Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19/11/2024

1. Heard Mr. Choudhary Ali Zia Kabir and Mr. Akram Akhtar, Advocates through Video Conferencing with Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General with Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy Advocate General for the State/respondent. Also heard Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, learned counsel for the Union of India/respondent No.7.

2. The petitioners are seeking indulgence of this Court under article 226 of Constitution of India while praying for investigation by Special Investigation Team (in short SIT) in respect of death of 3 persons namely Tehseen @ Guddu, Chand Miya and Saddam respectively. According to the petitioners these 3 persons were assaulted and murdered in "Mob lynching" by the accused persons and an FIR has been lodged vide Crime No. 0421/2024, registered at Police Station - Aarang, District Raipur by the petitioner No.4 Shuaib Khan against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 307 read with 34 of IPC in which upon investigation the Police Station- Aarang has filed chargesheet on 08.07.2024 bearing chargesheet No.385/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 307 read with 34 of IPC. The aforesaid chargesheet has been filed against 5 accused persons who are respondent Nos.8 to 12 in the present petition, however, according to the petitioners, the near relatives of the deceased, there are many other accused persons who have not been caught by the concerned police and as such, the petitioners are praying for investigation in the matter by the SIT. According to the petitioners all the deceased persons who were indulge in transporting around 25 Buffaloes carrying in truck bearing number CG 07 CG 3929, were caught by the accused persons along with the Mob on an allegation that the transporting of buffaloes were for smuggling of the same to Odhisa for selling it to Buchar House.

8. On these premises the petitioners have prayed that an investigation by the SIT may be directed and all the accused persons who are involved in the matter may be directed to be chargesheeted. The respondent State may also be directed to grant compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the family of the 3 deceased persons.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the matter relates to mob lynching in which the 3 deceased persons were murdered by the mob on an allegation that they were transporting 25 buffaloes on a truck for smuggling them to Odhisha for selling them to Butcher house. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that upon 3 Cars the accused persons chased the truck and the truck was forcefully stopped by them and thereafter the deceased who were Driver, Helper and Cleaner respectively were abused and assaulted. When they tried to run away leaving their truck, the accused persons chased them. One of the deceased namely Chand Miya has informed to Shuaib Khan (petitioner No.4) regarding the incident and thereafter he died. The conversation was recorded which has been annexed with this petition in order to show that the incident is of mob lynching. The counsel for the petitioners have argued that the statement of complainant Shuaib Khan recorded under Section 161 of CrPC has been deliberately changed. The mob lynching was done for targetting minor community to which the deceased belongs. They were murdered on an allegation of smuggling and consumption of beef. The concerned Police has one sided conducted the investigation and has stated that it was a cow smuggling though in the vehicle only healthy buffaloes are being transported for dairy business. It was further argued that time and again the Supreme Court in the case of Tahseem S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India reported in (2018) 9 SCC 501 has held vide para 17 as under :

10. Though the concerned police has requisitioned CDR which is a part of charge sheet, however, these phone calls were not investigated and without proper investigation charge sheet has been filed. It has been submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali@Deepak & others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762 has held that inappropriate cases in which the Court feels that the investigation by the police authorities are not in proper direction in order to do complete justice. It is always upon to the Court to hand over the investigation to a specialized agency. The counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Sondhi, Advocate vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others reported in 1994 SUPP (1) SCC 143 has held that when the accusations are directed against the local police personnel it would be desirable to entrust the investigations to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation so that all concerned including the relatives of the deceased may feel assured that an independent agency is looking into the matter. It has been submitted that since the deceased persons were assaulted by the mob and they died due to mob lynching as such the investigation through SIT to identify and arrest all other accused persons connected with the incident including policemen to assure preventive and punitive measures agaisnt the mob lynching and further to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs to the family members of the deceased persons would be appropriate, just and proper in order to console the family members of the deceased who died in mob lynching.

20. The allegation of the petitioners that it is a case of Mob lynching in which the three accused persons have died cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition as once the matter has been seized by the concerned trial Court where charges have been framed against some of the accused persons against whom the trial is going to be started very soon as the matter is fixed for evidences. The Writ Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot hold that the deceased persons died in a Mob lynching. Further when after investigation chargesheet has been filed and charges have also been framed against the accused persons, unless and until the trial Court during the course of evidence come to a conclusion that there are other persons involved in this case, anyone cannot be made as accused person. The petitioners are having opportunity to lead evidence before the trial Court and to reveal before the trial Court concerned that there are involvement of other persons and the trial Court will take care of the evidences adduced by the witnesses in order to come to the conclusion that other accused persons are also involved and they are also required to be tried along with the present accused persons. In this view of the matter, at this stage, we cannot hold that it is a matter of Mob lynching and there are several other persons involved in the matter with respect to murder of the three relatives of the petitioners.