The Meghalaya Police’s self-defence justification for shooting dead surrendered cadre and former general secretary of the proscribed Hynñiewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC) Cherishterfield Thangkhiew in the early hours of today morning has seemingly convinced very few members of the public and various civil groups.
Instead, the death has been labelled a ‘fake encounter’ across media platforms and in social media posts.
The police’s version of events has been challenged by the family of the deceased as well as by legal experts.
Firstly, it appears that the police team entered the house, assumed forcefully, in the early morning hours when it was still dark. The police’s statement does not allude to attempts to give warning to the residents of their identity. As the family members said, when they heard the sounds the police made on entry, they thought thieves had broken into their home.
In such circumstances, it is very likely that Thangkhiew would have thought that his house is being robbed and he thus came out with a weapon to defend himself and his house.
Fatefully, this led to him being shot by police, who claimed that, armed with a knife, Thangkhiew posed a threat to them. But here the question arises whether Thangkhiew could have really presented such a grave danger to the police team so much so that the latter were compelled to shoot the man and kill him.
In myriad comments on this incident, many people have wondered why the police did not shoot to injure but seemed to have shot to kill as Thangkhiew died with just one bullet fired. This, according to many, points to a pre-planned action and this was the belief of the deceased’s cousin, who told the media that it seemed premeditated.
A post-mortem examination will ascertain where the bullet hit him and it is likely to give clues as to whether it was a precision shot to a vital part of the body.
The law surrounding the right to private defence clearly puts the exercise of this right under strict limitations and warns against disproportionate actions in self-defence. Anything disproportionate by the police leading to the death of a suspect comes under the label of fake encounter.
The police statement also failed to demonstrate that Thangkhiew’s house at Kynton Massar was a den of armed militants which had to be stealthily stormed. Rather, the statement only says that the police had material ‘indications’ and statements from some arrested persons that Thangkhiew was involved in two recent improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, including the one in Shillong earlier this week, and that they were there to arrest him.
Many individuals wondered why there was a need to mount an operation in the dark at a residence where the person is known to be living instead of going to the house during the day. On top of this, the police intel was apparently based on ‘statements of persons’ who might well have fabricated them. As a local resident said, Thangkhiew was a surrendered militant; all the police had to do was call him to report to the police station.
Shocked by such an incident and unsatisfied with the police’s justifications, numerous civil groups and political outfits have called for a full independent inquiry.
These organisations include Thma U Rangli-Juki, Civil Society Women’s Organisation, Federation of Khasi States, Hynñiewtrep Youths Council, East Jaiñtia National Council, Meghalaya People’s Human Rights Council and Khun Hynñiewtrep National Awakening Movement youth wing, among others.
