Cop threatens complainant
IT SEEMS Lucknow police can go to any extent to water down a case of murder. Even if that involves threatening to implicate the complainant and residents in a false case if they dare to ?interfere? with policing.india Updated: Jan 15, 2006 00:16 IST
IT SEEMS Lucknow police can go to any extent to water down a case of murder. Even if that involves threatening to implicate the complainant and residents in a false case if they dare to ‘interfere’ with policing.
Sample this. On Saturday morning, a youth missing since late Friday evening, was found murdered with grievous head injuries in Krishnanagar.
The senior sub-inspector (SSI) of the local police station, instead of carrying out primary investigation into the matter, issued threats to acquaintances and family members of the kin.
Reason: The latter had dared to defy the SSI’s claim that the youth had suffered injuries in an accident and that he was not attacked.
The SSI threatened complainant Anil Upadhyay, who scribbled an application, stating that the youth was murdered, to initiate legal action for mustering the courage to challenge the cop’s theory.
Talking to HT Lucknow Live, Anil Upadhyay, resident of Surya Nagar locality and proprietor of Alka Vidya Mandir, Talkatora, said his neighbour Asha Bajpai and the latter’s son Manoj informed him about the murder of the latter’s brother Mukesh (27). Manoj was a teacher employed with Anil’s school. Krishnanagar police had contacted Asha around 9 am, intimating them about Mukesh’s body lying on the road in Sambharkhera locality.
Anil, accompanied by Asha and Manoj, rushed to the spot to see grievous injuries on Mukesh’s head. These injuries were inflicted with sharp-edged weapons, according to them.
While the trio was standing close to the body, the SSI started asking questions about Mukesh.
Asha Bajpai said that Mukesh had left home around 8 pm on Friday. Mukesh, who was a drunkard, did not return home since then. The family members were searching for him, when they were informed about his death.
After collecting the details, the SSI said the injury marks did not appear to be caused by an attack, but the victim met with an accident in an inebriated state. Mukesh’s kin, Anil and other local residents refuted the cop’s theory and insisted that the injury marks and the circumstantial evidence clearly indicated that the youth was murdered.
Facing strong protests, the SSI immediately modified his statement, saying that the youth was murdered elsewhere and the body dumped here later.
While Anil wrote down the application, the SSI reportedly threatened him that the latter would have to face legal action for interfering with policing.
Despite much reluctance, a case of murder was registered later. The motive behind the murder and identity of the assailant (s) were yet to be known.