By Ayesha Minhaz for Twocircles.net
Hyderabad, February 22: When Mohammad Muqtar returned home to Doma village of Ranga Reddy District (Telangana) on Friday night, his family was elated. Almost a year ago, Muqtar had gone missing, and the reason behind his missing is precisely why his family is worried.
“He might be framed in false cases,” said Mohammad Mustafa, brother of Muqtar.
Mustafa is referring to the incident on March 15, 2015 when Muqtar was named accused in the missing case of a minor girl Lakshmi (name changed), then 17 years old. A case was booked against Muqtar under IPC 376 (for rape), 363 (abduction) and section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
“The girl Lakshmi and my brother knew each other for some time. Around a month after both Muqtar and Lakshmi went missing, the girl returned home, but Muqtar didn’t,” recalled Mustafa.
Fearing for Muqtar’s safety, Mustafa and the rest of Muqtar’s family had been running from pillar to post for a year.
In fact, in the second week of February 2016, the family of Muqtar had spoken to this reporter and informed her that they plan to approach State Human Rights Commission once again. A week later,
Muqtar contacted his family and surrendered. The reporter met Muqtar on Saturday, which had been a long day for Muqtar. He had surrendered that day, first before the Minority commission. Then, he was taken to the Ranga Reddy SP’s office who asked them to go to the Parigi Police Station. During this process, he was accompanied by Amjedullah Khan, an ex-corporator.
In the past one year, Muqtar kept in touch with his friends and spoke to them a few times for updates, but he chose to not to name them (friends) to avoid them any trouble. It was after his friends tipped him about the ‘rape case’ that he fled to Mumbai.
Muqtar denies the allegations of kidnapping, but accepts that he was aware that it was punishable to get married to a minor.
“We loved each other. I didn’t kidnap or force her to come with me. The entire episode of how I took her to Hyderabad was concocted. She came to Hyderabad on her own and called me. This was the third time she had left her house and come to me. We stayed in Visakhapatnam for a few weeks, but after her father contacted us and gave assurance, I sent her back,” claimed Muqtar.
“Initially, I drove a taxi and then became a worker in the construction sector in Mumbai. All the while, I have wanted to come back” Muqtar said.
On what or who prompted him to surrender a year after he went missing, Muqtar remains silent. Instead, he keeps reiterating that he loves the girl and wants to marry her.
“Even the girl’s father had given an assurance that they will marry us off. However, the sub-inspector Prem Kumar of Doma Police Station and a few other relatives of Lakshmi didn’t want the wedding and added a communal and criminal colour to a simple love story,” claims Muqtar.
When Lakshmi’s father K Venugopal was asked if he gave assurance to Muqtar about marriage, he sounded helpless. “After my daughter went missing, I did tell him that I will accept the marriage proposal if my daughter returns home. That was the only option we had. I wanted my daughter back. But Muqtar isn’t our relative, neither is he a neighbour. How can I marry my daughter off to anyone who claims to love her?”
Talking to Muqtar and Venugopal made it clear that both of them were in touch while the Doma PS continued investigation on the lines of a missing case (Lakshmi). However, the conversations between Muqtar and Venugopal haven’t been mentioned in police records.
Inconsistencies in investigation
A part of the information sent by the police department to the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) reveals that they submitted information which contradicted their own records.
In the enquiry report to the SHRC (dated 13-06-2015), the SP of Ranga Reddy district wrote that “As such on 14-02-2015, her father K. Venugopal approached the Doma PS and lodged a complaint suspecting Muqtar @ Chotu in the missing of Lakshmi (name changed) as he too found missing since then.”
However, the initial complaint filed by K.Venugopal on February 14, 2015 had no mention of Muqtar being involved in the missing of his daughter. It was only after his daughter returned on March 14, 2015 that the case was altered and Muqtar was named as the accused.
While the official complaint against Muqtar came in the latter half of March, 2015 the alleged harassment of Muqtar’s family at the hands of the Doma Police began quite early.
“Family and friends were being summoned every day soon after the first case was lodged. We were threatened to disclose whereabouts of Muqtar, about which we had no clue. We were worried sick about Muqtar as some relatives of Lakshmi were spreading rumours that they had killed my brother,” Mustafa, Muqtar’s brother, alleges.
Raheema Bee and her family wanted to file a complaint about missing of Muqtar, but police avoided the same. On March 3, 2015 she eventually approached the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) pleading them to take necessary steps. Another request was made by Raheema Bee on March 23, 2015 (after Lakshmi returned home) requesting the SHRC to direct police to trace Muqtar.
Even after two successive petitions at the SHRC, the complaint about missing of Muqtar wasn’t taken by the Doma Police and as a result, Raheema Bee consumed poison and succumbed on April 3
The police and Raheema Bee’s family offer different versions about her death.
The SP of Ranga Reddy noted in a letter to SHRC that Raheema Bee committed suicide in front of the panchayat and village elders due to “attitude of her son and their involvement in a criminal case.”
However, the family claims that they were harassed and hounded by the investigating officer.
“After two successive petitions at SHRC, the harassment of sub-inspector Prem Kumar increased and he implicated our family in a petty case (fight with neighbours). On March 29, 2015, we were called to the station and insulted once again. The same day, my mother consumed pesticide in front of the sub inspector Prem Kumar,” Mustafa said.
The SP of Ranga Reddy in his letter to SHRC wrote that “No evidence could be established about harassment of Raheema Bee by sub-inspector Prem Kumar.”
Another glaring inconsistency is how the dying declaration of Raheema Bee was never taken. Even though a medico-legal case was registered on March 29, 2015, neither the Afzal Gunj Police Station (under which the Osmania General Hospital falls, where Raheema Bee died) nor the Parigi Police took the dying declaration. The declaration, if taken, would have served as an evidence of what forced Raheema Bee to commit suicide.
“The final rites of my mother were rushed by the cops. We weren’t allowed to take her body back to village and had to bury her here,” recalled a teary-eyed Mustafa.
Now that he is back, the family of Muqtar demands “proper investigation into the entire case and justice.”
When asked if he was guilt-ridden for not contacting his family for one year, Muqtar became silent for a while.
“I got to know about my mother’s death a few weeks ago from a friend. I also got to know that the rest of my family was unwaveringly trying to trace me. I decided to come back and contacted my brother who arranged for the surrender,” said Muqtar.
“Muqtar has surrendered, but we haven’t taken him into remand yet. The confession note is being taken and the investigation will continue after that,” the investigating officer said. The Ranga Reddy district SP has assured a fair investigation into the case.
As it stands today, a year after the incident: Muqtar and his family waits for what happens next. Meanwhile, Lakshmi, who turned 18 last September, discontinued college. Also, several questions remain unanswered about the way the case was handled by cops, which are likely to remain so if not probed into.
Ayesha Minhaz is a freelance report based out of Hyderabad. (She Tweets at @ayesha_minhaz)