Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is a great predicament for this Court to say as to whether it is a case of suicide or a case of assassination. Whether it is a case of suicide or it is a case of assasination, the fact remains that the deceased, a young man of 29 years who was a post-graduate and working as an Assistant Intelligence Officer has lost his life. His wife is widowed at the age of 25 years and his children have lost the father's protection, care and love for ever. The family stands bereaved. The death on duty while he was in the company of the officers who lifted him from his house, whether it is as a result of suicide or as a result of custodial murder as alleged by the original petitioner, the consequences and sufferings of the family remain the same. A dismal or unfortunate event or a happening leaves an indelible imprint and consequences whether intended or unintended, suffering is the same regardless of the intentions of the person or authority responsible for precipitating such consequences. Although the police has given an abated summary report and has reported that it was a case of suicide and the same has also been accepted by the Court, the following facts cannot be lost sight of :

7. Shri H. R. Gehlot has opined in the end of his report that it was a case of suicide and not of any other kind. His opinion that it was a case of suicide is based on the statement of Dr. M. A. Maksoor, Civil Hospital, Godhra and that as per the statement of Dr. Maksoor, the patient, i.e., Shri Narendrasinh Rana had told him that he had shot himself.

8. Strangely enough, and to our great shock and surprise, we find that in this detailed report and the investigation as has been done, no effort whatsoever has been made to find out or indicate or even infer as to what could be those compelling circumstances so as to force a young man of 29 years of age, well placed in the services of the Government, so as to commit suicide. What was or what could be the possible reason for deceased Shri Narendrasinh Rana to shoot himself has not at all been indicated in the entire report. So far as the statement of Dr. Maksoor is concerned, the same was recorded on 23rd June, 1996. May be that in the medical case papers, on 1-11-1995 at 7-20 a.m. said Doctor Maksoor had mentioned it as a history of, "gun shot wound injury by himself and that he had been brought by Shri M. II. Joshi, P.S.I., L.C.B., one fails to understand as to why the dying declaration of this patient Shri Narendrasinh Rana was not recorded till the time of his death on 2nd November, 1995 or till the time he was conscious before Dr. M. A. Maksoor at Civil Hospital, Godhra on 1-11-1995 itself when all highly ranking officers were also there at Godhra.

Dated 10-11-2000.

