WB: CBI's Negligence in Abhaya Murder Case
Samprikta Bose
ON August 1, the Central Government Offices (CGO) Complex in Salt Lake, Kolkata, became the site of a major protest. The Abhaya Manch and the Joint Platform of Doctors (JPD) organised a demonstration, accusing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of negligence in the R G Kar murder case, better known as the Abhaya case. The protestors demanded justice, highlighting public anger over the CBI's handling of the investigation and questioning the agency's accountability and potential involvement with state authorities.
A march organised by the Abhaya Manch, the Association of Health Service Doctors, and JPD marched from the Health University to the CGO Complex. Doctors and concerned citizens participated, denouncing the CBI's "perfunctory investigation." They accused the agency of protecting culprits and failing to uphold commitments made to the judiciary. Protesters used symbolic gestures, such as wielding brooms at the CGO Complex gates, to advocate for a "clean-up" of the investigation.
Abhaya Manch and the JPD had informed the CBI in advance via email about their planned protest and deputation submission. However, upon arrival at the CGO Complex, protesters found it empty. The CBI officers handling the R G Kar case were reportedly absent, having moved their operations to a new office in New Town. Sources from Abhaya Manch and JPD indicated that the officers had been working from the old CGO building until recently, which is why the protesters marched there. The absence of CBI personnel at the CGO Complex led to suspicions of deliberate evasion.
Protesters took to the streets to voice their grievances, articulating three principal demands that underscored a deep-seated frustration with the perceived lack of progress and transparency in the ongoing investigation. Firstly, there was an urgent call for the Expedited Submission of a Supplementary Charge Sheet. A significant point of contention revolved around the CBI’s failure to file a supplementary charge sheet, despite earlier assurances given to the court. This delay was widely seen as an impediment to justice, causing concern among the public that the investigation was either stagnating or being deliberately slowed. Protesters emphasized the critical need for this document to be submitted without further delay, believing it would provide crucial details and move the legal process forward.
Secondly, a strong demand was made for accountability for evidence tampering. Allegations of evidence destruction and the subsequent protection of those responsible fueled public outrage. Protesters insisted on the immediate prosecution of any individuals found to have been engaged in tampering with evidence, as well as those who might have used their positions to shield the perpetrators from legal consequences. This demand highlighted a concern that powerful figures might be obstructing justice and underscored the public's desire for a fair and uncompromised investigation.
Finally, protesters urged for Transparent Communication Disclosure, specifically advocating for the public release of phone conversations that reportedly took place between Kolkata Police Commissioner Vineet Goyal and the chief minister on the night the incident occurred.The rationale behind this demand was the belief that these communications could shed light on the actions and decisions made by key officials during a critical period. Protesters argued that such transparency was essential for a comprehensive investigation that would encompass all parties involved, ensuring that no stone was left unturned in uncovering the truth and holding all relevant individuals accountable.
Dr Utpal Bandyopadhyay, general secretary of the Association of Health Service Doctors, West Bengal, stated that the CBI's inaction on the investigation was unacceptable. He highlighted the broken promise of a supplementary chargesheet and demanded answers regarding the destruction of evidence and the protection of individuals. Bandyopadhyay said they could even go to Delhi to confront the CBI if necessary.
Dr Tamonash Chowdhury, a convener of Abhaya Manch, pointed out the CBI's unresponsiveness, noting that emails sent on two occasions, including a recent one, had gone unanswered. A delegation from JPD, including Dr Bandyopadhyay, Dr Gautam Das, Dr Sudakshina Das, Dr Shatabdi Mitra, and Sutanuka Bandyopadhyay, attempted to submit a deputation at the CBI's New Town office. However, they discovered that the officers handling the Abhaya case were based in Delhi and only visited Kolkata when essential.
Protesters accused CBI officers of fleeing Kolkata to avoid accountability and alleged a compromise with state authorities. They cited the shift of CBI operations to New Town and the absence of key officers during the protest as evidence of deliberate avoidance. JPD representatives vowed to intensify their efforts to ensure the CBI answers their questions.
The protest against the CBI's handling of the Abhaya murder case at the CGO Complex highlighted public discontent and a call for accountability in India's justice system. Numerous prominent figures, including medical professionals and mass organisations, participated, underscoring public frustration with inefficiencies of central investigative agencies and their alleged leniency towards state authorities.
This protest forms an important part of the campaign for justice. Demands for transparency in the Abhaya case, especially concerning high-level communications and evidence tampering, reflect growing public frustration. With the CBI under scrutiny for alleged negligence and evasion, Abhaya Manch, JPD, and their supporters are resolved to continue pushing for truth and accountability. The protesters' readiness to take their demands to Delhi if necessary underscores that this case remains a critical test of the CBI's credibility and the state's commitment to justice.
