An inquiry commission revealed the lies of Hyderabad police, which was set up by the Supreme Court after the encounter killing of all the four accused by police who were accused of rape and murder of a female doctor Disha in Hyderabad.
The commission asked 160 questions to the then Telangana Police Commissioner Sajjanar and other police officers about the encounter, after which the facts of the case which were initially suppressed by the police are slowly coming to the lead.
Hyderabad police held a press conference on 6 December 2019, after the arrest and encounter killing of the four accused in the Disha murder and rape case. The then Hyderabad Police Commissioner VC Sajjanar shared the graphic sequence of the crime against the victim veterinarian doctor Disha and also praised his police team.
The police claimed that the four accused were killed in the encounter as they were trying to escape and hence open fire on them. Though the police department was applauded for the encounter, but it was hard to believe the showcased reality. Everything was out of the ordinary hence the suspicion was ought to happen.
Almost after two years of the death of the four accused, the facts of this case are slowly coming to the forefront, which was initially repressed by the police. The inquiry commission has denied the official narrative of the police encounter. The commission interrogated 160 questions to the then Police Commissioner Sajjanar on 11-12 October and recorded his statement.
Men’s Rights Activist voices
Just after the encounter activist working for Men’s Rights and raised the question over ‘Instant Justice’ before trial and had also raised various questions over various other aspects of the encounter. Many believed that this was a fake encounter and police has made the Four a scapegoat to prove their efficiency, many believed that they were underage juveniles.
“Encounter killing” becoming culture which essentially happening before the trial by the court, which arises question over the system that they do not they do not want to follow the process of their own system, and at the same time they follow every single guideline when there is a woman accused, said an activist.
a mens rights activist said
Inquiry Commission
The commission started up the investigation with the questioning of Sajjanar, during which he was asked questions about the formation and monitoring of the Special Operations Team (SOT) involved in the encounters of the accused. There are clear details about how the SOTs was formed and who will monitor and lead it, but still, Sajjanar stated that “the team did not report to him, but officers junior to him”.
According to the police manual, the weapons could only be issues after Sajjanar’s approval and a register has to be maintained for the purpose of issuance, along with the period and date of issue, but in this case, there is no such entry in the arm’s register.
He explained this and said in this regard the Commission should question the officer who prepares such register, not him.
The then police commissioner Sajjanar, supervising the case, ordered nine investigations to investigate the death of the lady doctor. Teams were formed and directed to submit case status “to reports the progress from time to time to him”. Still, he denied overseeing the investigation, claiming that his role was limited to taking regular briefings from junior officers. He also refused that he identified the members of the SOT in the case. But his memo dated 30 November 2019 shows that he has been prepared to cooperate and protect the ACP of Shadnagar during the custodial investigation of the accused.
It was also learned that he (Sajjanar) had also favoured a special vehicle to take the accused to the spot (firing). Along with this, he had approved the provision of six big weapons to the escort police. In which he provided arms to the policemen.
On November 29, the Commissioner informed the media of the graphic details of the crime allegedly committed by the accused but admitted before the commission that it was completed was based on the briefing of the DCP. He again claimed that his press statements were based on CCTV footage and other scientific evidence gathered but his details that the accused put the cloth in the victim’s mouth can not be based on the CCTV footage. There is no scientific evidence of recovery from the victim’s undergarments, purses and cards. As a result, they had to admit that there was no scientific evidence before their press meeting.
He addressed the press conference single-handedly but did not know the written press statement issued on the occasion. He agreed that the press conference was based on the first confession of the accused.