The victims of the Kheda public flogging case have refused a settlement with the four accused policemen who last week requested the Gujarat High Court to direct them to pay compensation instead of punishing them, which they argued would affect their careers. Senior advocate Prakash Jani, representing the accused police personnel, informed the high court orally on Monday, “We had a very constructive, intensive meeting with senior advocate I H Syed (representing the victims) and his three colleagues. In fact, some of the petitioners were also there and we had parted company on a very very positive note as per my understanding. But thereafter, in spite of the best efforts of the opposite side (representing the victims), I’ve received the message that the clients (victims) have decided after (consulting) their relatives or community persons, not to resolve the issue.” The court recorded that the “parties have failed in settlement” and that the complainants do not intend to enter into compromise”. A division bench of Justices A S Supehia and Gita Gopi have now kept the matter for dictation of verdict on October 19. Victims Jahirmiya Malek, 62, Maksudabanu Malek, 45, Sahadmiya Malek, 23, Sakilmiya Malek, 24, and Shahidraja Malek, 25, had moved the high court last year, seeking that 13 police officers should be “punished for contempt and non-compliance” of the directions enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of D K Basu versus the state of West Bengal, which provides for guidelines to be followed by the police during arrest and detention. Following an inquiry by a Nadiad magistrate, as directed by the high court, four of the 13 accused police officers were identified from videos and photos of the incident and the high court then framed charges against the four - A V Parmar, D B Kumavat, Laxmansinh Kanaksinh Dabhi and Rajubhai Dabhi - under the Contempt of Courts Act. Last week, the four police personnel, while submitting that the act of flogging by hitting the complainant victims on their buttocks does not amount to custodial torture, had also indicated that they would prefer the matter be settled between the parties instead of facing punishment under the Contempts of Court Act, as the latter may affect their careers.
