Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Mita Kamila vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 January, 2018
1
12‐01‐2018
S.D.
W.P. 25991 (W) of 2017
Smt. Mita Kamila
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee
Mr. Joydeep Dutta
....For the Petitioner.
Mr. Saptangshu Basu
Mr. Apurba Krishan Das
Mr. Kallol Kumar Maity
....For the Respondent No. 8.
Mr. Haradhan Banerjee Mr. A. Pain Mr. Subhrangshu Datta Mrs. Manideepa (Paul) Roy Ms. Nilmoni Das ...For the Respondent Nos. 9. 10. & 11.
Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya Mr. Sayak Chakraborti ....For the Respondent No. 12.
Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Ld. Sr. St. Counsel Mr. S. Adak ....For the State.
The writ petition relates to an investigation conducted by the police in respect of a deceased person. From time to time, various orders were passed by the Writ Court. Reports were filed 2 by the police authorities. The reports disclose that, the death was caused by drowning ante‐mortem in nature.
The petitioner is not satisfied with the conduct of the investigation so far. The petitioner suspects that, the death was caused by murder. The petitioner seeks that, the investigation should be handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.) for a better investigation. In support of the contention that, the Investigating Authority did not explore all the angles of the death, the petitioner contends that, the body was found beside a railway track when the death was caused by drowning. According to the petitioner, there is no explanation as to why such dead body should be found at that place. The petitioner also contends about the mobile phone of the deceased and a phone call being received from such mobile phone after the time of death noted in the post mortem report. These, according to the petitioner, are indications that, the investigation has not been carried out appropriately.
Learned Senior Advocate for the State submits that, every possible angle for the cause of death has been explored. Expert medical opinions have been obtained. In fact, two medical opinions were obtained. Both the opinions are concurrent and say 3 that, the death was caused by accidental drowning. The viscera report is still awaited. He submits that, the water body is next to the railway track. People have come forwarded and have given statements stating that, the body was recovered from the water body and been brought near about the railway track. The user of the mobile phone has also been explained by the person who had made the call from the mobile belonging to the deceased. Initially, the mobile phone was wet. After the water had drained out from the mobile it had started working and one of the persons who had the possession of the mobile phone had made the call from such mobile phone. According to him, every aspect of the matter was looked into. There is no necessity of replacement of an Investigating Authority.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 7, 9 10 and 11 submits that, in the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the report of the police authorities, he has statutory alternative remedy available. A writ court should not intervene and replace an Investigating Authority mainly on the basis of suspicion.
4
Learned Advocate for the respondent no. 12 submits that, in the event Investigating Authority is replaced, the same demand may be repeated for all times to come, till such time the petitioner receives a report which will be favourable to the petitioner. This process should not be adopted by the Court.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials available on record.
In the present case, an investigation in respect of a death of a person is involved. The viscera report is still awaited. Although the police have looked into various angles raised in the process of the investigation, yet the cause of death has not been conclusively established. The viscera report as noted above is still awaited.
No doubt, a Writ Court should be slow in replacing the Investigating Authority. It should not act on the basis of surmises and conjectures True, the petitioner has alternative remedy also. However, the existence of alternative remedy by itself does not oust the jurisdiction of the Writ Court in interfering in the appropriate cases. The requirement of the Writ Court to be slow in interfering with the investigation does not denude the power of the Writ Court to interfere in appropriate circumstances. There are 5 angles, which need to be explored if not reaffirmed by way of a fresh investigation, in the facts of the present case. As noted above, there is a death of a person. The theory of the police is that, the death had occurred by way of drowning in a water body. The body was recovered by certain persons and brought towards a railway track. The railway track and the water body are nearby to each other. Cause of death is sought to be explained. It is drowning. Why the person had drowned and what circumstances are issues in which the present investigation is yet to throw any light, far to speak of convincing. One theory of the police is that, the deceased had a business and that, the premises in which the business was located was demolished and, therefore, the deceased was suffering from depression.
Although, the police cannot be faulted for the investigation so far carried out, it would be appropriate to have a re‐look of the entire incident afresh. There remains certain areas, which should be revisited. The deceased had traveled a distance from the place of his business to the place where the body was found. The post mortem report discloses consumption of alcohol. The places at which the deceased had visited before the death and the place at 6 which the petitioner had consumed such alcohol and the company in which the alcohol was consumed are to be investigated into. These are some of the angles which the new Investigating Authority should look at. The Investigating Authority however, should not limit itself to these angles only.
In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to transfer the investigation to the Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.).
With the aforesaid observations, W.P. 25991 (W) of 2017 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) 7 8 9 10 11