Content of the complaints is same but not the actions of the police.
That puts in perspective the sensational instances of two sub-inspectors of police in Siddipet Police Commisisonerate ending their lives. On this March 3, Dubbaka police station SI Chittibabu shot his wife Rekha dead at their house with his service pistol before killing himself with the same weapon.
The SI’s son Prem Kumar alleged and formally lodged a complaint with the police that his father resorted to the extreme step due to harassment by his higher-ups. While speaking media persons, he specifically accused Siddipet ACP Narsimha Reddy and Commissioner Shiva Kumar.
Kukunoorpally SI P. Prabhakar Reddy shot himself dead with his service pistol four days ago in his official quarter. His family members too lodged a complaint alleging that harassment by Gajwel ACP R. Giridhar led to his suicide.
Swift action
Interestingly, the higher-ups initiated different actions and responded differently to the two complaints despite the content being almost the same.
While a case of suspicious death under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code was registered in the case of Chittibabu, a case of abettment to suicide under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code was booked against Mr. Giridhar — who was attached to the DGP office within hours of the SI’s suicide.
A day after Mr. Chittibabu’s suicide, different organisations and the SI’s relatives and well-wishers observed bandh in Dubbaka.
Total silence
For some inexplicable reasons, the police top brass remained silent on the charges and didn’t make any changes in the sections of law. But in Kukunoorpally SI’s case, they invoked Section 306 of IPC even as investigation indicated a connection between Mr. Reddy’s death and that of a beautician in Banjara Hills of Hyderabad.
“In Dubbaka SI’s case, there is indirect reference to higher-ups whereas in Kukunoorpally SI death, direct allegation was made against the ACP,” said Siddipet Commisisoner Shiva Kumar. He said, however, both cases have to be examined thoroughly.
