Assam: Security Personnel Kill an Innocent Person by Firing Indiscriminately at a Market Place in Barak Valley

Waliullah Ahmed Laskar

Personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), a para-military force of the government of India deployed heavily in North Eastern states to provide aid to the state governments in maintaining public order, killed an innocent person on 23 May 2010 by firing without warning and indiscriminately at Panchaboti (known also as Jamalpar), a small market place within the area of Dholai Police Station (PS) in the district of Cachar, Assam, while trying to arrest two other persons reportedly acting on a tip-off. No investigation into the killing is ordered. Police, instead, registered a case against the deceased person incorporating his name in the First Information Report (FIR) filed against the two arrestees. There are fears that post mortem report can also be tempered. Impunity for such frequent extra-judicial killings is taken for granted in this part of India.

After receiving information the Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC), a human rights organisation based in Assam, formed a team for finding facts about the incidents. The team visited Bidruhipar, the village where the deceased lived which falls under Sonai PS in Cachar (Assam), spoken with his wife, children, brothers, other relatives and fellow villagers. The team also visited Panchaboti, where the incident occurred and other related areas. They spoke to some eye witnesses and local police officers. The account given here is based on the facts gathered in this way by the BHRPC.

Panchaboti is like a small market place where there are 19/20 shops of various kinds and people from the adjacent villages come for buying or selling household things and for other related purposes. A gathering of 40/50 persons are normally found there. The deceased Iskandar Ali Barbhuiya (aged about 42, son of late Abdul Matlib Barbhuiya) lived at a nearby village Bidruhipar (about 4 km away to the north eastern direction from Panchaboti separated by the river Sonai) under the Sonai PS. He was a small businessman primarily dealing with betel nuts. He would buy row betel nuts from markets and small village firms and sell them after processing. He was the sole earning member of a family of 6 comprising of his wife Monijun Nesa (aged about 38), son Rajib Hussain Barbhuiya (aged about 13) and daughters Jasmin Begum Barbhuiya (aged about 11), Yasmin Begum Barbhuiya (aged about 7) and Najmin Begum Barbhuiya (aged about 4). According to the villagers and the police officials, he was a peace loving person never involved in any crime or immoral acts and he had nothing against him in the police record.

At about 11 pm on the fateful day of 23 May he left his house telling his wife that he was going to the Panchaboti area to collect betel nuts which he would keep at the house of a friend for he intended to visit his sister Champarun Nesa at Krishnapur, Amraghat, though he expressed doubts that he would get time for the visit. He asked his wife not to worry if he did not return that day.

The persons who were present at the time of shooting by the CRPF at Panchaboti state that they heard and saw a group of 11/12 CRPF personnel from A147 Battalion led by Mr Muatoshi Dubichu, Deputy Inspector of Police and in-charge of Shachinpur Camp (Shachinpur comes under Dholai PS), who came there sometime ago, suddenly started firing indiscriminately at about 4.30 pm and people ran helter-skelter in panic. Most of them entered nearby shops and houses and closed the doors. Some of them saw Iskandar running over a small field towards the river Sonai, a tributary of the river Barak. He jumped into the river while CRPF were shooting at him. There was absolutely no provocation of any kind for the CRPF to open fire. The witnesses say that CRPF did not warn the people by any means before starting firing. It was not known at that time what happened to Iskandar. But the CRPF arrested Moniruddin Barbhuiya (aged about 32, son of Abdul Majid Barbhuiya of village Bidruhipar, PS Sonai, Cachar, Assam) and Abdul Khalik (aged about 25, son of Siraj Uddin of village Sundari Part-II, PS Sonai, Cachar, Assam) for whose arrest they came.

The CRPF claimed that they were on a routine patrolling at that time and they observed suspicious behaviour on the part of Moniruddin, Abdul Khalik and Iskandar. They challenged them and when the suspects started running away they opened fire and shot 7 rounds at them. As a result they succeeded in arresting two persons while another (meaning the deceased Iskandar) ran away. They did not know what happened to the later. But they found a country made 9 mm pistol and four pieces of bullets with Moniruddin. According to the CRPF, they are ordinary criminals and did not belong to any organisation. The CRPF handed over the two arrestees to the Palonghat police out post under Dholai PS at about 9 pm that day. Dholai police registered a case against Moniruddin, Abdul Khalik and another (meaning Iskandar but without naming) (vide Dholai PS Case No. 99/2010 dated 23 May 2010) under section 47 of the Arms Act, 1959. On 24 May the Officer-in-Charge (OC) of Dholai PS produced the accused before a magistrate praying for police custody for them which was granted for 7 days. Then they were sent to the judicial custody and at the time of writing this report they are still in jail.

