Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarabjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 30 November, 2010
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Misc. No. 11466 of 2010 in
Civil Writ Petition No.12954 of 2008
Date of decision: 30th November, 2010
Sarabjit Singh
... Applicant-Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Rajvinder Singh Bains, Advocate
for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
ORDER
Applicant-petitioner had filed a writ petition in this Court in the public interest seeking a mandate to the State of Punjab and its officials to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the murder of two medical students of Government Medical College, Amritsar, namely Shashi Bhushan and Deepak Mangla, by an independent agency. The above said writ petition was dismissed on July 28, 2009 on the statement made by counsel for the State that the Director General of Police has assigned the investigation to Ms.Gurpreet Kaur Deo, IPS, Deputy Inspector General, Border Range, Amritsar, an officer of senior rank, with liberty to Civil Misc. No. 11466 of 2010 in 2 Civil Writ Petition No.12954 of 2008 her to constitute a Special Investigation Team (hereinafter referred to as, 'SIT') comprising officers of her own choice.
To allay the apprehension of the counsel that the SIT may not be able to make any progress, applicant-petitioner was permitted to seek intervention of this Court for transfer of the cases to some other agency, if the SIT so constituted fails to make any headway.
By way of present application, the applicant-petitioner has made an attempt to depict failure on the part of SIT and prayed that the investigation of both the murder cases, arising out of FIR No.423 dated 22nd August, 2008 and FIR No.243 dated 19th June, 2009 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC, be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as, 'CBI'), a premier investigating agency established under the Delhi Police Establishment Act.
To examine the prayer made by the applicant-petitioner, it will be necessary to recapitulate the facts, as they emerge from the pleadings and the status report filed by the SIT in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 29th October, 2010.
Two students of Government Medical College, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as, 'the College'), namely Shashi Bhushan and Deepak Mangla, died an unnatural death in the months of December 2006 and February 2007 respectively. The dead bodies were found in the College campus. In the writ petition, it was alleged that one Arun Dalal son of Dr.J.S. Dalal, Principal of the College, had a role to play in the unnatural death of both the medical students, which according to the petitioner was nothing but a culpable homicide amounting to murder. Civil Misc. No. 11466 of 2010 in 3 Civil Writ Petition No.12954 of 2008 Deepak Mangla was a third year M.B.B.S. student of the College in the year 2007. His dead body was found in the College hostel room No.30 on the night of 1st February, 2007. The local police conducted inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and noticed presence of one half-filled bottle of cold-drink in the room of the deceased. The dead body revealed no external or internal mark of injury. Viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Patiala, Punjab, who opined that Chlorocompound group of insecticide was detected in the viscera of the deceased. The Medical Board so constituted gave an opinion that the cause of death in case of Deepak Mangla was failure of the functions of the brain due to consumption of Chlorocompound group of insecticide, a poison, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner, the Station House Officer, Police Station Majitha registered a case after a lapse of about two years. To be specific, case FIR No.243 was registered on 19th June, 2009 at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
The dead body of Shashi Bhushan was discovered on 28th November, 2006 in a gutter of Pathology Department of the College and a case FIR No.423 dated 22nd August, 2008 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. In the case of Shashi Bhushan also, there was a delay of about two years in registration of the FIR. The District Magistrate, Amritsar ordered a magisterial enquiry under Section 176 Cr.P.C. and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar submitted his report, in pursuance whereof the District Magistrate, Amritsar wrote to the Senior Superintendent of Police to constitute a Special Investigation Team. During investigation, FIR was registered and enquiry was entrusted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, who deputed Superintendent of Police (Detective), Civil Misc. No. 11466 of 2010 in 4 Civil Writ Petition No.12954 of 2008 Gurdaspur as an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer concluded it to be a case of accidental death.
In compliance of the orders passed by this Court, Ms.Gurpreet Kaur Deo, a senior IPS officer of the State, then posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar has filed an affidavit dated 15.11.2010 along with the status report. It is stated therein that she constituted a Special Investigation Team, which consisted of (1) Sudesh Kumar Agnihotri, PPS, then Assistant Commandant 5th IRBn, Amritsar; (2) Harwinder Singh, PPS, then DSP, Bhikhiwind (Tarn Taran); (3) Devinder Singh Inspector, then SHO, Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar City and (4) Joginder Singh Sub Inspector. The status report gives details of various steps taken by the SIT, vigorous efforts made, examination of various witnesses and interrogation of suspects. Regarding the death of Deepak Mangla, it was concluded that since there was no injury on the dead body of the deceased and there was no evidence of struggle in the room, from which the dead body was found, no material could be found by the SIT to arrive at a definite conclusion and the SIT recommended filing of an untraced report. The SIT concluded that lapse of 2 ½ years in registration of the case from the date of inquest is the prime reason for not coming to a definite conclusion. The conclusion of SIT reads as under:
"But after the lapse of about 2 ½ years from 20.3.2007, the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was not verified by the Station House Officer or Halqa officer and the proceeding under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were securitized by the Station House Officer on 19.06.2009 and a case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered. If the investigation under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was done in time or in a systematic way definitely, definite conclusion could have been arrived at. Due to this, it is recommended by the Special Investigation Team Civil Misc. No. 11466 of 2010 in 5 Civil Writ Petition No.12954 of 2008 that Departmental action against the then Station House Officer and DSP supervisory officer may be initiated.
