Justice For Reingamphi : Conference At Indian Women’s Press Corps (IWPC)

New Delhi :

Conference At Indian Women’s Press Corps (IWPC)
5, Windsor Place,
Monday 30 September
3 PM

Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India and Founder Director of Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), will address the press conference along with other panelists.

On May 29, 2012, Ms A.S. Reingamphi alias A.S. Solem from Ukhrul district of Manipur was found dead under suspicious circumstances in her rented accommodation in Chirag Delhi. There were signs of brutal mutilation on her nose, face and her legs. Her eyelids were scratched, eyes were bleeding and there was a pool of blood where she was found lying.

Chirag Delhi comes under the jurisdiction of the Malviya Nagar Police Station. With the rape and murder that took place in Delhi on 16 December 2012, spontaneous widespread protests and the subsequent revamp of the criminal law against violence against women, one would have expected the Delhi Police to be more sensitive to Reingamphi’s case. However, there was no change in their approach or attitude. Despite persistent requests to thoroughly investigate the matter, there has been gross negligence on the part of the Delhi Police to examine the case with the gravity it deserves. This has lead to many loopholes in finding and punishing the real culprits.

• One, the Delhi Police issued a press statement on 29 May, 2013 declaring Reingamphi’s death to be suicide by some toxic/poisonous substance/food. This was done without any proper investigation. The same was published by many news agencies including The Hindu and Times of India on 30 May 2013.
• Second, the police refused to file the FIR, in spite of this being reiterated over and over again that it is every citizen’s fundamental right to register an FIR. It took over 300 people and many hours to just get it filed. The police also refused to file the FIR, under the sections of murder and possible rape, as the case appeared prima facie.
• Third, it took two post mortems (again, done under public pressure) and a viscera report issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory to bring out the truth there being no traces of poison or drugs in the body.
• Having totally lost confidence in the Delhi Police, in August 2013, the complainants in the case, Awungshi Chirmayo and Thotreithem filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court. While using Reingamphi’s murder as a starting point, the Writ draws a larger picture of the violations faced by people from the Northeast living in Delhi.
• Gang rape of a 20 year old Delhi University student from Mizoram on May 8, 2005, in Dhaula Kuan in a moving car. The main accused absconded.
• Rape and murder of 8 year old girl from Nagaland at Mahipalpur in Delhi on April 17, 2009. The accused was acquited by the court.
• Rape and murder of a 19 year old woman from Manipur by Pushpam Kumar Sinha, a Ph.D. scholar at IIT Delhi, at Munirka village in New Delhi on 24 October, 2009.
• Gang rape of a 30 year old BPO employee from Mizoram in November 24, 2010.

• Even on the face of it, this is a clear case of murder. The photographs show this. The police theory of rodents nibbling on the corpse is unbelievable.
• Furthermore, the portmortem report has used the two finger test despite the Supreme Court ruling in Rajesh & Anr. V. State of Haryana Cr. Appeal No. 1226/2011, which holds that the two finger test violates the “privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity” of the rape survivor.
• There is also a very grave inconsistency in the 2nd postmortem report dated 4.6.13 (Annexure F). Page 11 of the postmortem report says that it is “impossible to state the nature of the wounds (antemortem or postmortem) on gross examination”. However, page 14 of the report says that bleeding pattern from the face was postmortem. These two statements are inconsistent with each other. How can the report on one hand say that the it impossible to determine whether the injuries are postmortem or antemortem but then conclude that the bleeding patterns on the face were postmortem?
• The investigation avoids dealing with the main issue namely that X and the landlord are the prime suspects since they had an antagonistic relationship with the deceased. Moreover it appears that X was pushing himself for a sexual relationship with the deceased, which the deceased had repulsed.