According to the police sources, Moniruddin stated that he is a labourer and worked in Mizoram for a few months. One day in Mizoram when he went to a river to bath there he found a pistol lying there. He picked it up and was trying to sell it. Iskandar is nothing to do with them.

When in the night on 23 May Iskandar did not return home his wife Monijun was not worried and she thought that he had gone to his sister’s house at Krishnapur as she was told. The next day (24 May) Badrul Mia, a neighbour, asked Monijun if she was aware of an incident of firing at Panchaboti the day before where her husband went and whether he returned home or not. She became worried and contacted her sister-in-law at Krishnapur over the phone who told that Moniruddin did not visit her. Then she contacted each and every relatives of her husband but everybody expressed ignorance about the whereabouts of Iskandar. She along with her sister-in-law Sitarun Nesa went to the Sonai PS on 25 May and informed the police in writing that her husband was missing since the day before. It was entered in the General diary of the PS vide GD Entry 601 dated 25 May 2010.

At about 1 pm on 26 May some people of village Sundari Part-II (situated at a distance of about 2 km from Panchaboti) saw a dead body adrift in the river Sonai and informed Kachudaram police out post under Sonai PS. Police, first from the out post and then from the PS, came at about 3 pm and send the body to the Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar for autopsy. At about 11 pm on 27 May the police handed over the body to Monijun. His relatives and fellow villagers performed the last rites at about 2.30 pm.

The persons who performed the pre-funeral ritual bathing of the body state that they saw two holes caused by bullets on the body; one on the waist and the other on the left side of the neck. Report of the autopsy has not been yet provided to the family. Monijun and other villagers fear that perhaps they want to change the report and that is why they are not giving it to her. The BHRPC is trying to access the report.

The local people did not believe the CRPF story. They say that it is possible that Moniruddin and Abdul Khalik were trying to sell the pistol. Probably they fixed the place and time for transaction with the purported buyer to complete the sale at Panchaboti on 23 May. According to them, it is not a case of routine patrol as the CRPF claim but it is probable that the CRPF somehow came to know of the transaction and accordingly they came to nab them red handed. But lack of professionalism and respect for the rights of the general citizens provoked them to open fire when they saw the suspects and it claimed an innocent life in the form of Iskandar. They emphatically say that Iskandar had nothing whatsoever to do with Moniruddin and his activities. He is the victim of carelessness of the security forces for the lives of innocent people. The story which is being told by the CRPF accusing Iskandar of being a partner or accomplice or involved with any other way with Moniruddin or his pistol is a typical attempt of covering up their guilt of killing him and it is gross injustice to the unfortunate soul of the deceased and his wife and children to stigmatise them in this way.

Mr. Kutub Ahmed Mazumder, a member of Assam Legislative Assembly representing the Sonai Constituency also told the BHRPC that he knew Iskandar personally and he is a very good person. He visited the widow on 30 May.

Hundreds of people of the neighbouring villages gathered on 28 May at Hatikhal, a convenient meeting place for the people living at neighbouring villages, and held a condolence meeting which was presided over by Nazrul Islam Ahmed, vice president of Sonai Anchalik Panchayat (Anchalik Panchayat is the middle layer of the three layer local government system consisting of Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat and Zila Parishad) where resolutions passed; 1.Condemning the killing of Iskandar terming it as an intentional murder of a law-abiding and peace loving citizen by power fuddled unscrupulous security forces, 2. Condoling the family for their loss, and 3. Demanding compensation and prosecution of the responsible CRPF personnel.

Monijun filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar on 29 May praying for directing the police for proper investigation of the murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complaint was forwarded to the Sonai PS and was registered as an FIR vide Sonai PS Case No. 126/10 dated 4 May 2010.

The BHRPC also wrote to the authorities including the president, prime minister of India and the chairpersons of the National Human Rights Commission.

