Bereaved mother prepares dossier
Woman turns sleuth to prove cops killed
her son in cold blood
her son in cold blood
• His mother has, via RTI, sewn together a compelling case against the inspector who gunned him down in a late-night encounter more than a year ago
Hemanth.Kashyap @timesgroup.com
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Daily/skins/MIRRORNEW/navigator.asp?Daily=BGMIR&showST=true&login=default&pub=MM&AW=1327287726967
On the night of September 25, 2010, a young boy was shot dead by the police in the Yeshwanthpur limits. The police inspector involved in the incident has cited self-defence for the encounter killing, but the aggrieved family has rejected the official version and is determined to see that justice is done to their slain child.
The boy's mother has approached the chief minister, the home minister, the state police chief, the state and national human rights panels, and the Lokayukta.
Dismayed by the lack of progress in the case, she is now set to appeal to the High Court for the investigation to be handed over to the CBI. Bolstering her allegation of a stagemanaged encounter at the behest of her son's enemies is a voluminous dossier of documents which she and her other son took a whole year to collect through the RTI route.
During the 2010 encounter, Yeshwanthpur police inspector M K Ganapathi shot at 20-year-old Prashanth twice. One bullet hit the boy in the ankle while the second, from just two feet away, hit him square in the head, killing Prashanth instantly.
One of the major points of suspicion raised by Prashanth's mother Umadevi is that a rowdy sheet was opened in his name just five days before the incident. As she has pointed out in her submissions to the authorities, her son was involved in nothing more serious than a few brawls, none of which justified his being killed in a brutal encounter.
A compelling piece of evidence in Umadevi's possession is an audio clip of Inspector Ganapathi talking to a girl who had lodged a complaint against Prashanth. The conversation took place a few months after the encounter and the inspector is heard telling her to amend her earlier complaint. The girl had recorded the conversation and given the tape to Umadevi.
Umadevi and her husband Ramakrishna Reddy are residents of Mathikere in Yeshwanthpur limits since the last 40 years. They have another son, Lakshmikanth, who is older to Prashanth.
Prashanth completed his 12th standard in HKES College in Sadashiva Nagar, after which he discontinued his studies. His mother admits that he got into bad company and was involved in a few petty cases. "But he was just 20, and no rowdy to be killed brutally in an encounter," Umadevi told
Bangalore Mirror.
Bangalore Mirror.
The precursor to the encounter was a bar brawl between Prashanth, along with his friends, and an acquaintance, Balaji. The latter was hospitalised with injuries and Prashanth, shaken by the incident but wary of the police, was thinking of surrendering in a court.
In his police report, inspector Ganapathi said a complaint was lodged in the Yeshwanthpur police station and he and his team went in search of Prashanth and his friends. On a tip-off, the team went to Dobbespet but drew a blank there. "Around midnight, we were informed that Prashanth was hiding near the Yeshwanthpur railway workshop. With sub-Inspector Lohith and four constables, we went there. When he saw us coming, he attacked Lohith with a machete. I shouted to him to surrender but he continued attacking us. I fired in the air, and when he did not stop I shot at his leg. Even after that, he kept coming at us. To save myself and my staff, I shot him and he collapsed," the inspector said in his report.
But Umadevi and Lakshmikanth say the inspector's version is riddled with inconsistencies. In their submissions to the authorities, they have posed the following questions:
» In his police report on the incident, Ganapathi says he and his team went to Dobbespet to trace Prashanth. But he has not mentioned this point in his answer to the Lokayukta's query.
» After the bar incident, Prashanth, fearing the police, had planned to surrender in a court. In such a situation, why would he be sitting near the railway workshop?
» It was dark and SI Lohith had a torch in his hand. According to Ganapathi, Prashanth attacked Lohith and the latter fell down. The torch too would have fallen to the ground. Prashanth could have easily run away in the dark. Besides, how could Ganapathi aim exactly at Prashanth's leg and then head in the dark? » According to the post-mortem report, one of the bullets completely shattered Prashanth's ankle. How then could he be in a position to continue his assault on the inspector?
» The bullet to Prashath's head was from around two feet away, according to the post-mortem report. How was it possible for Ganapathi to shoot him at point-blank range in the dark?
» According to Ganapathi, he, sub-inspector Lohith and four constables went in search of Prashanth. If true, what were the four doing, or did they just stand by and watch him being shot down?
» Ganapathi says Prashanth collapsed from the bullet to his head at around 12:45 am, but the police took him to M S Ramaiah Hospital at 2 am. The hospital is just two km from the spot and it would take five to 10 minutes to reach there. Why the 75-minute delay?
» The police press note says Prashanth was a notorious rowdy. But he was involved only in five minor cases. The police had booked him in a few attempted dacoity cases, but these were dismissed by the courts. Was this enough justification to kill a 20-yearold youth?
» On September 20, 2010, five days before the encounter, Ganapathi opened a rowdy sheet in Prashanth's name. Why this sudden decision? » Ganapathi says Prashanth hit him with a machete and injured him badly. But according to the report of M S Ramaiah hospital, where Ganapathi was treated, the injury was just four cm long. Would a machete cause such a small cut?
ARMED WITH AFFIDAVITS
Umadevi and Lakshmikanth have also shot daytime and night-time photos of the encounter spot. "I have taken affidavits from all those connected with the encounter. An investigation will reveal the truth," Umadevi said. "I would not have minded if the police had arrested him and sent him to jail. He would have learnt from his mistakes. We had put him in a de-addiction centre to cure him of his drinking habit," the grieving mother said.
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment