Victim's mother contests official report

KOLKATA: An aged widow from the northern suburbs of Kolkata, whose son had died in police custody, has been knocking at the doors of justice for six years in vein.
The West Bengal Human Rights Commission report for 1999-2000, tabled in the monsoon session of the state Assembly recently, has indicted 11 of the 13 police officers she had accused of killing her son.
The state government''s action-taken report tabled in the House says that the government had accepted the commission''s recommendations.
"All these 11 police officers and men were arrested and as per direction of the Ld. District and Session Judge, Barasat, North 24-Parganas, were released on bail. Investigation of the case is proceeding," the ATR states.
However, the septuagenarian woman, surviving on a freedom fighter''s pension, Sunila Majumdar has a different story to tell. Her elder son Partha had "disappeared" while in police custody under the Habra police station on September 5, 1997.
In course of the long legal battle, the criminal investigation department of the state police registered a criminal case against 11 police personnel ranging from an SDPO to a home guard for "causing the disappearance" of Partha from police custody.
The victim''s mother and younger brother have written numerous letters to various authorities from the President of India to the chief minister of West Bengal, painstakingly pointing out that the story is not so simple as the government ATR states.
The state government had accepted the WBHRC recommendations and directed the CID to pursue the case. But according to Partha''s younger brother Dipankar, instead of the state filing the complaint, he, upon a written direction by the CID, lodged a complaint at the Habra PS on August 13, 2000.
On September 15 that year, the accused submitted their joint anticipatory bail petition at the Barasat court. "CID most mysteriously had not attempted to arrest the accused during the intervening 32 days. All the accused have been granted anticipatory bail on December 12, 2000, without any significant resistance from the CID."
She further points out that the CID "preferred not to move the superior court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail".
Mentioning that the accused have not only been allowed to continue in their regular jobs while on bail but even promoted to posts such as inspector and additional SP, Sunila also expressed concern for the security of the witnesses in the case.