Latehar killing | Cops’ volte-face: FIR against 8 security men for ‘murdering’ man

This is a U-turn from what police had claimed earlier that the death in Piri village, under Garu block of Jharkhand’s Latehar district, was an incident of “crossfire”.

The first FIR registered on June 13 last year against members of tribal community where the police claimed that a search party comprising CRPF’s elite CoBRA encountered the tribals with arms and even though warned, they were “fired upon”. The security personnel then fired in “self defence”.

However, other members of the group had earlier told The Indian Express that they carried a “country-made gun to hunt in the forest area” and after seeing them, the security forces started firing at them even though they screamed that they were not members of “any party” — a reference to the banned CPI (Maoist) group or its splinter group.

The second FIR, which was registered on May 3 this year against personnel of CRPF and Jharkhand Police, however, stated that one Brahmdev Singh was “murdered” when he, along with the others, had gone for hunting. Interestingly, during the May 12 hearing in the High Court, as per court records, the state never submitted that they had already registered an FIR.

Between the two FIRs, the deceased’s wife Jeramani Devi made several rounds of Garu police station, the Latehar magistrate court and also submitted a plea to the High Court as police delayed in “following” the lower court order.

Rights body Janadhikar Mahasabha, who pursued the issue, had earlier said the “police were trying to hide the truth” and despite making several pleas to various authorities on behalf of the deceased’s family, there was no action.

In June last year, after Brahmdev Singh was “murdered”, more than 50 villagers marched to the police station for registration of a cross-FIR, calling it a case of unilateral firing by security personnel. The then Latehar SP Prashant Anand had told The Indian Express: “The entire complaint seems to be an afterthought.” However, he had said that the CID’s investigation would clear the issue.

Miffed at the police’s “inaction”, Jeramani filed a complaint in the lower court in October last year. After hearing the sides, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Mithilesh Kumar on January 1 this year ordered the police to follow the provisions 156(3) i.e when a court directs the police to register an FIR. Meanwhile, since there was a delay in police’s response, subsequently a plea was filed in the HC for a CBI inquiry.

Interestingly, as per the court records, SHO Ranjeet Kumar Yadav of the Garu police station on February 2 had written to the Judicial Magistrate — which surfaced during the HC hearing — that an FIR had already been registered and the CID was separately investigating the case. He then wrote to the court: “This is to inform that the Ranchi CID is already investigating the case and the place of occurrence is also the same and it is an independent agency. It is not in accordance with the law that two agencies investigate the same incident.”

The petitioner’s lawyer, Shailesh Poddar, who is associated with the People’s Union for Civil Liberties in Jharkhand, in an affidavit informed the High Court that the police’s submission was “contempt of court” after going through the state’s submission. He stated: “…It is submitted that there is no provision in the law where any individual or state agency can write correspondence to a court stating their inability to comply with a judicial order. It is outright contempt of court as it clearly states their willful disobedience of an order of the court.” He also submitted that the recoveries shown by the police were ‘fake’ as the two witnesses to the seizure had given an affidavit, saying that they were “forced to sign papers”, and hence the application for a CBI inquiry.

On May 12 this year, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi of the Jharkhand High Court said the police did not register an FIR despite the order. “The said order was not complied with on the ground that…(a case) has already been registered and investigation is being done by the CID, Jharkhand.” The court then asked the state to file a counter-affidavit as to why the matter was not handed over to the CBI and posted the matter for June 28.

Lawyer Shailesh Poddar told The Indian Express: “Recently, I got to know that the FIR had already been registered on May 3. It is strange as the state never mentioned it to the HC on the May 12 hearing.”

PC Sinha, Assistant Counsel to the Government Advocate, who had appeared on May 12, told The Indian Express: “I don’t know anything about it.”