Assam: Killer Cops Get Promoted

Waliullah Ahmed Laskar

There is nothing new about the fact that cops in Assam (a North East Indian state) enjoy immunity from the reach of the long hands of the law for each and every crime they commit to please their political bosses and even get perks and promotion. They enjoy such immunity[1] to an extent greater than their bosses do in most of the cases because they know how to please those who rule the day. This de facto impunity is in addition to the legal impunity provided to the security personnel under many laws termed by civil society and human rights groups as ‘draconian’ and ‘repressive’ such as the Armed Forces (Special Power) Act, 1958, the Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955, the Assam Police Act, 2007, section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and other laws. It is almost an accepted regime in Assam. Nobody gets surprised nowadays by reports of police committing crimes and getting rewards in the forms of medal and promotion.

This case is a little bit different. The case shows that the authorities are throwing a challenge to the public in effect that our cops will demand bribes and in case of refusal they will kill you and then we will promote them for their bravery while we will also declare that he has killed you for not meeting the demand. This is what exactly happened in the case of Motahir Ali Tapadar, a 38 year old day labourer, of village Bhatgram under Katigorah Police Station (PS) in the district of Cachar, Assam (India), who was killed in police custody on 21 September, 2007 for being unable to pay the demanded gratification.

According to the report[2] of the magisterial inquiry obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) by Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC)[3], the Additional District Magistrate (ADC) of Cachar found that ‘a petty quarrel between Motahir Ali and his neighbour Sahab Uddin took place at about 11 am on 20 September 2007 in front of their houses centring around a very minor quarrel amongst the kids of two neighbouring houses over playthings or games resulting in the quarrel between the elders which led to the scuffling. Sahab Uddin and Motahir Ali went to the Police Patrol Post (PP) at Kalain and lodged complaint against each other. Shri Narayan Tamuli, Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) and in-charge of Kalain Police Patrol Post (PP) accompanied by his constables arrived to the houses of complainants and took them to the PP and kept them under detention. Some respectable persons of Bhatgram and relatives of the detainees went there with request to bail them out and settle the case amicably. Alimun Nesa, wife of Motahir Ali who were observing the holy Ramjan fasting took food to her husband in the evening and served in the police lock up. Motahir Ali was quite normal at that time. Alimun Nesa met Narayan Tamuli and pleaded for release of her husband from the police custody stating the background of the quarrel. Sri Tamuli demanded Rs. 10,000.00 (rupees ten thousand) from her as the price of release. She stated that they are too poor to afford the payment. However, she stated that she could collect Rs. 500.00 to Rs. 600.00 (five hundred to six hundred) from her neighbours and give it to Sri Tamuli. But Sri Tamuli turned deaf ear to the submission made by Alimun Nesa. As she was not obliging, Tamuli denied release of her husband. The in-charge and his staff tortured Motahir Ali mercilessly the whole night of 20 November 2007. On 21 November 2007 (next morning) Alimun Nesa again went to the PP and found her husband was lying on the floor of the lock up and could hardly move or speak. Motahir Ali could somehow express that he was brutally beaten and kicked by the police staff and he was badly inflicted injury in the abdomen. He further told to his wife that there is least chance of his survival after whole night of brutal rituals by the policemen.’

‘When the condition of Motahir Ali deteriorated Tamuli dragged him to an auto rickshaw and took to Kalain Primary Health Centre (PHC). In the PHC Sri Tamuli and his colleagues repeated the brutality upon Md. Motahir Ali in front of the doctors and the hospital staff. The public present there witnessed the torturing and tried to dissuade the police but in vain. Dr. Badal Das, in-charge of the PHC reportedly examined Motahir Ali and after discussion with the in-charge of the PP, they decided to send the patient to Silchar Medical College & Hospital (SMCH) for treatment but he died on the way.’

The report says that ‘it is revealed from the hearing that Late Motahir Ali was a day labourer and lived from hand to mouth. His family consisted of his wife and 3 (three) minor children. His wife was an expecting mother at that time. Late Motahir Ali was a peace loving man and there was no public complaint against him. It is stated by Alimun Nesa, the helpless widow of Late Motahir Ali that a minor quarrel amongst the neighbours’ children over playthings developed into an insignificant scuffling between the elders— resulting in filing a police case and arrest by the Kalain police and detaining them in police custody. The inhuman torture inflicted upon Motahir Al for non-payment of the gratification and gearing up the brutality by the police staff and subsequent death of the simple day labourer in the Kalian PHC before the noon on 21 September 2007 in front of the doctor of the hospital and his staff is bitterly experienced by the people of Kalain.’ (Emphasis supplied, throughout).

