By Raqib Hameed Naik and Amit Kumar, TwoCirlces.net
*New Delhi: One of the most ghastly images from the attacks on Muslims by
the so-called Gau Rakshaks came from Latehar in Jharkhand when two people,
including a minor, were hung on a tree with their hands tied at the back
for allegedly smuggling cows in July 2016. This incident created outrage in
the country at least for some time before the public conscience moved on to
the next victim of cow-related terror, and the people accused of this
ghastly crime were also soon let out on bail. Two years later, an
independent investigation revealed how state denied justice to the victims
and alleged police of sabotaging the probe. But that should not come as a
surprise to people who have been following the BJP government’s response to
various cases of deaths caused by these so-called Gau Rakshaks. The
investigation has found that despite a local namely Mohammed Nizamuddin in
his statement to the police naming Vinod Prajapati, a prominent BJP leader
in Latehar, as one of the perpetrators of the attack and yet two years
after the crime the police are yet to question Prajapati, let alone arrest
him for his role.In January this year, TwoCircles.net’s Afroz Alam Sahil
had visited the home of the victims as part of his lynching series
<twocircles.net/2018jan25/420257.html> where he had found ample
proof of the police’s inactions along with families living in fear due to
the terror unleashed by the so-called cow vigilantes. And today’s press
meet organised by various Indian and international organisations have
confirmed the findings of TwoCircles.net. But this should not come as a
surprise, and here is why. The recent conviction of 11 people in the
Ramgarh Lynching case <twocircles.net/2018mar22/421916.html> might
have given hope that Jharkhand police might finally be taking action
against these ghastly crimes, but it has proven to be a false dawn. The
Ramgarh lynching was close to Ranchi, the state capital, which ensured that
there was enough media coverage and protests that occurred around the
lynching, unlike Latehar where coverage and the anger died within a short
period of time. Secondly, unlike the Latehar case, the Ramgarh Lynching
case was tried in a fast track court which ensured a speedy and fair trial.
In fact, even the lawyers representing the state and the family of
Alimuddin Ansari acknowledged that the police followed the constitution and
conducted a strong and fair investigation into the matter. For the BJP,
this was a calculated gamble. The bail pleas of all their leaders and other
associates were rejected by the High Court and so by shifting the case to a
fast-track court, the BJP knew that whether guilty or accused, the verdict
will be out soon. And the resulting fallout (if any) would be minimal.
However, perhaps the biggest difference between the two cases and the
subsequent difference in the approach of the police is that in Ramgarh
lynching case, the biggest BJP person involved was a local media cell head.
And even though ‘media cell’ can sound important in the age of social
media, the truth is that in terms of the larger party hierarchy, it is an
irrelevant post. On the other hand, Vinay Prajapati is a leader of the
party and it is unlikely that the state government under BJP leadership
will try to punish its leaders, which explains why the investigation has
been so shoddy, as exposed by today’s press meet. The report released
added, “In the charge-sheet, the police claimed that “as yet, the
investigation has not found evidence of primary accused Vinod Prajapati’s
involvement in the crime” and therefore “investigation (in his possible
role) was still continuing”. Even though his name continues to be part of
the FIR, the prosecution is yet to bring charges against Prajapati 20
months after the trial started.”The independent investigation found out
that despite the unassailable eyewitness accounts, confessions and the very
definitive post-mortem reports, the police invoked only three sections of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the FIR. The case could have been stronger
if sections were invoked on the basis of testimonies of prosecution
witnesses.“The police did not conduct any investigation on those lines, and
therefore the charge-sheet failed to invoke the appropriate charges.
Indeed, many IPC sections the police ought to have included in the FIR,
investigated, and invoked in the charge-sheet, have been ignored,” the
report stated.Murder premeditatedThe report has further found out that
three people saw the crime being committed and the eyewitnesses knew some
of the murderers by face and name and the murderers had previously
threatened to kill the victims unless they stopped trading in cattle.Azad
Khan, father of one of the victims Imtiaz Khan had told the court that upon
reaching a certain place on his motorcycle he found the eight oxen grazing
on the side but Mazloom and Imtiaz were missing. Shortly, he heard his
son’s screams for help and, as he went ahead following the voice, he saw a
group of people armed with pistols abusing and assaulting Mazloom and
Imtiaz. “I immediately hid in the bushes. I saw Arun Saw had climbed a tree
and was fixing a rope. The others were on the ground trying to push Mazloom
and Imtiaz up to hang from the tree,” Azad said in his deposition.The
report also gives the account of five eyewitnesses and confessional
statements of the accused involved.The report has demanded that Latehar
Police and the prosecution immediately arrest Vinod Prajapati and
charge-sheet him for trial and the move to Supreme Court for the
cancellation of the bail of eight accused.It has further asked the
magistrate to record statements of the accused under Sec 164 CrPC and
include other IPC sections for conspiracy, abduction and assault, wrongful
confinement, use of weapons, and promoting religious enmity. Along with
investigating Hindutva groups for a possible link with the double murders,
the report has sought action against police officers responsible for the
delay in the registration of the FIR as well as the failure to include all
details in it. *
