SHAH COMMISSION OF INQUIRY (Appointed under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952) THIRD AND FINAL REPORT AUGUST 6, 1978[ SHAH COMMISSION OF INQUIRY (Appointed under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952) THIRD AND FINAL REPORT AUGUST 6, 1978 aCONTENTS. Pages ‘Cuarrtn XVI. Wrongful Confinement and Torture of Shri Lawrence Fernandes by the Pol jceand his Maltreatment in Jail . 1 Cuarrer XVII Cases from Haryana State : © Detcation of Shei Murtidbar Damian. ees (i) Detention of Sori ML Kak a Detention of Cir. Pritam Dutta. et Gv) Detention of Shri hwar Lal Choudhary =. ee, te () Detention of ShriPitambarLal Goyal... ee) (i) Use of force inthe family planning programme in village Uttawas, District Gurgaon, Haryana 23 Gharren XVIII Abuse of Authority—in Service shatters tot et 4 we eS See Cuaeren XIX Arrests and Detetions-—General and Statewite report. Peer area Cmaeren XO Condltlonsin Jails—Statewise report kk ‘CunereR XKI. Implementation of Family Planning Programme--General and Statewise report... 453-207 Canerae XXL Demolions—Generl and Statewie port kT (Cuarzen XXIII Complaints and the inanner oftheir disposal Tea eH Hap base aga Cunerun XXIV. General Observations ©. ek ate Cuarme XXV Conclusion we, 7 23 Cuarten XVI Summary of Findings, Observations and Recommendations 2-202 APPENDICES © AppendicA pete BEES ee ERE EEE EEE - 2ea—265 (i) Appendix B Eee ee BEE eee 266 i) Appendix C me Se gee Se + 267~284 ©OSES ATE CHAPTER XVI Wrongful Confinement and Torture of Shri Lawrence Fernandes by the Police and Maltreatment in Jail 16.1 Shri Lawrence Fernandes of Bangalore complained to the Commission that he was taken away from his house in Bangalore at about 8.45 p.m. on May 1, 1976, by two policemen—Inspector Narayan Rao and another officer belonging to the Corps. of Detectives of the Karnataka Potice, Bangalore ; that he was taken to the ollice ‘of the Corps of Detectives and was intercoguted by the police ofliccrs regarding the whereabouts of his brother, Shri George Feraandes ; that Shri Krishna- «murthy’ Raju, Superintendent of Police of Corps of Detectives, also interrogated him in this connec tion. and when he could not give - information to the satisfaction of the police officers, Shri Raju got annoyed and asked the police officers “to start the work” ; that he was brutally assaulted by 8 to 10 policemen including Inspector Narayan Rao, Inspector Shiva Swamy and 5 to 7 other officers : that he was beaten with lathis, in consequence of ‘which he suffered injuries on his hands and feet and the rest of his body ; that the assault continued til 3.00 a.m. the next morning, and during éhis period he was not given anything to eat or drink. 16.2 The, story of Shri Lawrence that he was taken away by the police on the night of May 1, 1976, is corroborated by the report lodged by his father. Shri J. J. Fernandes, with the police control room on May 2, 1976. In'the “Crime and Occur- rence Sheet” daied May 3, 1976, maintained by the City Police, incorporating therein reports received on May 2, 1976, it is. revealed: that-a- telephonic message was received from Shri Jacob Fernandes that his son Shri J. J, Fernandes was missing since May 1, 1976. The name of the missing person is entered as ‘J. J. Fetnandes’ and stands in fact for Shri Lawrence ‘Fernandes. Shri Jacob Fernandes has stated that he had in his compiaint to the police control: room. informed that the police had taken away his son from his house on the night of May 1, 1976 and the enauities conducted by him with the Natious City Police stations had yielded no results. The police control room record relatioe to. the “Crime and Occurrence Sheet” dated May 3, 1976, mentions only the complaint made by Shri’ Jacob Bernandes that the complainant's son, Shri} J Fernandes was missing. This entry is silent regard ing what Shri Jacob Fermatides had told the Control Room about the police having takea away his son Shri Lawrence Fernandes. Shri Srinivascvul, the then Deoutv Commissioner of Police, has. stated before the Commission that an inward register is maintained in the control room in which a ist of all the messages received by the control room during the dav are entered. This inward repister was not ‘roduced before the Commission on the plea that it was’ not available.” The Comimission is- unable to ascertain the contents of the entry in the inward register pursuant to what Shri Jacob Fernandes had reported to the Control Room. The mother of Shri Lawrence Fetnandes also submitted a petition and a telegram dated May 5, 1976 and May 7, 1976 respectively, addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, and other officials com- plaining therein that her soa Shei Lawrence Fernan- des was taken away by the police Trom. the house on May 1, 1976, at about 8.43 p.m, Copies of these had also been sent to the Chief Minister of Karnataka, the President of India, the Prime Minister of India and the Chief Justice of India. These contemporaneous complaints made by the Parents of Shri Lawrence eircumstantially ‘corrobo- fate the evidence ot Shri Lawrence Fernandes that fhe was in fact taken away from his house by the police on the night of May 1, 1976. 16.3 Shri Vikram Rao, a ‘Correspondent of the Times of India and- one of the accused in the Baroda Dynamite Case has stated that he had scen Sari Lawrence in police custody on May 1, 1976, when Shri Lawrence was pointed out to him through a window and he was asked to identify Shri Lawrance Fernandes. 164 Shri Konarak, son of Shri Pattabhicoma Reddy has also stated that he saw Shri Lawrence travelling in the same jeep as himself on the morn- ing of May 2, 1976, though he did not speak to Shri Lawrence | Fernandes. Shri. Pattabhitams Reddy has also stated before the Commission thap his son Konarak, after he had been released by tht police on May 3, 1976, had told him that he ht ‘een Shri Lawrence in the custody of the police én May 2. 1976. 16.5 The complaints of the parents of Shri Lawrence Fernandes and the statements of §/Shri Viktam Rao and Konarak, establish that” Shri Lawrence Fernandes was in fact in the cuspdy of the police from the night of May 1, 1976 qhwards. There is no viher evidence to disprove tfat fact, Failure to produce the inward register maintained in the control room for the relevant perigl in spite of the efforts “of the Commission to procure the same from the authorities concerned, asfumes signi- ficance.’ ‘The Commission is therefor of the view that the statement of Shri Lawzenes/that he was taken away from his house and kept #4 ilegal police custody from May 1, 1976, is true,’ 16.6 Shri Lawrence has in his complaint alleged that on the night of May 3, 1976, his physical con- dition had deteriorated considerably because of the police torture and some doctor was called by the police to examine. him, He has stated. that the name of the doctor was Dr. Rajgopal16.7 De. Rajgopal who was examined betoce. the S.0n, has stated that he had attended on Shn Lawreice on May 3, 1976. Dr. Rajgopal thas stated mat he was called out at night from mus house, by some constables attached io the Malles- waram Fouiee Station and was asked to accompany them to examine-a relative of a police olicer wno was unwell; uit he was taken by these constables in a closed’ motor car or a jeep and was ushered into a big buiding wuere, mn a room, he saw a Person weang a “net Danian” standing in 9 “bending” position; that he—Dr. Rajgopal--tcied fo ascertain what the matter was with the person, but the police constables advised him—Dr. Kaj, ‘gopal—not to put questions but only to examine the patient; that he accordingly examined the patient and found him in severe pain; that the Patient was also complaining about put in his foot, thet he—Dr. Rajgopal—advised those present to get the patient “immédiatcly hospitalised and X-ray. ed”; that in the view of Dr. Rajgopal, “injuries ‘must have been due to some external violence or some such thing” as there was swelling on his body: and that he suspected fracture of the loft lower fost and recommended Xray. Ds. Rajgopal said_ that he saw the sume patient at whe K. © Gensral Hos, pital on May 13, 1976 and recognised him as the seme person whom he had seen about 10 days ‘eailier whem he was called out by some police cont= tables from his house in the night und was shown a patient lodged in a room of a big building; that on May 13, 1976 also he' was ‘not allowed fo ask uestions 16 the patient by the police officers who hhad brought him; that ne, Dr. Rajgopal, had told the police officers that it would not be possible to admit him in the hospital unless they’ brought « memo and a slip from the Out Patients Department for his examination and admission; aud that by the time Dr, Raigopal went out to the OPD