‘One Sri Ramzan Ali, Constable under Sri Tamuli administered the point of lathi straightway at the abdomen of Late Motahir Ali at the Kalain PHC resulting in total silence of the body of Motahir Ali. It is stated that the constable’s last stroke made the way or caused the circumstances for demise of Motahir Ali.’

The report concludes that ‘the police of Kalain PP was pro-active on the brutalities inflicted on Late Motahir Ali simply for the reason that the deceased family could not afford payment of gratification beyond the reach of the poorest family.’

Regarding the arson and destruction of the public properties the magistrate states that ‘the death news spread at Kalain and adjacent areas and public in the locality got infuriated. Hundreds of local people gathered at around 2 pm in front of the PP and Gaon Panchayat (GP, an elected village level local government body, village counterpart of municipality) Office and started slogans and pelted stones at the PP. Police tried to control with their existing forces but could not succeed. Police opened fire injuring one person but no casualty was there though it has been claimed that 80 round fires were opened at that time to disperse the angry crowd. The PP caught fire and it got completely gutted.  Nearby GP office of Kalain also caught fire and burned to ashes resulting in loss of public documents and properties. There was a little attempt to save the public properties and it was left at the whims of the excited public who took their own course of action.’ He added, “(h)owever, the actual causes of catching fire on both the offices are yet to be ascertained.”

Commenting on the report Neharul Ahmed Mazumder, Secretary General of BHRPC, says, ‘so far as the conclusion of the inquiry concerning the death of Motahir Ali is concerned BHRPC is substantially in agreement with the findings but the organisation sticks to its findings regarding the incidents of the aftermath.’ He points to the BHRPC fact-finding report[4] which observed that ‘hundreds of local people gathered at 2 pm around the house of patrol post and started shouting slogans demanding arrest of Narain Tamuli. Police charged them with sticks and gun butts which further infuriated the crowd and they started throwing stones. Police then opened fire and kept firing till 80 rounds were shot. In the firing there was only one severe injury. Shahidur Rahman, 17, who was watching the incident from the roof top of a two storied house, was injured badly in his left leg. He was admitted to SMCH, Silchar. Being terrified by such heavy firing the crowd got dispersed. Then the police themselves set fire on the patrol post and burnt it down in order to distract the attention of people from the murder and hush it up. The propaganda that after the death of Motahir Ali the outraged local people burnt down the patrol post is false and intentional.’

The report goes on, ‘the terrified local people at first shut their mouth tight. At first nobody dared to speak anything about the incident. Subsequently a large number of local people requesting anonymity claimed that some men of police had burnt down the patrol post. They raise two arguments for the claim. Firstly, although there was only one hit and injury the police shot eighty rounds of fire to disperse the mob and no mob can withstand such a large quantity of fire. In fact, exactly this thing happened. The mob got dispersed and fled away after a few rounds of firing. Secondly, fire caught first in the hind part of the patrol post. If the mob had set fire they would have done so in the front part because they were there. Moreover, there is a marsh behind the patrol post house for which it is not possible for the mob to come along this side.’

‘Police registered a First Information Report (FIR) against one Faruk Ahmed and other five hundred unidentified persons in connection with the fabricated charges of attempt to murder, causing obstruction to police in the performance of their lawful duty etc. invoking section 307 etc. of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Police, in connection with this false case, raided, beaten, abused and humiliated family members, relatives and fellow villagers of the victim. Even they arrested three innocent persons, namely Faruk Ahmed, Ibajul Hoque and Imamul Hoque, who were subsequently released on bail by the Gauhati High Court.’

‘When, Sahidur Rahman, the person injured in police firing recovered a little and released from the SMCH was also arrested by the police, which was termed by the civil society of the valley as barbaric and brutal. At the intervention of BHRPC the Superintendent of Jails sent him to the hospital then applied to the court for according permission.’ 