A time lag has occurred since the occurrence of the incident and there does not seem to be any justification for keeping the investigation pending in the case. It is, therefore, recommended that untraced report in the case may be filed."
All possible efforts were also made by the SIT to unearth the alleged crime regarding the death of Shashi Bhushan. In the documents attached to the status report, names of doctors, class-mates of the deceased, students living in the hostel, team members who conducted post-mortem, class-IV employees working in the mess/canteen and other employees of the College, who were examined, have been specified. The SIT has held that no evidence was available to infer that Shashi Bhushan was murdered. The SIT has concluded his death to be an accidental death and recommended submission of a cancellation report.
We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the status report submitted.
Mr. Rajvinder Singh Bains, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-petitioner, has stated that son of the Principal of the College is primarily responsible for the death of both the medical students and no custodial interrogation has been undertaken by the SIT and therefore, the SIT has failed to arrive at a just conclusion. We are not impressed by this argument. The SIT consisted of IPS officers of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police; Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police; Inspector and Sub Inspector. They have examined various witnesses. They have made an attempt to re-construct the scene of crime and considered various probabilities and possibilities. It is the subjective opinion of the SIT consisting of high rank officers, Civil Misc. No. 11466 of 2010 in 6 Civil Writ Petition No.12954 of 2008 which has to prevail. This Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot venture to suggest that the SIT should have acted in a particular fashion or manner. It was for the SIT to decide to whom to interrogate. It is the wisdom of the SIT, whether somebody is to be subjected to custodial interrogation or not, to which we will grant due sanctity. Suffice it to say, neither any malafide has been levelled against the SIT nor can we believe that Principal of the College has wielded influence over the SIT, which consisted of responsible officers of the State.
The mere fact that the SIT could not come to a definite conclusion regarding the death of Deepak Mangla or has not concluded the death of Shashi Bhushan to be a murder, to the satisfaction of the applicant-petitioner, is no reason for us to entrust the investigation of the above said two FIRs to the CBI. At the same time, we cannot become oblivious of the fact that the dead body of Shashi Bhushan was found in the month of November 2006 and that of Deepak Mangla on 1st February, 2007 in the hostel room of the College. A period of about four years is going to elapse. At this juncture, when considerable delay has already taken place, we are of the opinion that the investigation by CBI may also not yield any fruitful results. In cases of this nature, where forensic investigation is called for, after occurrence of the incident, due to delay vital pieces of evidence are destroyed or become unusable. For carrying meaningful investigation, time is an essence. The SIT has already expressed delay as one of the main hurdles in arriving at a definite conclusion regarding the death of Deepak Mangla. Therefore, we are of the view that entrusting the enquiry to the CBI after four years may be an exercise in futility. With passage of time, human memory fades, vital clues are not available, the material, which can give lead to the investigating agency, decay and the evidence withers away.
Civil Misc. No. 11466 of 2010 in 7Civil Writ Petition No.12954 of 2008 Delay has been noticed by the courts as a circumstance for not entrusting an enquiry to the CBI. In 'Hakim Singh v. State of Punjab and others' Civil Writ Petition No.10667 of 1996 decided on 17th November, 1997, a Division Bench of this Court refused to order an enquiry where the incident had taken place in the year 1993 and the petition was filed three years later. In 'Mahender Singh v. S.S.P. Mansa and others' Civil Writ Petition No.1654 of 1996 decided on December 17, 2003, this Court declined to institute an enquiry after 12 years of alleged disappearance. In 'Sardul Singh v. State of Punjab and others' Civil Appeal No.224 of 1991 decided on March 24, 2004, Hon'ble the Apex Court declined to come to the rescue of the appellant therein, as a period of ten years had elapsed after occurrence of the incident. In the above mentioned cases, the writ petitions were not entertained, because of delay and laches, primarily for the reason that due to delay, no meaningful investigation shall proceed. Therefore, handing over of the investigation to the CBI, as prayed in the present petition, may not be effective. Hence, the prayer is declined. However, since the SIT in case FIR No.243 dated 19th June, 2009 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC, has proposed to file an untraced report and in case FIR No.423 dated 22nd August, 2008 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC, has recommended to submit a cancellation report, we order that the SIT shall submit its final report in both the cases to the concerned Area Magistrate within three months from today under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The concerned Area Magistrate, in consonance with the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in 'Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police' 1985(2) RCR (Criminal) 259, shall issue a notice to the complainant and afford an opportunity of hearing to him, so that he is able to file the protest petition, if so advised. Civil Misc. No. 11466 of 2010 in 8 Civil Writ Petition No.12954 of 2008 With the observations made above, present application is disposed of.
[RANJAN GOGOI] [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE JUDGE
November 30, 2010
rps