Two eyewitnesses present at the Panjim police station on January 8, and saw Cipriano in a ‘pitiable state’, speak to the HERALD
PANJIM, JAN 21
There we have it. From a very unlikely eyewitness, who was incidentally called to the Panjim police station on January 8, in another case, and happened to be in the same investigation room where the almost lifeless body of Cipriano Fernandes, was lying, with froth coming out of his mouth.
The witness Kenneth Silveira – about 30 — spoke to the Herald, late Thursday night and this account adds to the shocking tale of how brutally Cipriano must have been treated. Silveira said that he was “motionless” and he thought he was dead. “There was froth oozing from his mouth and there was a very foul smell. His face was swollen, his clothes were torn and his trousers almost ripped off with his undergarments visible. There were white chalk marks on his clothes”.
Silveira was at the Panjim police station from 10.45 am onwards on January 8, because of this. He was in the offshore Casino on the night of January 7. When coming out, he said, he saw his parked car and others being hit by another vehicle. He then decided to lodge complaint the next day. Meanwhile, he managed to get the names of those who hit his car and others and sent out strong messages on Facebook. It so happened that a lady friend of one of the boys (who hit Kenneth’s car) asked him to stop doing this and not take the case further. Then a series of strongly worded text messages were exchanged between Kenneth and the lady.
The next morning – January 8 — Kenneth was surprised to get a call from the Panjim police station saying that there was a complaint of harassment against him. And he was wanted at the police station. That is how he happened to be there before the hawaldar, when he noticed the man (who he did not know then) in a pitiable state, who he later learnt was Cipriano.
Recounting what he saw and discussed that day, he said “I asked the policemen why was this man lying there dead and he sharply asked me to mind my own business”.
Meanwhile, there was another witness who further confirmed this. Grenville Dias, Silveira’s friend arrived at the police station at 12.45 and saw Cipriano being carried on a stretcher into a waiting 108 ambulance. Dias further reiterated his friend’s version. “There was no movement. He was like a dead body, totally lifeless. Froth was still coming out of his mouth”.
While these versions further point to what treatment which could have been meted out to him at the police station, this also reveals another inconsistency in the police’s version of events. His cousin Cosme in his statement to the State Police Complaints Authority said that the police informed him that Cipriano had fits at about 11 am and was immediately removed to the GMC.
The eyewitness accounts prove that he was lying there from before 11 o’clock to at least 12.45 or 1 o’clock in the afternoon i.e at least two hours after he supposedly had “fits”.
These accounts are clearly significant and should be taken on record by the Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as by DySP Bousset D’Silva, looking into procedural lapses by the police.
Police pervert truth to save colleagues: SC
Should policemen be asked to conduct an inquiry against their very colleagues and if so can they be seen as completely fair? The Supreme Court does not think so. In the State of MP Vs Shamsunder Trivedi case reported in 1995, the apex court held “rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel would be available. Generally speaking, it would be police officials alone who can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody died. Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not, even pervert the truth to save their colleagues.
Custody starts with police contact: HC
All acts of the police from the time they picked up Cipriano, were committed “in custody” irrespective of when the formal arrest was shown according to a Orissa High Court observation. In the case of Paramhansa Jadab and another, appellants Vs the State, respondent, (reported in AIR 1964, Orissa), the Orissa HC observed “Police custody does not commence when the accused is formally arrested but from the moment when his movements are restricted and is kept in some sort of direct or indirect police surveillance. As soon as an accused or suspected person comes to the hand of the police officer, he is no longer at liberty and is therefore in custody within the meaning of Section 26 & 27 of the Evidence Act”.