The fact-finding report goes on, “BHRPC thinks that the weight of the arguments can not be denied. There are enough reasons to believe that the police might not have burnt the patrol post themselves but they did so through the agency of hired persons. In fact, the incident of burning down the patrol post is intriguing and indicative of a deeper and larger conspiracy. The way in which police is desperately over-active in hounding the people in relation to the case of burning down the patrol post despite requests from various quarters not to harass and arrest the innocent people and to call an all-party-meeting to decide further action regarding the case, is indicative of such a conspiracy.”

At the intervention of BHRPC, however, a case was registered at Katigorah police station as Katigorah PS Case No. 484/07 dated 4 October, 2007 under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC against Narayan Tamuli, ASI Promod Nath and constable Ramzan Ali Choudhury on the complaint of Alimun Nesa. The accused applied for pre-arrest bail in the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati and the court granted them an ‘interim bail’ with a direction to surrender before the trial court. At their appearance before the trial court all the three accused were taken into judicial custody on 11 March, 2008. Later they were released on bail by the high court[5].

Superintendent of Police (SP), Cachar told on 18 July 2008 that ‘the investigation of the case is almost complete and the final form of the case is being submitted soon’.[6] How long a duration constitutes ‘soon’?

In a petition[7], however, the Gauhati High Court issued order stating that “it is directed that if the case is not forwarded to the (Criminal Investigation Department) CID the same shall be done immediately and the CID shall investigate the case in prompt and proper manner.” Does not the word ‘prompt’ mean ‘without delay’? How much time constitutes ‘delay’?

BHRPC also submitted a complaint regarding the case before the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) on 6 December, 2007. The AHRC registered a case vide AHRC Case No. 6404/2007 dated 18 July 2008 and issued a notice to the government asking for a report. The AHRC sent a letter[8] to the BHRPC with the report asking for its comments on the findings in the report. The BHRPC on 3 December, 2008 sent its comments expressing its agreement regarding the conclusion drawn in the report about the fact and circumstances responsible for the death of Motahir Ali and requested the commission to grant an interim relief to the relatives of the victim and recommend for the prosecution of the violators as it is the mandate of the AHRC to do so under its constituting statute, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The BHRPC, however, disagreed with the findings of the inquiry about setting fire on the PP and the GP office, opening fire on the protesting people, registering false case against them, arrest of many protestors in connection with that false case and harassment of many others with a request to conduct an independent investigation into these matters. But since then AHRC did not respond despite sending many reminders for reasons not understandable.

It was also publicized that a departmental inquiry into the incident was conducted by RC Tayal, an Inspector General of Police (IGP) and that the report was submitted on 22 September, 2007. Pursuant to the report the three accused were placed under suspension on 11 March 2008[9] and a departmental proceeding initiated against them on 21 March 2008[10]. But nobody knows what happened to the proceedings and when and how they got reinstated and promoted.

As if it is an inevitability, Narayan Tamuli got promoted from ASI to SI and secured posting in the Silchar Sadar police station, the main PS in Silchar city, which is regarded as the cultural and business capital of the entire Barak valley. BHRPC recently documented another case involving SI Narayan Tamuli[11]. He was the investigating officer in a case registered at the Silchar PS[12] and was also entrusted with the responsibility of the execution of a search warrant[13]. The complainant in both the cases was Sharmista Das, a victim of domestic violence who was driven away from her matrimonial house by the in-laws who took away all her things that she received as her wedding gifts. The victim alleged that Tamuli took a gratification of Rs. 20,000.00 (twenty thousand) from her under duress and demanded another Rs. 50,000.00 (fifty thousand) after detaining her and two others when they visited the police station on 20 March, 2010 to know about the progress of the investigation relating to her complaints. Her companions were social activists and they somehow managed to come out from the clutch of the killer cop with the help of their connections outside.

When the entire system protects someone there is little hope left for justice.

N A Mazumder informed that BHRPC filed an application on 24 May, 2010 under RTI asking the Assam Police Headquarter for 1) a copy of the report of the departmental enquiry into the custodial death of Motahir Ali; 2) details of the actions taken against the accused/responsible police personnel by the department; 3) if no actions have been taken the reasons thereof in detail; 4) details of the progress in investigation in Katigorah PS case No. 484/07; 5) details of the progress made and procedures taken by the CID in the case; 6) copy of the charge sheet submitted by the Katigorah Police or the CID in Katigorah  PS Case No. 484/07; 7) if no charge sheet has been submitted the reasons thereof in detail with a copy of the final report regarding the case; and 8) any other information held by the office of the Director General of Police (DGP) or any office of the Assam Police regarding the order of the Gauhati High Court in Crl. M.C. No. 484/07 and custodial death of Motahir Ali.

