Jharkhand High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs The State Of Jharkhand Through on 21 January, 2022
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice, Sujit Narayan Prasad
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No.2696 of 2021
-----
Court on its own motion
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through
the Chief Secretary & Others ... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Victim Family : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
For the U.O.I. : Mr. S.V. Raju, A.S.G.I.
: Mr. Rajiv Sinha, A.S.G.I.
For the JPSC/JSCC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
-----------------------------
ORAL ORDER
21/Dated 21st January, 2022 The matter has been taken up through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or video quality.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The Investigating Officer of the case is present before this Court through online mode.
4. The progress report by way of 19th report of the case pertaining to death of Late Uttam Anand, District & Additional Sessions Judge-VIII (as he then was) along with Expert's Reports, Charge sheet, Statements of witnesses and Documents (Vol.-I & Vol.-II) have been placed in sealed covers, which have been opened during the proceeding of the case.
5. Registry of this Court, in compliance of the order dated 14.01.2022, has placed all the progress reports, i.e., from 1st to 18th.
[2]
6. This Court has perused the Expert's Report in connection with RC.5(S)/2021-CBI/SC.I/New Delhi and found therefrom the details of the Brain Electronic Oscillation Signature (in short BEOS) wherein the result of two accused persons have been furnished under the seal and signature of one Dr. H.V. Acharya holding the post of Assistant Director, Forensic Psychology Division, Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, to the effect that one of the accused persons indicated that he was given an assignment to hit Judgesahab, i.e., Late Uttam Anand. It has also been stated that the said accused person had done reiki of Judgesahab's residence. The said accused person took help of another accused person to execute his plan. On 28.07.2021, when they saw Judgesahab, one of the accused persons asked another accused person to accelerate his auto's speed and thereafter, one of the accused persons had seen Judgesahab falling down on the road with the hit of auto.
6. This Court, after going through the first report dated 09.09.2021, is of the view that even in the Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature, it was reported about killing of Late Uttam Anand with some motive, for which, assignment was given to one of the accused persons and the said accused person has assigned the said work to another accused person. It requires to refer herein that this Court is not referring the name of both the accused persons with the purpose that their names may not come in public so that the investigation of the case may not suffer, in any way.
[3]
7. We have also seen the subsequent BEOS report dated 12.01.2022 which reveals that the accused person, who had stated on 09.09.2021 in BEOS report about the acceptance of killing of Late Uttam Anand, for which he was assigned the said work but he took U-turn in the subsequent BEOS report which was conducted after lapse of about 4 months stating that he was not present in the auto with him. He also revealed that he is having no idea about the accident.
8. A question arose to the mind of this Court that when, in the BEOS test which was conducted on 09.09.2021, version of the said accused person was recorded about killing of Late Uttam Anand, then after lapse of about 4 months, what led the investigating agency to again subject the accused persons for subsequent BEOS test, which was conducted on 12.01.2022.
9. Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the investigating agency, i.e., CBI, along with Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, has submitted that since in between the intervening period from first BEOS report, no clue emerged which led the investigating agency to subject the accused persons for another BEOS test which was conducted on 12.01.2022.
10. This Court is not in agreement with such explanation of conducting second BEOS test after lapse of about 4 months wherein a complete contradictory recording has come up the said accused persons. This Court, before taking a view upon the same, deems it fit and proper to see the internal [4] guideline/manual of CBI, formulated for the purpose of carrying out investigation of a case, as to whether there is any guideline to go for subsequent BEOS Examination in a case where in the previous examination, the statement of concerned accused has already been recorded showing the intention of killing. Therefore, this Court is passing the following directions:
(i) The investigating agency, i.e., CBI is required to produce the guideline for internal investigation for conducting the electronic test like BEOS, etc, if any.
(ii) The investigating agency, i.e., CBI is directed to explain as to why the recording of the version of the accused persons as has been made in the BEOS report dated 09.09.2021, has not been relied upon and what was the reason to go for the second BEOS test, and to accept the changed version.
6. In view thereof, let this matter be listed on 28.01.2022.
7. Let a further progress report be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing. On that date, the Investigating Officer of the case as also Dr. H.V. Acharya, at present working as Assistant Director, Forensic Psychology Division, Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar, Gujarat will also remain present before this Court through online mode.
[5]
8. Let the progress report submitted today, Expert's Reports, Charge sheet, Statements of witnesses and Documents (Vol.-I & Vol.-II) be kept in sealed cover and be returned to the Registrar General of this Court to keep it in the safe custody.
9. Let all the documents, i.e., Progress Reports from 1st to 19th, Expert's Reports, Charge sheet, Statements of witnesses and Documents (Vol.-I & Vol.-II) be produced on the next date of hearing.
10. Let this order be communicated forthwith through the investigating agency, i.e., CBI, to Dr. H.V. Acharya, Assistant Director, Forensic Psychology Division, Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar, Gujarat.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh/-