A MOTHER’S DEMAND FOR JUSTICE AFTER GAIGHATA SHOOTING: QUESTIONS OVER A SUSPECT’S DEATH IN POLICE CUSTODY
October 28, 2026
GAIGHATA, NORTH 24-PARGANAS, OCTOBER 28, 2026 — The death of a 23-year-old man accused of the rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl in West Bengal has opened a painful and complicated debate about grief, accountability and the limits of police power. As the victim’s family mourns the loss of their daughter, the mother of the deceased suspect has also demanded justice for her son, who was shot dead by police during an operation described by officers as an act of self-defence.
The woman’s appeal comes amid growing scrutiny of a series of fatal police shootings in Bengal in which officers have offered a similar explanation: suspects allegedly seized police firearms during crime-scene reconstruction exercises and opened fire, prompting retaliatory shooting.
A MOTHER’S PLEA AMID GRIEF AND CONTROVERSY
Speaking to a Bengali news channel on Wednesday, the mother of the deceased suspect said that she, too, wanted justice for her son, drawing a comparison with the demand for justice by the family of the teenage victim.
She maintained that her son, who operated a barber shop, was not known in their village as a person of bad character and said local residents could speak to his reputation. She also acknowledged that her son was accused of wrongdoing, while expressing disbelief and distress over the circumstances of his death.
The woman said the two families were distantly related and that she knew the girl and her son were acquainted. However, she said she was unaware of whether their relationship extended beyond that familiarity.
Her remarks reflect the anguish of a family suddenly confronted with the death of a son who had been taken into police custody on suspicion of a grave crime. Her account, however, does not establish whether the accused was innocent of the alleged offence or whether the police account of the shooting was inaccurate. Those questions require evidence and an impartial examination of the events.
THE CASE THAT SHOCKED THE LOCALITY
The case began on Saturday night, October 24, when the 17-year-old girl attended a musical programme near her home in the Gaighata area of North 24-Parganas district.
According to the account reported by the police, the girl left the venue after receiving a telephone call and did not return home. Her body was discovered the following morning. The circumstances prompted suspicions of rape and murder, and police arrested the 23-year-old man in connection with the case after a complaint from the victim’s family.
The allegations were serious, involving a minor and a crime that has caused deep distress to the local community. The victim’s family has suffered an irreversible loss, and its demand for justice deserves to be treated with the utmost seriousness.
But the gravity of an accusation does not remove the need to establish the facts through lawful procedures. Nor does the death of a suspect, by itself, establish the full circumstances of the alleged crime.
THE POLICE VERSION OF THE FATAL SHOOTING
Police said the accused was taken for a reconstruction of the crime late on Monday night, October 26. According to their account, while the team was returning, he allegedly seized the service revolver of a police officer and fired several rounds.
Officers then opened fire in retaliation, claiming that they were responding to an armed attack and an attempt to escape custody. The suspect was injured and taken to a local hospital, where he was declared dead. A police officer was also reported to have sustained a minor injury.
The police have characterised the shooting as an act of self-defence. That is the official account of the incident, not, by itself, an independent determination of whether the use of lethal force was lawful and necessary.
The circumstances surrounding the operation have become a subject of public discussion. The suspect’s family has questioned how he could allegedly seize a firearm while being escorted by several police personnel. A report by Anandabazar Patrika also recorded his mother’s claim that his hands had been tied when he was brought home during the reconstruction exercise. That claim, like the police account, requires verification against the available evidence.
Resolving these competing accounts would require a careful examination of the sequence of events, the injuries sustained, the weapons used, witness statements and other relevant evidence.
A WIDER QUESTION ABOUT POLICE ENCOUNTERS
The Gaighata shooting has drawn additional attention because it resembles other recent fatal incidents in West Bengal.
Reports have described three cases over the past four months—in Baruipur, Gaighata and Samserganj—in which suspects died after police said they had seized officers’ firearms and opened fire during or following crime-scene reconstruction. The alleged offences in those cases differed, but the similarity in the official explanations has prompted questions from opposition leaders and civil liberties advocates.
Critics have argued that repeated incidents following a similar sequence deserve close scrutiny. Their central concern is that a suspect accused of a serious crime must not be deprived of the opportunity to face a judicial process merely because the allegation is shocking or public anger is intense.
The state government and BJP leaders, by contrast, have defended the police action as necessary to confront serious criminality and protect officers and the public. The dispute has therefore extended beyond the individual case to a broader question: how should a government demonstrate firmness against violent crime while ensuring that police conduct remains accountable under the law?
An allegation of an extrajudicial killing should not be treated as a proven fact without evidence. Equally, an official assertion of self-defence should not automatically end legitimate questions about the circumstances in which a person in custody was killed.
JUSTICE MUST NOT BECOME A CONTEST BETWEEN TWO FAMILIES
The tragedy in Gaighata has left two families facing very different but profound forms of suffering. The family of the teenage girl has lost a daughter and is entitled to a thorough investigation into the crime. The family of the deceased suspect has lost a son and is entitled to seek an explanation of how he died while under police control.
These claims are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Recognising the rights of the suspect’s family does not diminish the suffering of the victim’s family, just as demanding accountability for the alleged crime does not mean that the circumstances of the police shooting should go unexamined.
The suspect’s mother reportedly described her son as having committed a wrong, while also suggesting that the girl should have informed her guardians before leaving the musical programme after receiving a telephone call. That statement is her perspective as reported by the media; it does not establish any responsibility on the girl’s part for the alleged offence. Responsibility for a crime must be assessed on the evidence, not on assumptions about a victim’s movements or decisions.
The fact that the accused is dead also means that the criminal case against him cannot proceed to a trial in the ordinary way. This makes a credible investigation into the alleged offence, alongside a transparent examination of the fatal shooting, all the more important for public confidence.
THE TEST OF THE RULE OF LAW
The demand for justice in Gaighata cannot be resolved by public anger, political slogans or competing claims about the character of the deceased. It depends on establishing what happened to the teenage girl, what occurred during the police operation, and whether the use of lethal force complied with the law.
The victim’s family deserves a serious pursuit of the truth about her death. The deceased suspect’s family deserves a clear account of how he died in custody. The public deserves confidence that allegations of grave crimes are investigated effectively and that police officers are held accountable where the evidence warrants it.
Justice is not measured solely by whether a suspect is punished. It is also measured by whether the process used to establish responsibility is lawful, credible and capable of withstanding independent scrutiny.
In Gaighata, a mother’s demand for justice has added a new dimension to an already painful case. The decisive question now is whether the evidence will be examined with the rigour needed to answer the questions left behind by both the alleged crime and the fatal police shooting.
