody since liberation because even a single illegal death
in the hand of law enforcing agencies is unacceptable.
Our
police force is not only ill trained but somewhat arrogant and probably
lacks human compassion. What about the magistracy? Are they taking steps
in accordance with the law to protect human right? Well, it is now accepted
fact that there are many who are ready to file an application before
the Court by swearing affidavits in the negative.
Regarding
recording of confession by Magistrates section 467 of PRB states that
Magistrates should clearly understand the great importance of giving
their closest attention to the procedure to be followed, from first
to last, in recording of confessions. The said procedures, amongst others,
in short are that (1) try to record confession during court hours (2)
ascertain when and where the accused was first placed under police observation,
control or arrest, (3) the accused shall be given three hours for reflection,
during which period he shall not be in contact with any police officer,
(4) during examination normally police officer should not be present,
(5) accused should understand all the possible legal niceties, (6)(a)
accused should be able to speak voluntarily, (6)(b) cognizance of ill-treatment
should promptly be taken and any indications of the use of improper
pressure should be at once investigated. If any injury is noticed on
the body of the accused or is referred to him then the accused should
be asked how he came by them and should seek medical attendance. Similarly
section 176 of the Cr. P. C. requires a Magistrate to hold an independent
inquiry to the cause of a suspicious death in the custody of the police.
We are not aware of many cases where magistracy has acted in accordance
with all the provisions outlined above.
In
the prevailing circumstances not only we need to ensure that all laws
and procedures are followed by the police and Magistracy but also it
has become imperative that all the police custody should be monitored
through CC (Close Circuit) TV. All the custodial deaths must be verified
by another independent doctor nominated by the victim's family. Here
a chronological priority list of a typical family is necessary to avoid
confusion.
Unless
we change our perception about life and look at other fellow human being
with compassion our citizens will always become the victims of unnatural
deaths. No civilised nation can allow suspicious deaths in the hand
of law enforcing agencies and let them off the hock very easily. Time
has come that we speak out clearly to bell the cat immediately and ensure
that no one is above the law.
Barrister
M. Moksadul Islam is an advocate of the Supreme Court