JUSTICE BY THE MOB-PRESUMPTION OF GUILT-HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERN-AN INCIDENT AT METRO STATION PICK POCKET

“He looks like a pickpocket…”

It was February  6, 2019 around 8pm at Vaishali Metro Station, Ghaziabad. I was coming out of the metro train and moving downstairs when some halla gulla attracted me. I saw a young boy of 18 or 20 years old, in very simple clothing, being questioned by three or four passengers on the way to the stairs. They were accusing the boy of attempting to pickpocket. The boy was aggressively denying their accusations. There was an exchange of abusive words. Then, another young passenger in his 20s slapped him.

The boy fell down and started weeping, saying “I have not attempted any theft”. Meanwhile, two others also used their hands and one grabbed his collar. I intervened and requested them to not beat him.

When they ignored me, I enhanced my pitch, changed my tone, and told them, “You complain to the police; I will go with you to lodge an FIR. But you dont have any authority to beat a person”. The victim, here the alleged pickpocket, was showing reluctance to go to the police downstairs. He said that he had to catch the Metro train and he had done nothing. Upon further insistence by me, he was almost dragged to the Metro office by the mob, while I followed them When I entered the office, I found that none of the complainants was there. Those persons, at least four, who had been accusing the young boy had disappeared. I called for them twice, loudly, but failed to locate any of them.

Two police men were with me. They said, “Sir, yahee hota hai, log complaint nahee karte kai baar.”

Inside the metro office, the young boy (alleged pickpocket) was being questioned by many, including the metro staff, passengers, police, and a person who informed that he belonged to crime branch. Everyone was asking the same question, “Sach bata, kya kar raha tha.”

The young boy folded his hands, crying. “Mai to Metro se ja raha tha”.

A person interrogated, “Kahan ja raha tha, kahan ka roman hai.”

The young boy was not able to recall the destination for which he had bought the token. He replied, “30 rupaye ka token liya hai aur…”

A person took his token to discover his destination. Others were asking his name and address and repeatedly accusing him of being a pick pocket. They insisted that people like him have become a menace in the whole Metro station and train. “Char danda maariye, sab ugal dega,” they suggested.

Meanwhile, one person claiming to be from the crime branch declared that the boy was a drug addict. “Sir, hamara to roj ka kaam hai, dekhte hee pahchan jate hain.”

A metro staff member had questions and confident assumptions of his own. “Kahan rahta hai? Aree sir, ye aadatee apradhee hai, main doosree baar ise dekh raha hun. Abhee ek metro station par pakde gaye hain do log. Ye usee gang ka hai.”

My advice to him was simple. ”If you know he has previously pickpocketed and is a man of that gang, please lodge a case. Otherwise allow him to go.”

“Aise kaise jaane de?” Was the baffled response.

I informed them that they could not detain a person. The present police could, but even they did not have the authority to detain him for a long duration. On being told by a staff member that he was a “suspect”, my response was, “All those who alleged that he had attempted to pickpocket are not here. Neither you, nor any other person, was there. I was there but I saw he was being beaten by two or three fellow passengers. Now, you can institute a case or let him go.”

The staff member was scornful. “Aapko kanoon pata hai…” a half statement, half question.

“Mujhe toh pata hai, kya aapko pata hai?” I calmly responded. I insisted that the truth would be discovered based on the CCTV footage. The police could enquire further or, given that the boy had a token, allow him to go. I asked him to keep some ID in the future. He looked at me with gratitude, aware that I was the only person protecting him from this impromptu Kangaroo Court.

I refused to leave him to the mercy of the mob and continued to insist that he be allowed to leave, and finally, he was. The mob had branded him as an “accused”. A couple of its passengers had beat him up. And all of them had concluded that he was the pick pocket. How quick we are in judging a person if his clothes are simple, his hair uncombed, his etiquette uncouth and his looks rustic! Yes, there might have been reason to suspect him. He had no ID. He claimed to be 16 years old when he easily looked like he was over 18. He could not recall the name of his destination. However, all of these could be explained through other reasons, without jumping to conclusions.

This is but one illustration of the unholy thinking of mob justice and quick justice, that too when there are only allegations of attempt and the police is easily approachable in metro stations. This is an illustration of rule of mob, or rule by men, and not rule of law. This is an illustration of violation of human rights not by state by but by other human beings. The passengers firmly believed that the accused should be punished immediately. I wish to ask these people, “Let us suppose that you are driving a bike or a car which hits a child and kills her. Should people beat you? In this case, it is certain you hit the child. You may not be at fault. No over speeding, no red light jumping. It was purely by chance that the child came on the road. But people will presume that you are at fault. The law sometimes also factually presumes that a driver holds additional responsibility vis-a-vis a pedestrian. Should you be taken to the police, or should the parents of the child and other passersby strike your face with their hands and fists? A person who is poor and weaker is always a suspect, be s/he a domestic servant, a driver, a waiter, a rickshaw puller, or a pavement dweller. We need to banish this mentality. As far as those who take the law into their hands are concerned, they should be accordingly warned under CrPC 1973 (security for good conduct) and may also be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code. In this case, the young man was alleged to commit attempt to pickpocket and he was beaten and dragged. Even if he is an accused who was caught red handed or a convicted criminal, the rule of law prevails. The reaction of a victim of pickpocketing may be natural, a concerned citizen may be worried by the rising incidents of pickpocketing in metro stations and trains, a passerby may want to help deliver justice and a metro staff member may want to check this menace of pickpockets. The purpose is pious and end is excellent. Nevertheless, the means used, like presuming someone is a thief based on stereotypes associated with his or her dressing sense, hair, skin colour, or even facial features, and then taking the law into one’s own hands goes against the law and human rights. The minimum requirement of human rights needs to be followed without any exception.

The responsibility of an intellectual citizen, or one conscious of his or her “fundamental duty”, is to develop a “scientific temper” and to intervene in all these cases, not remain a silent spectator.

The author sincerely acknowledge Ms Charvi Kumar, (PhD schloar, ILI, New Delhi) for her inputs and corrections.