Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bheekam Singh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 September, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MP 2028
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.43867/2021 (BHEEKAM SINGH BAGHEL VS. STATE OF M.P.) Gwalior dtd. 17/09/2021 Shri Pradeep Katare, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Kalpana Parmar, learned counsel for the State. Shri Akhilesh Bhargava, Senior Scientist, scene of crime is present in person in compliance of order dated 13/09/2021.
Case diary is available.
This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 14/05/2021 in connection with Crime No.350/2021 registered by Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 302, 304-B and 34 of IPC.
Shri Bhargava has also brought his note-book, in which he had prepared notes at the time of inspection of the spot.
It is submitted by Shri Katare that in the inspection report, it is specifically mentioned that the name of the deceased is Rajni Baghel and the incident took place at about 14:30 and the Senior Scientist Officer received the information at 19:00 hours and he carried out the inspection at 20:45.
By referring to the clause 11 of the report, it is submitted that Senior Scientist Officer has specifically mentioned that the information of the incident has been given to the parents of the 2 deceased. It is further submitted that in clause 12 of the report, it is mentioned that one hair with other hairs were seen on the right shoulder of the deceased. It is also mentioned that since the hairs of the deceased are long and small hairs were found on the right shoulder of the deceased, therefore, they were directed to be preserved in a white paper as the parents of the deceased have not arrived so far.
It is submitted that as per the FIR, the incident took place at about 17:45 and the incident was seen by the father of the deceased. If the FIR is compared with the inspection report of Shri Akhilesh Bhargava, Senior Scientist Officer, then it is clear that it is incorrect to say that the incident took place at 17:45 and it is equally incorrect to say that the FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased being the eyewitness of the incident. It is further submitted that some small hairs were seized from the right shoulder of the deceased, therefore, it is clear that some unknown person has killed the wife of the applicant and he has been falsely implicated by the father of the deceased by projecting himself as an eyewitness.
Shri Akhilesh Bhargava submitted that the name of the deceased was disclosed by SHO Amar Singh Sikarwar as Rajni Baghel, therefore, he had mentioned her name as Rajni Baghel. This fact is also mentioned in the hand written notes of Shri Bhargava, therefore, the incorrect mention of the name of the 3 deceased in the inspection report is ignored.
In clause 5 of the inspection report, it is mentioned that the incident took place at about 14:30. In the entire hand written inspection note of Shri Bhargava, the timings of the incident are not mentioned. Although, Shri Bhargava tried to project that the time of the incident was disclosed to him by SHO Amar Singh Sikarwar, but fairly conceded that the said fact was not noted by him in his hand written notes.
In clause 11 of the inspection report, it is mentioned that an information has been given to the parents of the deceased whereas, it is the case of the prosecution that the father of the deceased had lodged the FIR as an eyewitness.
This Court has seen the hand written notes of Shri Bhargava and could not find any such note that parents of the deceased have been informed.
Shri Bhargava was directed to go through his notes and point out as to whether he has mentioned this fact in his hand written notes or not. After going through his hand written notes, he fairly conceded that he has not mentioned that the parents of the deceased have been informed.
In the inspection report, it is mentioned that one hair surrounded by some more hairs was found on the right shoulder of the deceased and since, the hairs of the deceased are long and the hairs found on the right shoulder of the deceased are small and, 4 therefore, they were directed to be preserved.
At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in fact small hairs were also seized by the police.
Be that whatever it may.
Shri Bhargava was directed to point out from his notes as to whether small hairs were found on the right shoulder of the deceased or not. After going through his short notes, it is fairly conceded by Shri Bhargava that he has merely mentioned that "Rt. Kandhe Par Bal Chipka Hai" and he has also mentioned the word "hair". He fairly conceded that in his short notes, he has not mentioned "small hair" or "hairs".
It is fairly conceded by Shri Bhargava that in his notes, he has not mentioned that the police authorities are waiting for the parents of the deceased. However, he fairly conceded that he has mentioned this fact in his inspection report and tried to justify that it was informed by SHO Amar Singh Sikarwar.
Thus, the following aspects are clear in the case:-
(1) "Timings of the incident i.e. 14:30" has been mentioned by Shri Bhargava without there being any written note in this regard.
(2) "Information has been given to the parents of the deceased" mentioned in clause 11 of his report is mentioned without there being any note in his short notes.
(3) The note "one hair surrounded with more hairs on the 5 right shoulder of the deceased" is not mentioned in his small notes as per note mentioned in the inspection report.
On the contrary, in small note, it is merely mentioned that "a hair is found on the right shoulder of the deceased" and the word "hair" has been mentioned in the small note.
In the inspection report, it is mentioned that the said hairs were small hairs whereas it is not mentioned in the small notes.
(4) The word "waiting for the parents of the deceased" is mentioned in inspection report whereas, it is not mentioned in small note. Thus, it is clear that the inspection report, which has been prepared by Shri Bhargava is contrary to the small note prepared by him at the time of inspection of the spot.
According to the prosecution case, the incident took place at about 17:45 and the first informant is the father of the deceased, who has alleged that he had seen the incident. By giving an incorrect inspection note, Shri Bhargava on his own changed the time of incident from 17:45 to 14:30 without there being any basis.
Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the incident was witnessed by the father of the deceased, but by mentioning in the inspection note that the information has been given to the parents of the deceased and they are still awaited, Shri Bhargava has tried to demolish prosecution case, without there being anything in this regard in his short notes contained in his personal diary.
It is clear that Shri Bhargava has tried to assist the accused by 6 projecting that the family members / father of the deceased was not present at the place of incident and in fact they had not reached Gwalior by 8:25 on 11/05/2021. Although, Shri Bhargava has tried to justify his action that aforementioned information was written on the basis of the information given by Shri Amar Singh Sikarwar, SHO but he has conceded that the inspection report was prepared in the afternoon of the next day i.e. 12/05/2021 on the basis of short notes prepared by him after noticing the spot on 11/05/2021 at 20:45. When Shri Bhargava was directed to inform this Court about the date and timing of creation of file in his computer so that it can be ascertained that at what time inspection note was prepared by Shri Bhargava, then after taking instructions from his subordinates, it is submitted by Shri Bhargava that the date and timing of the creation of file is not being reflected in the computer.
Accordingly, Shri Satyendra Sharma, Senior System Analyst posted in High Court of M.P. at Gwalior was called to verify as to whether the date and time of creation/ modification of a file is automatically reflected in the computer or not ? Shri Satyendra Sharma informed that whenever, any file is created or modified, then the timing and the date of such action is automatically reflected in the computer. Unless and until, it is blocked by manipulating the properties of the computer.
If the contention of Shri Bhargava that his computer is not reflecting the date and time of creation/ modification of inspection 7 report is considered, then it is clear that even the authorities have manipulated their computer and have deliberately blocked the dates and times so that the date and time of creation of the file cannot be ascertained.
Thereafter, Shri Bhargava was directed to inform this Court as to when the inspection note was handed over to the Investigating Officer. After seeking instructions from his subordinates, it is submitted by Shri Bhargava that the inspection note was handed to Constable No.1469, Dilip Khanna, Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior on 13/05/2021. Thus, it is clear that although, the inspection was carried out on 11/05/2021 at 20:45 but the date and timing of the preparation of inspection note is not known and the inspection note was handed over to Constable No.1469, Dilip Khanna on 13/05/2021, however, Shri Bhargava is not in a position to inform that at what time the said note was given. However, he submitted that it must have been given in the morning.
Be that whatever it may.
One thing is clear, Shri Bhargava has mentioned certain facts, which are contrary to the prosecution case and such facts mentioned by Shri Bhargava in his inspection report are not supported by his short notes prepared by him at the time of inspection on spot. Thus, prima facie it appears that Shri Bhargava has tried to assist the accused to claim that the father of the deceased had not witnessed the incident and the FIR is ante-dated and ante-time. 8
Under these circumstances, the Reader of this Court is directed to seal the personal diary of Shri Bhargava in an envelope. The diary was sealed in the envelope in the open Court in presence of Shri Pradeep Katare, Advocate, Shri Akhilesh Bhargava and Ms. Kalpana Parmar, Panel Lawyer.
The inspection note dated 12/05/2021 prepared by Shri Bhargava is a part of the police case diary. Ms. Kalpana Parmar is directed to provide the attested photocopy of the said inspection note to the Court so that it can also be communicated to Director General of Police, State of M.P. in a sealed envelope.
As this Court is of the prima facie opinion that Shri Bhargava has tried to manipulate the investigation by making wrong observations, which are not supported by his own notes, therefore, his conduct is to be seriously viewed.
Accordingly, the Director General of Police, State of M.P. is directed to initiate Departmental Enquiry against Shri Akhilesh Bhargava for his serious misconduct in preparing and forwarding false inspection note with above mentioned entries.
Let the Departmental Enquiry be concluded within a period of four months from today after giving full opportunity of hearing to Shri Bhargava.
The Director General of Police, State of M.P. is directed to submit the final order of Departmental Enquiry within a period of five months from today i.e. latest by 24/02/2022. 9
The Principal Registrar of this Court is directed to forward two sealed envelope each containing the diary of Shri Bhargava and another containing the attested copy of the inspection note prepared by Shri Bhargava, which was provided by the State counsel on the instructions of this Court to the Director General of Police, State of M.P. alongwith the copy of this order for necessary information and compliance.
So far as the merits of the case are concerned, entire arguments are based on inspection report submitted by Shri Bhargava. This Court after considering the reply of Shri Bhargava as well as FIR and his inspection report alongwith his small notes prepared by him at the time of inspection on the spot, has already come to a conclusion that all the entries which favour the accused are not supported by his small notes and even the date and timing of preparation of the inspection notes as well as delivery of the inspection note to the SHO of concerning police station is also not known.
Be that whatever it may.
The facts of the matter is that the father of the deceased had lodged the FIR that in the morning, he was informed by his daughter on phone that she is being beaten by the applicant, who is the husband of the deceased. At 5 PM when the father of the deceased went to the house of the deceased, then he heard the noise of quarrel therefore he rushed to the room. Then he found that the 10 applicant was strangulating the deceased. Even as per the post- mortem report, the cause of death of the deceased is strangulation. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased has died a homicidal death in the house of applicant. The burden is on the applicant to explain as to how his wife has met homicidal death.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for grant of bail.
Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
Pj'S/- Judge
Digitally signed
by PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Date: 2021.09.17
18:38:02 -07'00'