You are currently viewing Fact Finding of Caste Atrocity

Fact Finding of Caste Atrocity

Fact-Finding of Caste Atrocity in Narkheda Block of Nagpur, Maharashtra- for Deceased Arvind Bansod


I.  General Information

  1. Name of the affected : Arvind Bansod (deceased)
  2. Father / Husband / Wife /Son of: son of Janardan Bansod
  3. Age / Sex : 30 years, Male.
  4. Caste / Religion: Scheduled Caste, Buddhist.
  5. Address : Pimpaldhara, Narkhed, Nagpur
  6. Human Rights Petitioner: Sumit Gondane, Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi Nagpur.
  7. In relation to the affected: Activist
  8. Contact Mobile : +91 95294 01563 (Dhiraj Bansod, brother of deceased victim)

II. Fact finding information

  1. Date of Fact finding: 18 to 20th September 2020.
  2. Name of the HRD :
    1. Sharad Shelke (Manuski)
    2. Sangharsh Apte (Manuski)
    3. Mr. Sumit Gondane (Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi)
    4. Mr. Sanjay Suryvanshi (Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi)
    5. Mr. Ashish Nadagawali (Corporator of Nagar Parishad and activist of Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi).
  3. Source of information: Through DHRDs :Mr. Kapil Shivsharan, Pune.
  4. Classification of atrocities : Murder.
  5. Date of occurrence: 27/05/2020
  6. Place of incident (Village name/tk): Thadi Pawani, Narkheda, Nagpur around 5km from victim’s house.
  7. Case in brief :
    1. When Mr. Avinash, the victim, visited a nearby village, namely, Thadi Pawani, which is five k.m. Away from his village named Pimpaldhara, he had some dispute with the accused named Mr. Mayur Umarkar. Mr. Mayur Umarkar has a gas agency and it was claimed that Mr. Avinash was taking pictures of his agency and the illegal activities affiliated to it.
    2. His friend accompanying him was sent back home by the victim for some work and meanwhile the dispute escalated.
    3. Later the friend who was accompanying the victim received a call from the village, where the incident occured, that the victim had consumed poison.
    4. By the time he reaches the spot, the perpetrators take Mr. Arvind to the nearby Primary Health Care Centre situated at Jalalkheda.
    5. He (the victim) was referred to another PHC at Katol. Till this point the accused were taking him (the victim) to the health centres. But when he was referred to Medical College (Tertiary health care centre), he was accompanied by his younger brother in an ambulance.
    6. It was difficult for the victim to talk. But he told the brother that he was beaten badly and was forced to consume poison.
    7. Within a day the victim succumbed to the injuries and poison.
    8. It is highly possible that he was forced to take poison.
  8. Name of the Police station – Ph. No.: Jalalkheda, Nagpur.
  9. Investigating Officer.: SDPO (DySP) Nagesh Jadhav
  10. FIR No.: 187/2020
  11. Sections in FIR: only section 306 and 34 were applied to the case in the beginning. Sections of PoA were added later on.
    1. Added sections- PoA – 3(1)(r), (s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va)
    2. IPC – 504, 506
  12. List of the affected victim
    S.N. Name Age / Sex Caste
    1. Arvind Bansod 30 Buddhist
    2. Gajanan Raut 28 Buddhist (ex-Mahar)
  13. Name of the accused
    S.N. Name Age / Sex Caste
    1 Mayur or Mithilesh Umarkar 21 Maratha
    2 Nayan Umarkar 21 Maratha
    3 Chandrashekhar Datir 30 Probably Maratha


    III. List of Documents

S.N. Documents Yes/
1. Copy of Adhar Card Yes
2. Copy of community certificate Yes
3. Copy of police station complaint Yes
4. Complaint receipt
5. Copy of FIR Yes
6 MLC details and discharge Medical summary Yes
7. Copy of age certificate No
8. Copy of wound certificate No
9. Press clippings No
10. Photos Yes
11. Court Documents No
12. Copy of Charge sheet Yes


IV.   Intervention

S.N. Intervention activity Result
1 Application for certified copies submitted The application is submitted through Adv. Moon (Advocate from Nagpur)


V.  Meeting with Officials:

Fact finding team met SDPO Mr. Nagesh Jadhav to understand his view point. Following observations were made :

  1. As the change sheet has been submitted, IO is of the opinion that he has completed his task and nothing remains with him in relation to the case except the testimony in court at the time of trial.
  2. He is confident enough that he has conducted impartial inquiry and the accused will be convicted for crime as defined in section 306 of IPC.
  3. He refused to explain anything about the CCTV footage that was recovered from the spot.
  4. He submitted that all allegations on police are biased and baseless. Also alleged that the affidavit submitted in court by lawyer on behalf of Mr. Dhiraj Bansod as a dying declaration of the deceased victim has no meaning as it is submitted quite late and goes against previous statements on record by the same witness.

VI.  Observations of the team:

  1. FIR was delayed by the police.
  2. There is a difference between the information provided orally by the informant and registered complaint.
  3. Relevant sections of PoA and IPC were not added at the time of FIR.
  4. Dying declaration by the victim given to his brother is not considered in the charge sheet.
  5. One of the witnesses (who is also the brother of the victim) was threatened and pressurized against pursuing the case. Yet no separate cognizable offence was registered. Only non cognizable offence that too without any reference to the original murder case was recorded.

VI.   Recommendations:

  1. Re-investigation is urgently required.
  2. Compensation should be released as per norms.
  3. Pension should be started for the family.
  4. One of the family members should be given government employment.