The Justice VS Sirpurkar panel that submitted its findings into the 2019 extra-judicial killings of four people accused in the rape and murder of a Hyderabad veterinarian, said that policemen knew two of the four accused were minors before they shot them dead. The Commission has poked holes in the Hyderabad police’s claim that the four people they killed were above 18 years of age, and that they snatched their weapons and tried to flee and the police fired in self-defence.
The Commission concluded that three of the four suspects — Jollu Shiva, Jollu Naveen and Chintakunta Chennakeshavulu — were minors, and the fourth, Mohammed Arif, was 26 years old. Moreover, police officials had visited the school that Jollu Shiva and Chennakleshavulu studied in and found their ages — both 15 — just a few days after Disha was raped and murdered.
“It becomes clear apparently the police, from the physical appearance of at least two of the deceased, did have doubts about their age,” the Commission said, adding that two policemen went to a school to check the school register a few days after the rape and murder incident on November 27, 2019. “Yet, the entire investigation record is silent over this. The only logical inference is that the facts on juvenility have been deliberately suppressed,” the Commission report added.
The body of the 26-year-old veterinarian was found on November 27, 2019. Two days later, on November 29, the four accused were arrested by the police. The Commission noted that the headmaster of Jollu Shiva’s school had deposed that three or four days after the rape and murder, he had received a call that some police officials may come to check the school registers.
At 10.30 pm, two police officials visited the school. “When they asked for the records of J Shiva Kumar and C Chennakesavulu, he (headmaster) showed them the records. He also stated that they took photographs of the admission registers with mobile phones and that the policemen came from Shamshabad PS and one of them was a Sub-Inspector. This clearly suggests that the police were well aware of the school records of Jollu Shiva and Chennakleshavulu and yet they chose to gloss over it,” the Commission said. On December 6, early in the morning and seven days after their arrest, all the four accused were shot dead.
“This clearly suggests that the police were well aware about the school records of Jollu Shiva and Chennakeshavulu and yet have not recorded the age of the deceased persons according to the admission registers at any given point of time. Therefore, we are of the opinion that at the relevant time, Jollu Shiva, Jollu Naveen and Chintakunta Chennakeshavulu were minors,” the commission held in its conclusion.
This means that, according to the Commission, not only did the police shoot down three minors, they violated the law by arresting them in the first place. Remanding juveniles to judicial custody or police custody is illegal, as per the Juvenile Justice Act.
The Commission said that Chintakunta Chennakeshavulu’s wife Renuka, Jollu Shiva’s father Jollu Rajaiah, and Jollu Naveen’s mother Jollu Laxmi, all had submitted that the three were minors. Though even Mohammed Arif’s father had said he was a minor, he did not later make a further contention. The Commission called for school records as proof of age of the deceased. The Commission then arrived at the conclusion that three were minors.
Jollu Shiva was 17 at the time of his arrest, the commission noted, though his age in police records is noted as 19. The Aadhaar card belonging to Shiva mentioned his year of birth as 2001. Shiva’s father deposed before an NHRC team that his son’s age was 17 and that he would bring school documents as proof. The next evening, his father submitted a bonafide certificate from the school that stated his year of birth as 2002, which means he was 17 at the time he was shot dead by the police. Since Aadhaar is not a proof of age, and could have been falsified, school records gained precedence, the Commission held.
Jollu Naveen’s arrest memo recorded his age as 19. His confessional statement said 20. His mother Laxmi said his date of birth is February 2, 2002, which meant his age according to her was 17. However, a certificate from the school which Naveen attended states his date of birth was March 4, 2004. She also affirmed the date during the deposition. The principal of the school was then summoned, he checked school records and underwent rigorous cross-examination. The commission held that the school records would gain precedence, and this means Naveen was 15 years old when he was killed.
The wife of the third deceased Chintakunta Chennakeshavulu said that her husband too was a minor, though his parents had said that he was 19 when he was shot dead. She produced a copy of her Aadhaar card which mentioned her year of birth as 2004. She told the commission that she had deliberately misstated her age as 19 “due to the apprehension that her marriage took place when she was a minor.” The Commission said that it is of the opinion that “considering the socio-economic status of the witness, it is quite likely that the marriage was solemnized during minority.” Later, school records showed that Chennakeshavulu’s date of birth as per the admission was March 10, 2004. Chennakeshavulu was 15 years old at the time of his death.
Additionally what cemented the findings was that the customer application forms of the mobile numbers that belonged to the three boys showed that the numbers are registered in the names of their respective parents. The Commission noted that one aspect that indicated that the three were minors was revealed during the lead officer’s deposition. The officer was asked whether any of the mobile phone numbers allegedly used by Jollu Shiva, Jollu Naveen and Chintakunta Chennakeshavulu were registered in their respective names. “He answered that he had collected customer application forms of those numbers which showed that the numbers are registered in the names of their respective parents. He was then asked whether he was aware that according to the regulations prevalent in India, no SIM Card can be issued to a minor. His reply was that he has no idea,” the commission noted in its report.
About their Aadhaar cards indicating that they were older, the Commission noted that the relatives of the deceased did not try to suppress the Aadhaar cards even though they contradicted their claims. The Aadhaar cards were clearly forged to mention different ages, but the relatives did not hide them, the commission said. “They readily produced the Aadhaar cards during the course of their examination before the Commission. The commission finds them to be bonafide witnesses,” the report added. The panel also observed that the Aadhaar cards record only their year of birth as 2001, and no exact date of birth is mentioned in any of these documents. The commission also cited a Supreme Court judgement to state that Aadhaar is not a valid proof of date of birth, and the date of birth certificate obtained from the school as recorded in the deceased person’s admission registers, shall be the primary document evidencing the age of an alleged juvenile.
The Supreme Court-appointed panel probing the Hyderabad encounter case has held that the shooting of the four people accused in the Hyderabad rape and murder case was a ‘fake encounter’ and an extra-judicial killing, adding that the ten police officers who were at the spot should be tried for murder.
The panel’s report was submitted before the Supreme Court on Friday, May 20, and the Supreme Court had said that the report is made available to both parties, despite the opposition of the Telangana government counsel in court.
Vrinda Grover, counsel for the petitioners who asked for a probe into the case, said the report exposes the impunity enjoyed by the police. “The report lays bare the horrific truth as to how this is a very cruel joke being played on the women of this country. We will never know whether these four suspects were those who raped and murdered the 26-year-old in 2019,” Grover said. “So the right to justice of that family — of which a lot of noise was made by the police that this is being done for women — now we will never know whom they picked up, was there any evidence of their involvement in their crime.”
She added that the report only shows that the police are trying to undermine the rule of law. “Instead of doing the rigorous job of investigation, marshalling evidence so that it can be produced in the court of law, the police want to usurp the role of the judiciary and undermine rule of law. In the name of women’s safety, the police are actually destroying rule of law and want society to accord them impunity. This should be a clear signal to everyone in this country that there is neither a shortcut to assuring safety to women nor can there be any shortcut to securing justice,” Grover said.