Baby shockers surface

By Mehedi Hedaytullah

Islampur, March 28: The murder of an 18-month-old toddler who was allegedly kidnapped from North Dinajpur after a group failed to coax his family into withdrawing rape charges has thrown up a series of startling revelations.
A key disclosure is that police had swallowed without any verification a claim by a prime accused that he was in hospital. The police and the hospital confirmed today that no such person was admitted.
At almost every step of the way in the search for the child, the family appears to have hit a stonewall of official apathy.
What the police did or said and what accounts by the family and sources suggest:
The brawl
The police had said Paras Roy, one of the accused in the rape case and also a prime accused in the abduction case, was so badly hit by the baby's father, Ganesh Roy, that he had to be admitted to North Bengal Medical College and Hospital.
The father, in jail since the day after his son was kidnapped (March 12) for allegedly beating up Paras, was granted interim bail today to perform the last rites of his son Bikram.
What the police said today: "We have found out that Paras had not been admitted to the medical college," said the investigating officer of the Goalpokhar police station. "We had told his relatives that he could be taken to NBMCH in Siliguri after they asked us for permission that night (March 11)."
What The Telegraph found out: The superintendent of NBMCH, Sabyasachi Das, confirmed that no one named Paras was admitted to the referral hospital. "Between March 11 and till date, we have not admitted anyone by that name," he said. Ganesh was booked for inflicting grievous injury on Paras, among other charges, without any medical report on the nature of injury.
The arrest
Ganesh was arrested on the basis of a complaint filed by Paras's father, Bhabesh Roy. But Paras, who was out on bail in the rape case, was not re-arrested even though the family complained he was in the group that had abducted the child.
What the police had said: Paras was grievously injured.
What The Telegraph found out: No physical verification was done to establish if Paras was at the hospital.
Besides, even seriously injured persons can be arrested. "There is no bar on arresting an injured wanted person," a senior police officer in Calcutta said. "The procedure is that that after arrest, the injured person should be taken for medical examination and if the doctor recommends, he should be admitted to hospital. While in hospital, the police should guard him round the clock. Also, if doctors permit, he may be interrogated while in hospital."
Search for baby
The police had repeatedly claimed that they were "trying their best to trace" the baby.
What the family said: Bikram's father was put behind bars when he went to complain that the child had been kidnapped. The police took the complaint only after the baby's mother, Pramila Roy, reached the station in the evening accompanied by other villagers.
Pramila said whenever she went to the police station to ask about the baby, the police accused her of "hiding him".
On March 19, Pramila approached the sub-divisional officer (SDO) of Islampur, Samanjit Sengupta, to complain about the abduction and the police attitude. The SDO apparently told Pramila she should file the complaint "in the general section" of his office.
Pramila had said in her complaint that the alleged rapists of her 19-year-old sister-in-law had come to their house and taken away her son. She had named nine of the alleged abductors, of which six figured in the rape case, too.
What The Telegraph found out: In the "general section", copies of complaints are received by clerical staff and forwarded to the SDO. Nothing wrong with that in the normal course but when a child was reported missing, rapid action should have been taken.
"When an SDO accepts the complaint himself, the impact is immediate," said an executive magistrate. "He can order an immediate inquiry and not wait for the complaint to reach his table from the general section," the magistrate said.
Asked if he had directed her to the "general section", SDO Sengupta said: "She had come to meet me, I told her to file a written complaint."
Direct charge
Pramila had identified Bhabesh Roy in her complaint as the person who had snatched away the baby from her lap on the night of March 11. Bhabesh was arrested on March 22, 10 days after the child was reported missing.
What police had said: Bhabesh did not know where the baby was and neither did the force.
What The Telegraph found out: Senior police officers in Calcutta said the 10-day delay in questioning a person named in a kidnap complaint filed by the child's mother herself was inexplicable. After such a long interlude, little information can be exacted from a suspect who would have assumed by then that the police were dragging their feet, they said.
Indifference
The Roys claimed the administration was indifferent to their plight. The police said a team was sent to Bihar to bring back the baby. But the child's body was found yesterday in a cornfield, a kilometre from his village that is 20km from Bihar. "The police did nothing. A dog dug up my child after 16 days," Pramila said today.

The above is from The Telegraph.

This is how Maoists are born.
When the administration does not take up serious genuine grievance of the common people, they have no choice but the take up arms.
Then we wonder what went wrong?