Atrocious violation of citizen's rights: criminal charges by WB police against villager who questioned Mamata
JHARGRAM/KOLKATA: There isn't an easy let-off if one has earned the wrath of chief minister Mamata Banerjee. Shiladitya Chowdhury, the villager from Binpur who had "dared" to question Mamata on rising fertilizer prices at a rally last August and was jailed after being dubbed a "Maoist" by the CM, has learnt this the hard way. Unknown to either Shiladitya or his lawyer, Jhargram police have quietly submitted in court a chargesheet against the villager accusing him for criminal trespassing, attacking cops and criminal intimidation. If proved, the charges can land Shiladitya in jail for up to seven years. However, police seem to have debunked the CM's "Maoist" theory and not pressed any charge against him in this regard. Among the 19 witnesses cited in the chargesheet, eight are policemen, the others are local Trinamool Congress leaders and villagers.
Sub-inspector Ranjit Singh of Belpahari police station had submitted the chargesheet to his superiors on October 31, 2012. This was submitted in the court of additional chief judicial magistrate, Jhargram, on November 7. But it was only when Shiladitya attended the court on January 24 that he was served a copy. Based on the chargesheet, a Jhargram court will on March 8 frame charges and depute a court for trial.
The three-page chargesheet, a copy of which is with TOI, tries to buttress the reasons given by police for whisking off Shiladitya from among the crowd which had gathered to hear Mamata at the Belpahari BDO grounds on August 8.
It alleges that Shiladitya trespassed into a high-security zone, tried to push and shove cops, including Belpahari inspector-in-charge Nirmal Kumar Majhi, "in a furious mood" and using "threatening language" and then escaped. His identity couldn't be established then, the chargesheet says. Curiously, police had then claimed that Shiladitya had given them a false name, but the impersonation charges don't figure in the chargesheet. He was arrested from home two days later on August 10 and spent two weeks behind bars till a Midnapore court granted him bail.
"A mere look at the chargesheet is enough to show that the investigating officer is very imaginative and has good writing skills," said Shiladitya's lawyer Aswini Mondal. "A host of TMC leaders and supporters form the basis of this chargesheet, which is factually incorrect and self-contradictory. The two initial charges — that he is a Maoist and that he had impersonated — don't even figure in the chargesheet. Besides, what police seem to have forgotten is that the incident took place in front of thousands of people."
Shiladitya wasn't at home in Binpur's Nayagram when TOI reached there on Sunday morning. His wife said the villager had resumed work as a bus conductor on the Jhargram-Belpahari route two months ago. "He never discusses the court cases at home because our four-year-old son Shantanu gets extremely agitated. Whenever he steps out of home, Shantanu keeps asking have police taken him again."
Shiladitya's elder brother Tilak said, "On Thursday, when we attended the court we were given the papers. We handed these over to our lawyer." Their mother Sandhya said, "He isn't a Maoist and neither did he do anything wrong. I don't know for how long we have to bear with this." Former CPM MP Nilotpal Basu said, "The questions Shiladitya raised that day are now being raised by the CM herself. If the latter isn't wrong, how can Shiladitya be wrong? This shows the intolerance and the lack of democratic sensitivity of the government to public criticism." Bengal Congress president Pradip Bhattacharya said, "This is a purely vindictive attitude by the government and its chief minister. The poor farmer did nothing wrong. But I am at least happy police didn't implicate him as a Maoist."
Charges slapped against Shiladitya in court:
* Section 447 IPC | Criminal trespass | Bailable | Can be jailed for three months, or fined up to Rs 500
* Section 332 IPC | Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty | Non-Bailable | Can be jailed for three years, fined, or both
* Section 353 IPC | Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty | Non-Bailable | Can be jailed for two years, fined, or both
* Section 506 IPC | Criminal intimidation | Bailable | Normally has a maximum two year jail term, fined, or both. But also depends on what offence the intimidation leads to. For example, if it leads to heinous offences like death and destruction, the punishment may be 7 years in jail, fine, or both.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Chargesheet-against-man-who-irked-Mamata/articleshow/18214511.cms
Sub-inspector Ranjit Singh of Belpahari police station had submitted the chargesheet to his superiors on October 31, 2012. This was submitted in the court of additional chief judicial magistrate, Jhargram, on November 7. But it was only when Shiladitya attended the court on January 24 that he was served a copy. Based on the chargesheet, a Jhargram court will on March 8 frame charges and depute a court for trial.
The three-page chargesheet, a copy of which is with TOI, tries to buttress the reasons given by police for whisking off Shiladitya from among the crowd which had gathered to hear Mamata at the Belpahari BDO grounds on August 8.
It alleges that Shiladitya trespassed into a high-security zone, tried to push and shove cops, including Belpahari inspector-in-charge Nirmal Kumar Majhi, "in a furious mood" and using "threatening language" and then escaped. His identity couldn't be established then, the chargesheet says. Curiously, police had then claimed that Shiladitya had given them a false name, but the impersonation charges don't figure in the chargesheet. He was arrested from home two days later on August 10 and spent two weeks behind bars till a Midnapore court granted him bail.
"A mere look at the chargesheet is enough to show that the investigating officer is very imaginative and has good writing skills," said Shiladitya's lawyer Aswini Mondal. "A host of TMC leaders and supporters form the basis of this chargesheet, which is factually incorrect and self-contradictory. The two initial charges — that he is a Maoist and that he had impersonated — don't even figure in the chargesheet. Besides, what police seem to have forgotten is that the incident took place in front of thousands of people."
Shiladitya wasn't at home in Binpur's Nayagram when TOI reached there on Sunday morning. His wife said the villager had resumed work as a bus conductor on the Jhargram-Belpahari route two months ago. "He never discusses the court cases at home because our four-year-old son Shantanu gets extremely agitated. Whenever he steps out of home, Shantanu keeps asking have police taken him again."
Shiladitya's elder brother Tilak said, "On Thursday, when we attended the court we were given the papers. We handed these over to our lawyer." Their mother Sandhya said, "He isn't a Maoist and neither did he do anything wrong. I don't know for how long we have to bear with this." Former CPM MP Nilotpal Basu said, "The questions Shiladitya raised that day are now being raised by the CM herself. If the latter isn't wrong, how can Shiladitya be wrong? This shows the intolerance and the lack of democratic sensitivity of the government to public criticism." Bengal Congress president Pradip Bhattacharya said, "This is a purely vindictive attitude by the government and its chief minister. The poor farmer did nothing wrong. But I am at least happy police didn't implicate him as a Maoist."
Charges slapped against Shiladitya in court:
* Section 447 IPC | Criminal trespass | Bailable | Can be jailed for three months, or fined up to Rs 500
* Section 332 IPC | Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty | Non-Bailable | Can be jailed for three years, fined, or both
* Section 353 IPC | Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty | Non-Bailable | Can be jailed for two years, fined, or both
* Section 506 IPC | Criminal intimidation | Bailable | Normally has a maximum two year jail term, fined, or both. But also depends on what offence the intimidation leads to. For example, if it leads to heinous offences like death and destruction, the punishment may be 7 years in jail, fine, or both.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Chargesheet-against-man-who-irked-Mamata/articleshow/18214511.cms
