Human rights activists have concluded after an enquiry that innocent villagers carrying a single shot country-made gun and participating in an annual hunting festival were shot at by the security forces earlier this month.

The activists were probing the killing of a tribal accused of being a Maoist by security forces in Jharkhand’s Latehar district on June 12.

The probe team of human rights activists under the aegis of Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha (a coalition of progressive human rights organisations) had visited Piri village of Garu block in Latehar district, 170km from Jharkhand capital Ranchi, which witnessed the killing.

“The security forces took Bramhadev Singh (24) to the edge of the forest and fired three shots at him, which led to his death,” the report which was submitted to the Latehar deputy commissioner Abu Imran on Wednesday afternoon.

“The team found that the incident of 12 June was not an ‘exchange of fire’. The security forces fired upon innocent villagers. The six adivasis associated with the incident (including Bramhadev) were out on a traditional hunting ritual, as every year for the Sarhul festival. They all carried a Bhartua gun, which has been in their families from generations. This single fire gun is used to hunt small animals and birds like rabbits, pigs and chickens and to protect crops from animals,” the report points out.

“Suddenly, the security forces started firing without any warning. The villagers, however, did not fire any shots from the Bhartua gun they were carrying. They instead raised their hands, shouted that they are common people, not Maoists and requested the police to not shoot. But the security personnel kept firing. One of the bullets fired by them hit one of the villagers Dinenath in the hand. Another bullet hit Bramhadev in the body,” the report adds.

The firing continued for about half an hour. Fearing being shot at, the five men ran away from the forest. Thereafter, the security forces took Bramhadev to the edge of the forest and fired three shots at him, which led to his death. The villagers also told the fact-finding team that none of the six victims were associated with the Maoist organisation.

“The FIR does not mention Bramhadev’s death by the police firing. According to the FIR, this incident was an exchange of fire in which the first shot was fired by the group of armed villagers and some people fled into the forest. The FIR also mentions that Brahmadev’s body was found at the edge of the forest. These statements are contrary to the facts,” the report points out.

The report also states that police have filed a case against the six adivasis, including Bramhadev, under various sections (including the Arms Act). This too exposes the true intention of the police — it wants to maintain pressure on the villagers to prevent them from questioning the police firing and the murder. In the police station, all the five victims were made to sign (or put their thumb impression) on many pages (some blank and some written) without informing them about the content of these pages.

“We want the government and administration to make the truth public that this was not an exchange of fire with the Maoists. Nor was it a retaliatory action by the security forces. The adivasis were going for their traditional hunting festival and did not fire at the security forces. The security forces fired at innocent adivasis and shot dead Bramhadev. Then an attempt was made to cover up the matter,” said Siraj Dutta, one of the members of the team.

The team has also in its demand before the deputy commission want an FIR to be lodged against the security force personnel and officials responsible for the killing of Bramhadev and firing on the villagers.

The FIR registered by the police on six Adivasis including Bramhadev should be quashed. Administrative action should be taken against the local police and senior officials for filing wrong statements and FIRs.

“Wife of deceased Bramhadev Singh should be given a compensation of at least Rs 10 lakh. The government should take full responsibility of their son’s upbringing, education and employment. Also, the remaining five victims should be compensated for harassment by the police,” the member said.