Last updated:
It poses the first major test of how the authoritarian government defines justice, exercises state power and balances public anger with the rule of law.
Bengal CM Suvendu Adhikari. (file)
Every government experiences a decisive law and order test. For Bengal Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari, barely two months into office, Baruipur could be that moment.
It began with the brutal rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl, a crime that shocked the whole of Bengal. Following a public outcry, police identified the alleged culprits, including the main accused, and arrested them within hours. But before the investigation could reach the court, the mob took over. A day after a minor’s body was found inside a sack floating in a pond, an angry mob beat a suspected accused to death.
A few hours later the Chief Minister himself said the man who died Was innocent. If rape and murder exposed the brutality of criminals, lynching exposed the dangers of public anger beyond the law.
The officers reached the spot, met the parents and family members of the victim and also visited the local SP office. In a public statement the Chief Minister said that no one would be spared, neither the accused in the rape and murder case nor the mob that lynched an ‘innocent’ man out of suspicion.
Then there was an encounter. Around 12:45 am on Wednesday, the police took the main accused to the crime scene for reconstruction. According to the official version, the accused snatched the service pistol from a police officer, attempted to fire at the police team and tried to escape. The police retaliated and shot him. Due to serious injuries, he was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. The speed with which the state worked has been welcomed by some sections of the society, the political class and many people in the administration. But the official account also raises questions that deserve answers, not because the main accused deserves sympathy, but because every encounter is demanded to be investigated by the state.
What do experts say
Speaking to News 18, Manoj Kumar Lal, a senior IPS officer who retired as DGP, said, “Retributive justice does not establish the rule of law, public order or justice. In this specific case, we also saw a form of street justice in which an innocent man was apparently beaten to death. The new government should recognize the nature of the administration and the police force that it has inherited. From the Gorkhaland movement to the Maoist movement From the CPM to the Trinamool and now the BJP, policing in West Bengal has often worked at the behest of the ruling dispensation, be it in suppressing political movements or protecting partisan interests. culture of impunity The expectations of political loyalty and security have taken root. However, for the first time, it appears that with the current regime change, some of the political drivers of that protection have been eroded. Still there has been no improvement in the police institution. Implementation of the rule of law should include adherence to human rights norms and the Commission’s guidelines. Encounter killings cannot be justified by adjustable narratives or lame excuses. This episode is a reminder that the government must combat not only party violence but also police violence. Its mandate must be based on the rule of law, not gun culture.”
It is noteworthy that in the last three decades, Bengal witnessed two incidents of police encounter and firing during the Maoist movement, Gorkhaland movement – one in Rajarhat and the other in Golpokhar. In the last two cases the nature of the crime and firing were different.
Lal, who served as the IB chief in Bengal for more than five years, said, “Baruipur has long had a reputation for a ‘might makes right’ culture. The obvious question is why the administration and the police failed to address these situations. Rape is a violent crime in which criminals deliberately target vulnerable people. The safety and security of women and girls is a much bigger issue than just quick justice. While the public outrage over the crime is understandable, the response has been less than due process.” The circumstances surrounding the death of the key accused, especially in light of the medical evidence and allegations of police excesses, cannot be tolerated. A government committed to the rule of law and women’s safety cannot allow criminal violence to be normalized.”
beyond the encounter
News18 has spoken to senior police officers to understand the situation and consequences after the encounter. A senior police officer raised some questions regarding the procedures.
“Why was crime reconstruction done around 12:45 in the night? Reconstruction usually means recreating the sequence of events. In near darkness, what exactly was being reconstructed? We sometimes need to choose odd hours to avoid public glare. But it could have been early hours like 4 in the morning. Was the exercise videographed, as is routinely done in sensitive investigations? Was the accused handcuffed, because BNS clearly says that the rape accused can be handcuffed if needed. Was additional force deployed? If he was stopped, then how did he find answers to some of these questions from the postmortem report of the accused?
This was perhaps the most high-profile criminal case in Bengal. The Chief Minister himself visited the police station. Public anger was at its peak. The sensitive situation required extra caution and deployment. And overall, police personnel are also trained to keep service weapons safe during operations.
The encounter will inevitably invite forensic investigation. A senior forensic expert said, “The report should be clear as to how many rounds the accused allegedly fired? How many rounds did the police fire? Where were the entry and exit wounds? Was there any attempt to incapacitate rather than kill? Considering that it was already midnight, how was a fleeing accused tracked in the dark?”
Meanwhile, these are not questions against the police. These are the questions that arise when the state uses deadly force. Only their answers will decide the credibility of the encounter. There is another question of command responsibility. In a matter being monitored at the highest political level, was the operational risk of midnight reconstruction adequately assessed? If senior officers knew the sensitivity of the matter, why was security not increased?, said another officer.
political message
Politics is beyond investigation. The government’s response appears designed to send two clear messages.
The first is that no religious protection will be given to criminals. The victim was a Muslim minor, while the main accused was a Hindu. By taking swift action against the accused regardless of religious identity, the government is keen to signal that communal considerations will not dictate criminal justice. In a state where communal narratives can spread quickly and where Mamata Banerjee’s government has been accused of appeasement, the message is politically important.
The second message is about the style of governance.
Swift arrests after the encounter project an image of strong policing and instant justice, a model that many associate with the administration of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. Supporters see it as decisive governance and a deterrent against crime. Critics argue that deterrence cannot come at the expense of due process.
This is the tightrope on which the official government will have to walk. During Mamata Banerjee’s tenure, there have been instances where the Chief Minister in her public statements tried to minimize the incidents of rape even before the investigation began, calling them ‘fabricated cases’, ‘results of illicit relations’ and ‘women need to be careful’. There is definitely a change in the context of the narrative here.
A minor girl deserves justice. The guilty deserve the harshest punishment the law allows. But an innocent person also deserved protection from the mob. And every police encounter, no matter how justified it ultimately proves, must stand the test of law, forensic evidence, and public scrutiny. Baruipur is no longer just the story of a horrific crime.
It poses the first major test of how the authoritarian government defines justice, exercises state power and balances public anger with the rule of law. That, more than the encounter itself, will shape the legacy of this case.
About the author
Madhuparna Das, Associate Editor (Policy) at CNN News 18, has been in journalism for almost 14 years. She has been covering politics, policy, crime and internal security issues extensively. He has cum…read more
read more