and return: ed within about 10 minutes, Shri Lawrence and the police party accompanying him had deft the place. Dr. Rajgopal stated that he did not know he name of the patient until after when he saw the Rus carrying the details of detention of Shri Law- 42ee and his treatment in the K. C. General Hos pit which had appeared in the papers after the emegeney was lifted 168.No adequate reason is suggested why the statement made before the Commission by Dr Rajgopal should not be accepted. No evidence has been adduced by the police officers concerned 10 felute tle statement made by Dr. Rajgopal + nor have the: alleged any ground which may throw doubt on the varacity of Dr. Rajgopal. 16.9 Shn Lawrence hes stated in his complaint that during “he time that he was iu the custody of the police at the Malleswaram Police Station, he had developed severe chest pain in the carly morn ig of May 7. 1976, at about 2 a.m, and had com. plained to the police about some trouble in breathe ing j that thereupon Inspector Parameshwarappa along with two constables of Malleswaram Police Station had taken him to the K. C. General Hospi- ‘tal in 9 taxi; that he was attended to by one ‘Dr. Javarappa who prescribed aa injuction and some tablets; that one nurse Mary gave the injection as prescribed. Dr, Javarappa has stated that a patient was brought at about 2 am. in a wheeled chait ‘tured aiter washing his hands, the police officer by name Shri Parameswarappa ‘when he ‘was on casualty duty; that the patient who. was wearing only a “banian”, was speaking in a low voice and complaining of pain in and around the chest; that hhe advised the staff nurse to give him some pain: relieving injection and advised the officer to” take the patieat to a physician the, next day ; that the Patient was hardly with him—Dr. Javarappa—for about 4 to 5 minutes, and that by the time ho 1. fumed afier washing ‘his hands, the police officer had left the place with the patient, ‘No entry in any official records was made by Dr. Javarappa about this visit nor did ke mention about this fact of & patient brought by a police officer under police escort in a wheeled chair, without any official uote, and the police party leaving the hospital abcuptly along with the patient, to any of his senior officers fon the following day. " He has, however, stated that 4 fow days tier this Dr, Rajgopal had narrated to him that he had been iaken by the police to a far off place where he had examined patient in- Yolved in the Dynamite case, and that on hearing this from De, Rajgopal, Dr, Javarappa thought that the person who was brought to him on that night when he was on casualty duty might have been the sume pewson. Dr. Javarappa, however, didnot identity Shui Lawrence before’ the Commission. 16.10 Inspector Parameswarappa of the Malles- waram Police Station, while deposing before the Commission, stated that he had visited the K, C. General Hospital Casualty Ward on one night in May 1976, with his brother who was, sulfering irom 4 heart ailment, and who was complaining of pain in the chest when Inspector Parameswarappa had returned home late that aight. Inspector Parames- Warappa was not able to give a satisfactory expla. nation as to why his brother, who was a heart patient, was taken at that time of the night to thé hospital under police escort and as to why be did not think it necessary to get entries made in the relevant hospital registers regarding the treatment given to bis brother for a heart ailment. He has denied that he had taken his brother to the hospi- tal under police escort. “He was not able to explain satisfactorily as to why he took away his brother in such a great hurry and even before the doctor who had gone in to wash his hands, came back. He ‘was unable to explain why he was'in Uniform oa that occasion. Inspector Parameswarappa fad also not been able to explain why he did not give even the name of the patient, nor did he inform the medical officer his relationship with the patient. No case papers, were prepared in the hospital with regard to the visit of his brother; it is indeed sur- prising why. if the patient was in Yact a heart Patient, he had chosen to take him away without the clearance from the doctor ot for that matter even without waiting for the doctor to return after washing his: hands." The doctor had’ advised’ the Patient to be shown. to a physician the following