In fine, here is an ASI of police in-charge of a police patrol post in a remote village area who arrests an innocent person, demands bribes beyond the reach of the indigent family and at refusal they torture the man throughout the night and done him to death the next day in front of hundreds of people. The local people get agitated and demand immediate arrest of the killer cops. Police respond by opening fire on them injuring many. Police also reportedly set fire on their patrol post itself and an adjoining public office allegedly for two reasons: to divert the attention of larger public and to persecute local people for daring to protest the murder by implicating them under false charges of arson, rioting, destruction of public properties etc. But at the intervention of human rights groups the police department has to conduct an inquiry and suspend the accused cops. A magisterial inquiry is also conducted which concludes that the cops killed the person because his family could not meet the excessive demands for bribes made by the police. An FIR is also registered against them. Cops are arrested and then released on bail. On a petition the high court orders prompt investigation by CID of the Assam Police. The AHRC also registers a case, issues notice to the authorities asking for report and then asks for comments from the petitioner on the report. Meanwhile the cops get reinstated and the leader of the killer group gets a posting in a prestigious police station with a promotion from ASI to Sub Inspector (SI) and the AHRC also puts the files in the shelf to gather dusts. No compensation to the family of the victim is provided after about 3 years of the incident. No charge sheet is filed and trial started.

The Case is somewhat different from the pattern of human rights violations in Barak valley. The difference lies in the fact that the authorities cleverly deceived the people by showing that actions are being taken while in deed they are shielding the cops. Because, in most of the cases they even don’t care about such pretensions. This case, therefore, shows that the authorities are throwing challenge to the public that our cops will demand bribes and in case of refusal they will kill you and then we will promote them for their bravery while we will also declare that he has killed you for not meeting the demand.

It has become a very lucrative trade in Assam, particularly in Barak valley, for the politicians who are in power to collect bribes through the bureaucrats and security forces giving the collectors their commission. This is in addition to embezzling funds allotted in the name of various development and welfare schemes. Those who can collect and give more naturally get more protection and promotion.

This only shows the helplessness of the law-abiding citizens and human rights groups in Assam.

---

[1] For cases of human rights violations with impunity see: VIOLATION CASES at http://bhrpc.wordpress.com/

[2] Magisterial Enquiry Report of Custodial Death of Motahir Ali vide NO. MISC. CASE. 1/2007/28 dated Silchar, the 9^th April, 2008 published by BHRPC at the URL: <http://bhrpc.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/magisterial-enquiry-report-on-custodial-death-of-motahir-ali/>, accessed on 1 June 2010

[3] For more information about BHRPC visit http://bhrpc.wordpress.com/

[4] Wali Laskar, Custodial Murder of Mutahir Ali Tapader and Subsequent Police Atrocity in Barak Valley of Assam, Countercurrents.org, 31 October, 2007, accessed on 1 June 2010 at the URL:

[5] Order of the Gauhati High Court in B. A. No. 1074/08

[6] Letter of the SP, Cachar addressed to ADC, Cachar vide No. G/SR/3680 dated 18/07/08

[7] Order of the Gauhati High Court in Smti. Alimun Nesa Vs Shri Narayan Chandra Tamuli and others (Crl. M.C. No. 208 of 2008 in B. A. No. 1074/08)

[8] AHRC CASE No. 6404/2007/14 dated 18-0702008

[9] Assam Police Order vide D.O. No. 703 dated 21/03/08

[10] Assam Police Order vide DP No. 01/08, 02/08 and 03/08

[11] BHRPC, Brief Summery of the BHRPC Fact-finding Report on Incidents of Extortion and Harassment of a Victim of Domestic Violence by Police in Silchar accessed on 1 June 2010 at the URL:

[12] Silchar PS Case No. 509/10 under sections 379 and 406, IPC

[13] A search warrant under section 94 of the Cr PC vide Case No. 155 M/2010