.jpeg)
Human rights defender Kirity Roy, secretary of the West Bengal-based Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), in a representation to the chairperson, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), has alleged that the Border Security Force (BSF) is responsible for the killing of a Bangladeshi youth. Second incident this year (click here for the earlier incident), Roy said, “As usual the BSF complaint mentioned that there was a group of men involved in cross border smuggling and they intended to attack the BSF party while restricted and self defence two BSF personnel shot one round each.”
But, said Roy, the villagers informed the fact-finding mission that the Bangladeshi youth was alone when he was fired by the BSF personal and that the deceased was carrying a headload, thus was not in a position to attack. He added, “The incident violates the rights guaranteed in Article 21 of Indian Constitution, and the premise of Article 2 and 6 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, an international instrument.”
Text:
I want to draw your attention over another incident of brutal killing of a Bangladeshi youth by Border Security Force personnel attached with ‘Amar’ Border Outpost of ‘C’ Company of 6 BSF Battalion. The incident took place on 28.01.2024. This act is not only ruthless but treacherous as the BSF while meeting its counterpart at Bangladesh, vouching to low down the causality of Bangladeshis to zero at bordering area.It was reported that on the fateful day; 28.01.2024 at around 4:30 AM, a Bangladeshi youth named Rabiul Islam alias Tuklu aged about 34 years, son of Mr. Afjal Hossein, resident of village- Dangapara, Post Office & Police Station- Patgram of District- Lalmonirhat of Bangladesh was killed by gunfire of BSF personnel attached with above mentioned unit at 93 Fulkabari village under Bagdogra Gram Panchayet under Kuchlibari Police Station of Cooch Behar district of West Bengal. The place of occurrence was at opposite to international border pillar number DAMP 1/MP and 250 (approximate) away from international border. It was reported that when the incident occurred, the deceased was carrying a bag containing 50 kilograms of sugar on his head and was trying to smuggle it out to Bangladesh. By this fact, it is evident that the deceased was not in a position to attack the ‘Insas’ riffle carrying BSF personnel. Later, an inquest was done over the body at around 6.00 AM on 28.01.2024 by an Executive Magistrate and police and then the body was sent for post mortem examination at Mathabhanga Sub Divisional Hospital. On the same date at evening the body was handed over to Bangladeshi authority through a flag meeting.
One Mr. Brijlal Yadav; Sub Inspector; Reg No. 860031134 of BSF submitted a written complaint to the Kuchlibari PS and his complaint was registered Kuchlibari PS Case No. 18/24 dated 28.01.2024 under sections 147/148/149/186/188/332/333/353/307/379/411 of Indian Penal Code and 14 A/14 C of the Foreigners Act. The accused of this case was mentioned as 1. One unknown Bangladeshi national 2. One Pradip Roy, son of Sushil Roy of 93 Fulkabari 3. One Naresh Roy, son of Late Malo Roy of 101 Fulkabari 4. One Bishnu Roy, son of Late Brojen Roy of 93 Fulkabari.
This written complaint was concocted in nature and that is manifested by its content. As usual the BSF complaint mentioned that there was a group of men involved in cross border smuggling and they intended to attack the BSF party while restricted and self defence two BSF personnel shot one round each, but the villagers at the mentioned village informed the fact-finding mission that the Bangladeshi youth was alone when he was fired by the BSF personal, it was also reported that the deceased was carrying a headload thus not in a position to attack, secondly, no BSF personnel of the party received an injury to their body part. Our fact-finding mission further revealed that the co accused of the mentioned case; except the deceased Bangladeshi youth, are peace loving bonafide Indian citizen, have no involvement with cross border smuggling. There was no incident of cross border smuggling in that village. Their only fault was that they are residing at the adjacent area of the place of occurrence. It was a clear intension of BSF to make them accuse and force them to keep quiet on the incident.
Intriguingly the incident took place at around 4:30 AM of 28 January 2024, police and executive magistrate reached the spot at around 6:00 AM; as also mentioned in BSF’s written complaint but the record of Kuchlibari police station is showing that the General Dairy Reference Entry Number 1063 has been made at 23:50 and the column for ‘Reasons for delay in reporting by the Complainant information’ is blank and in other word is silent over the reason for delay.of reporting the incident of murder about 17 hours! The Officer in Charge of Kuchlibari PS and Recording Officer of that PS, Mr. Ajay Roy also manufactured the official document by putting the name of complainant at left side bottom of that FIR form.
This only validate the fact that another Bangladeshi youth has been killed by the trigger happy BSF personal without any justified reason and in contrary to their official stance of minimizing killing at India Bangladesh border.
The incident violates the rights guaranteed in Article 21 of Indian Constitution, to every person inside the Indian territory and the premise of Article 2 and 6 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, an international instrument; the government of India is a party and have agreement.
Hence, I demand for:
- An impartial and urgent investigation by Commission’s own investigation team
- A specific case of murder must be registered against the involved BSF personnel
- A specific case of destroying the evidences and giving false evidences should be initiated against Mr. Ajay Roy and connecting police personnel of Kuchlibari PS
- A specific case of destroying the evidence and giving false evidence should be initiated against the Executive Magistrate who conducted the inquest over Mr Rabiul
- Monetary compensation must be provided to the deceased’s family
- Witnesses must be protected from threat and allurement
Comments