Vikas Dubey encounter: Judicial panel gives clean chit to police | Lucknow News

0
0


LUCKNOW: A three-member judicial commission gave a clean chit to the UP police in the Vikas Dubey encounter case, saying that the injuries suffered by the policemen could not have been self-inflicted or fabricated. It also said that the ambush in Kanpur district’s Bikru village after July 2 midnight was the result of “poor planning” and an “intelligence failure”.

The commission’s 825-page report was tabled in the state assembly by parliamentary affairs minister Suresh Khanna on Thursday. The commission has concluded in the report that Vikas Dubey had been informed about the raid on his house in advance and that Dubey had the patronage of the police, administrative and revenue authorities. Eight police personnel, including a DySP, were killed during a raid on Dubey’s house at Bikru village in the intervening night of July 2-3, 2020. Later, Dubey, who had escaped after the ambush, was arrested in Ujjain and shot dead in an encounter when a police vehicle carrying him to Kanpur met with an accident and he tried to escape from custody, the police had said.
After a magestrial probe, which had also given a clean chit to the police, the UP government had set up a judicial commission, headed by retired Supreme Court judge BS Chauhan, on the directions of the Supreme Court. Other members of the commission, which completed its report in April this year, were retired Allahabad HC judge Shashi Kant Agarwal and former UP DGP KL Gupta.
“The evidence adduced in the case supports the police’s version of the incident… Dr RS Mishra, who was on the panel of doctors, conducted the post-mortem and clarified that the injuries found on his person (Dubey) could have been caused as per the version of the police,” the judicial commission’s report says.
“Nobody came forward from the public or media to contradict the police version and no evidence was filed in rebuttal. Richa Dubey, wife of Vikas, filed an affidavit calling the incident a fake encounter but she did not appear before the commission,” the report says.
Providing a detailed description of the July 10, 2020 encounter, the commission says in its report that a herd of cows and buffaloes began crossing the road when the vehicle carrying Dubey reached Kanpur Nagar in Sachendi area. “The driver of the speeding vehicle carrying Vikas Dubey tried to avoid an accident and braked to stop the vehicle, but it skidded and turned over to the left after hitting the cemented divider. This sudden accident caused momentary unconsciousness to some of the police personnel sitting in the vehicle. The accused, taking advantage of the situation, snatched the revolver of Ramakant Pachauri and came out by opening the door fitted in the back of the said vehicle,” the report says.
The findings state that “Dubey started running to his left on a kutcha road. On being chased, he started firing from the looted pistol. He was challenged and asked to stop. He did not stop firing and did not heed warnings to surrender. He injured two policemen, and one bullet hit Tej Bahadur Singh in the chest but he was wearing a bullet proof jacket so he escaped injury. In self-defence, the police fired at the accused who fell to the ground on being injured,” the report states.
The commission’s report also states that some members of the police team from Chaubeypur police station, which went to raid the house of Vikas Dubey in the intervening night of July 2 and 3, 2020, had warned him in advance about the raid, which gave him the opportunity to summon armed associates and prepare to retaliate. “There was total failure on the part of the intelligence unit in Kanpur in collecting information about the criminal activities of and possession of sophisticated weapons (legal and illegal) by Vikas Dubey and his gang,” it says.
“No proper caution was taken in preparations to conduct the raid as 38 to 40 police personnel reached village Bikru and none of them was wearing a bullet-proof jacket. Only 18 of them had arms (firearms), the rest had gone empty-handed or with sticks,” the report states.
The commission has also said that “it is evident that Vikas Dubey and his associates were involved in all sorts of criminal activities, and had the patronage of the police, administrative and revenue authorities. Some of these authorities had very good relations with them and rendered assistance in getting arms licences and passports, and in land-grabbing, and for other facilities, such as fair price shop licences, etc. Such assistance was in utter disregard to the statutory provisions of the Acts and Rules, as the same had been violated with impunity…” The report adds that “no authority had ever investigated any case properly so far as Vikas Dubey and his associates are concerned”.
The report also mentions that “some independent people” deposed about Dubey’s criminal activities and “also his proximity to leaders of the Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samaj Party” but didn’t corroborate their claims. The commission mentioned a deposition by Sanjai Mishra that the late Harikishan Srivastava, BSP MLA from Chaubeypur, “had extended his blessings and patronage to Vikas Dubey”. But the report said that this was done based on “hearsay, as both of them stated that they were deposing on the basis of information received through media — print and electronic”. The report said that “they did not have any personal knowledge about any political patronage by any politician” to Dubey.
The report also says that the investigation into the murder of Santosh Shukla, chairman of the Contract Labour Board with minister of state rank, was “a total farce”. Dubey was an accused in the case.
The commission has concluded that the “investigation in any case lodged against them (Dubey and his associates) was never impartial”. The commission’s report also says that Dubey and his associates got bail orders from courts easily and quickly as there had been no serious opposition from the state authorities and government advocates.
“There is nothing on record to show that his (Dubey) cases had ever sincerely been contested by government advocates before the high court,” the report says.





Source link