Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Suman Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 30 November, 2012
Author: U.C. Dhyani
Bench: U.C. Dhyani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 977 of 2012
Smt. Suman Devi ............ Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ............ Respondents
Present: Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Advocate General, State of Uttarakhand
with Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, brief holder for the State/
respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for CBI/respondent No.9.
Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.
Hon'ble U.C. Dhyani, J.
In this matter, a death has taken place in custody. The wife of the deceased has filed the present writ petition. In the writ petition, she simply asked for investigation into the death of the deceased. When the matter was taken up by us, we directed lodgment of a First Information Report against unknown person, in relation to the death, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We directed I.G. Police, having superintendence over Station Officer, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Dehradun, to appoint an Investigating Officer of exceptional repute to be selected from amongst those officers, who have got no connection either with Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun or the Station Officer, Police station Kotwali Nagar, Dehradun. At that stage, the counsel for the State appeared, but did not intimate us that there is no I.G. Police having superintendence over Station Officer, Police Station, Kotwali Nagar, Dheradun, and instead, there is a D.I.G. Police. It appears that D.I.G. Police has appointed Mr. P.C. Mathpal as the Investigating Officer. By the order dated 16th October, 2012, we directed the Investigating Officer to file his first report of investigation on 26th November, 2012. On 26th November, 2012, the Investigating Officer filed his first report in the form of an affidavit annexing therewith copy of Section 161 statements said to 2 be of the wife of the deceased, as also, an affidavit of her said to have been forwarded to him by the office of the D.I.G., Police. The contents of the statement and the affidavit are identical. Those suggest that the wife of the deceased is satisfied that the death of the deceased had no connection with the Police. Petitioner, the wife of the deceased, was present in Court yesterday, who stated that her thumb impression has been obtained by the Police on a blank paper. The affidavit is said to have been affirmed before the Oath Commissioner, Dehradun. The affidavit is in Hindi and, in the affidavit, there is no endorsement to the effect that the same has been verified by putting thumb impression after having understood the contents thereof either by reading the same by the person, who scribed oath or she having been explained the contents thereof.
2. Today also, petitioner is present in Court. Learned Advocate General invited the petitioner to be asked a few questions. Accordingly, she was asked a few questions by the learned Advocate General. In course thereof, she stated that the deceased has been done away with by the Police. Having regard to the said answer, the learned Advocate General refused to ask any further question to the petitioner. The said state of affair clearly demonstrates that the Court cannot have further confidence in the Investigating Officer or the D.I.G., Police, who has appointed the Investigating Officer. From the first day itself, Court had no confidence either on the Station Officer, Police Station, Kotwali Nagar, Dehradun or the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun and, accordingly, made it absolutely clear that they should have no role to play in the matter of investigation into the matter. We are, therefore, constrained to transfer this case to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The First Information Report, thus lodged, be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The D.I.G., Police concerned is directed to ensure all records of investigation are handed over to the D.I.G., Central Bureau of Investigation, 3 Dehradun in course of 1st December, 2012 against a receipt. The D.I.G., Central Bureau of Investigation, Dehradun is directed to file his first report of investigation on 7th January, 2013 in Court.
3. The Director General of Police, Uttarakhand is directed to ensure that no harm, in any manner, is caused to Smt. Suman Devi, the petitioner herein. It is made clear that every machinery available to D.G., Police, Uttarakhand shall be made active in order to provide full security to Smt. Suman Devi. In the event any harm is caused to her, the Court will hold the D.G., Police, Uttarakhand personally responsible therefor.
4. Petitioner, Smt. Suman Devi, is directed to file an affidavit one week hence stating if she wants to add anything further to the petition that she has filed.
5. List seven days hence.
6. Personal appearance of the Police Officers, as directed on 29th November, 2012, is no longer required.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.)
30.11.2012 30.11.2012
P. Singh