9. Aparl from the fact that there has been no investigation on the question as to for what compelling reason Shri Narendrasinh Rana could have resorted to commit suicide, we find that apparently there was no plausible reason for him to commit suicide and the circumstances preceding and attendant to the date in point of lime of the so-called death of Shri Narendrasinh Rana indicate that there was no circumstances whatsoever so as to lead Shri Narendrasinh Rana to commit suicide. It further appears that Shri Narendrasinh Rana had landed himself in trouble only after he had made a report on 9-10-1995 to the Addl. 'Director General of Police, C.I.D. (Intelligence), Gujarat State, Ahmedabad with regard to the suspicious activities of Hemant Dadubhai Barot of Lunawada because he had also mentioned in this report that efforts were on to collect information about the activities of Hemant Dadubhai Barot of Lunawada through informants and secret methods and that further report will be made in this connection after collecting further facts and evidence and that the watch is continuing uninterrupted. We also fail to understand as to what could be the purpose to take Shri Narendrasinh Rana to Godhra. He was an employee of the intelligence department and there was no basis for subjecting him to any investigation. It also does not appear to be possible in the facts of the case that there was any revolver available with Shri Narendrasinh Rana from which he could fire himself and if at all Shri Narendrasinh Rana had fired himself and if at all he was trying to pick up the revolver again, why the Police Constable Dinesh was directed by the P.S.I. Shri Joshi to pick up the revolver without taking care to see that the finger prints of Shri Rana on such revolver remain intact. At that point of time, had the care been taken by P.S.I. Joshi, who directed the Police Constable to take the revolver, so as to pick it up with any cloth, the presence of the finger-print of Shri Narendrasinh Rana could have indicated that he had fired himself. Such available evidence was not allowed to come on record by getting the revolver picked up by the Constable without requisite care and as a consequence the question of comparing the finger-print of Shri Narendrasinh Rana with the finger-print available on the revolver was made impossible. It is also clear in the facts of this case that there was sufficient time between the point of time Shri Narendrasinh Rana is said to have shot himself and the time when Shri Narendrasinh Rana is said to have died. It is rather strange that during the whole period of two clays the dying declaration was not recorded. The remark of Dr. Mohib Maksoor was that the patient was conscious. If that be so, and if the Doctor could record in the case papers that it was a case of gun-shot wound injury by himself, it remains no more compatible to understand as to why his dying declaration could not be recorded at that point of time itself when he was conscious. He was referred to S.S.G. Hospital, Vadodara for further treatment and even if it is taken that he was unconscious in S.S.G. Hospital, and therefore, his dying declaration could not be recorded on that date i.e., on 2-11-1995, it remains to be explained as to for what reason his dying declaration was not recorded on 1-11-1995 itself i.e., immediately after it was found that he had shot himself. P.S.I. Shri Joshi of L.C.B. lodged the complaint under Section 309 of I.P.C. at 9-00 hours on 1-11-1995 and he has no where stated that from which point of time he was unconscious. Had the dying declaration of Shri Narendrasinh Rana been recorded, the factual position would have become known as to how and in what circumstances he died. Thus, the real evidence, which was very much available and which could throw light on the question of death of Shri Narendrasinh Rana by suicide or otherwise, was either made to vanish or was not allowed to be brought on record and it appears that in order to thwart and defeat the steps which Shri Narendrasinh Rana could have taken against the criminals, a built-up story was given and it is very clear in the facts and circumstances of this case that the investigation, as has been made, has been an investigation of very poor quality -- deliberate or otherwise and the report made by Shri Gehlot only appears to be a camouflage over the issue of the death and we do feel that it cannot be said to be a simple case of suicide as has been taken. On the contrary, it appears that some interested persons including the Officers, who were with Shri Narendrasinh Rana and who had taken him to Godhra wanted to shield the criminals because Shri Narendrasinh Rana made a report and could have proceeded further to book more criminals, and therefore, a fact-situation was concocted and engineered so as to prevent Shri Narendrasinh Rana from discharging his duties to defeat the activities of criminals and in order to achieve such an ill-designed motive, they went to the extent of bringing an end to the life of Shri Narendrasinh Rana and virtually a case, not simply of culpable death, but a custodial murder, has been projected as a case of suicide, and thereby, the latent object has been served. It is also pertinent to mention that against Hemant Dadu Barot and Ors. after the death of Shri Narendrasinh Rana (2-11-1995) three cases were registered on 5-11-1995, 3-11-1995 and 6-11-1995 and in all these three cases they have been acquitted on 28-4-1999, 23-1-1998 and 22-4-1997. While we find it difficult to endorse the view taken by the learned single Judge that no mala fide could be attached to the investigating agency on the part of C.I.D. Crime, in view of the facts noticed by us from the record as stated in Para 5(a) to 5(z) and the reasons as discussed by us hereinabove, it is also difficult to believe and agree with the conclusion arrived at by Shri H. R. Gehlot, Dy. I. G. Police, C.I.D. (Crimes). There is no material or even remote circumstance even to infer as to why Shri Narandrasinh Rana would commit suicide whereas there is enough material and circumstance to show that Shri Rana had died in highly suspicious circumstances and the facts and circumstances preceding and attendant to his death swings the needle of suspicion towards a case of custodial and planned murder Co prevent the truth to come out against the criminals against whom he had reported and had said that efforts were on to collect information about their activities through informants and secret methods and that further report will be submitted and that the watch is confirmed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly the manner in which the evidence which could have been easily available has not been allowed to come on record even in the case of the death of an officer of the department not only leaves an unhappy impression about the poor quality of investigation - is rather suggestive of deliberate lapses and omissions on the part of the officers and employees of the deptt. who have dealt with case immediately after the incident and we can't give a clean chit to them and the possibility of their involvement in connivance with the criminals who could be exposed can't be ruled out.

(iv) Why the care was not taken by Shri M. H. Joshi, P.S.I., L.C.B., Godhra and Constable Shri Dineshbhai Jayrambhai while picking up the service revolver by which Shri Narendrasinh Rana is alleged to have shot himself, so that the finger-prints of Shri Rana do not vanish and remain intact, if at all it is believed that Shri Rana having shot himself was again trying to pick up the revolver which was lying there?
(v) When deceased Shri Narendrasinh Rana was admittedly conscious at the time when he was before Dr. M. A. Maksoor for preliminary treatment, why no steps were taken for recording his dying declaration which could have disclosed the reasons from him to commit suicide, it at all it was a case of suicide?