Complaints Before the Commission ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ��� ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ post mortem report the body of the deceased was having 23 ante-mortem injuries and the cause of death was indicated as “due to shock as a result of injuries present on the body”. The inquest report conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmedabad City indicated that there were signs of blunt weapon blows on various parts of the body. The magisterial inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmedabad City blamed the PSI Surela and ACP Brahm Bhatt and other police personnel for the death of Haji Mohd. Tentwala and recommended investigation to pin point the responsibility of the death and to ascertain the actual culprits from the police staff. 4.34 A separate report dated 20.7.1996 submitted by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, Gujarat indicated that a case No.19/95 u/s 302/323/504/114, IPC had been registered by the Crime Branch against PSI Surela and 4-5 police personnel and another case No.20/95 was registered u/s 330/342 against the main accused PSI Surela, PCs Navneet, Bharat Rathore, Raju and ACP Brahm Bhutt and four other police personnel. 4.35 On consideration of the records of the case, the Commission held that the deceased was wrongfully arrested by the police for interrogation in a criminal case and was brutally thrashed to extract confession. Consequently, he suffered as many as 23 injuries, which resulted in his death. It is a case of gross violation of human rights. Accordingly, the Commission directed to issue notice to the Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat to show cause as to why the Commission should not recommend payment of interim relief u/s 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to the next of kin of the deceased. 4.36 In response to the show cause notice, the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Gujarat, vide letter dated 19.6.2004 submitted that criminal offences had been registered against the police personnel responsible for beating up the accused and departmental action had also been initiated and are pending final outcome. It was acknowledged that human rights violation had taken place and the State Government had taken appropriate action against the concerned accused police personnel. The report further mentioned that for the violation of human rights, both criminal and departmental proceedings had already been initiated and awaiting final outcome. In the circumstances the Home Secretary requested that the show cause notice may be withdrawn and further action may be considered after the outcome of the criminal proceedings pending before the Court. 4.37 The Commission considered the response received from the State Government on 22.9.2004. While referring to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neelbati Behra vs. State of Orissa, 1993 (2) SCC 746, it observed and ordered as under: (a) This Commission has taken a consistent stand that the obligation of the State to ensure safety of persons while in its custody is strict and absolute and admits of no exception. 30 AR-Chapter-1-19-10-6-06.p65 National Human Rights Commission Annual Report - 2004-2005 50 7/17/06, 6:29 PM