New Delhi, January 15: Terming the allegedly fake encounter in which spokesperson of Communist Party of India (Maoist) Cherkuri Rajkumar alias Azad was gunned down in Adilabad in July as ‘lawless’, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Union and Andhra Pradesh governments to respond ‘satisfactorily’ within six weeks over the killing.
Azad and journalist Hemchandra Pandey were killed in the alleged encounter during the intervening night of July 1 and 2, 2010 by the police in Adilabad.
Accepting a plea filed by Rights activist Swami Agnivesh and Azad’s wife Babita, a Bench, comprising of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice RM Lodha directed the Government to respond ‘satisfactorily’ and said that it cannot allow such lawless killings to go on.
“In our republic we cannot allow the state to behave in such lawless manner and allow our children to be killed. We hope the state has some satisfactory answer to this petition,” the Supreme Court Bench said.
Calls for a judicial probe into the killing began soon after the news of the alleged encounter broke, with Civil Rights activists accusing the government of murdering the Maoist leader and journalist Hemchandra Pandey in cold blood and terming the encounter as fake.
The Supreme Court Bench said, “We hope that the government will provide a good and convincing answer. The government will have to answer so many questions.” The petitioners had pointed out to the postmortem reports of the two men and also to a fact-finding mission carried out by the Civil Rights groups which indicated that the encounter was fake.
The fact-finding mission was carried out by Coordination of Democratic Rights Organisations (CDRO), a National coalition of Human Rights Organisations. The Civil Rights groups found out from the postmortem reports that both the slain men were shot dead from a very close range.
The police had claimed on July 2, 2010 that that they had received information that some Maoists were on their way to the state from Maharashtra and had set up check posts along possible routes into the state.
The police also claimed that they saw some persons acting suspiciously at around 10 pm on the night of July 1, and shouted orders to get them to stop. They said that persons then scurried across into the forest with the police personnel on duty going after them.
The Maoists then fired at the police who were forced to retaliate. The exchange of gunfire continued till around 2:30 am on July 2.
After the firing stopped the security forces ventured into the conflict area and discovered two bodies.
The state police had claimed that an AK-47, a 9 mm pistol and two kit bags were also recovered from the scene of the encounter.
Soon after this, doubts had been raised by various Maoists sympathisers on the police version of the shootout.
Claiming that the ‘encounter’ was fake, these sympathisers pointed out that Azad’s mother had already filed a petition on March 20, 2010 before the State Human Rights Commission claiming that the top Maoist leader was missing since March 12.
The Supreme Court has issued notices to the Centre and State governments seeking their reply in six weeks.
The Apex Court also asked the Centre and the State to respond to the petition filed by a social activist Swami Agnivesh and Hemachandra Pandey’s wife Babita for judicial inquiry into the killing of Maoist leader and Delhi-based journalist in an alleged fake encounter six months ago. Azad had acted as a spokesperson for the CPI (Maoist) party.
Making remarkable comments, the Bench of Justices, Mr Aftab Alam and Mr R M Lodha, observed that the Republic was killing its own children and it would not be allowed. Seeking the two governments’ replies to the petition within six weeks, the Bench felt “We hope there will be an answer. There will be a good and convincing answer. The government will have to answer to so many questions”.
Making a request for judicial inquiry into the alleged fake encounter, the petitioners alleged that the post-mortem reports of both the victims and a fact-finding report of human rights groups have clearly indicated that the encounter was not genuine.
INN/NSS