Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The facts in the backdrop have been stated by my erudite sister in the order proposed by her. It will, therefore, serve no purpose to repeat them over again. That the deceased and her sister were admitted to the college as freshers is not in dispute. That she sustained injuries because of a fall from the fourth floor of the college hostel where she was staying with her sister is also not in dispute. That she was moved first to Dulet hospital and later to Sawai Man Singh hospital is also a fact not in dispute. That three days after her fall from the building she passed away is also admitted. What called for a fair and proper investigation was whether she fell because of ragging by the seniors as alleged by the petitioner or she jumped to commit suicide. The case of the respondents which includes the state of Rajasthan, the police and the college where she was studying, appears to be that she committed suicide because of an unwanted pregnancy which she was carrying. Reliance in support of that version is placed upon the medical record of the hospital, which appears to suggest that (a) she was 14 weeks pregnant and, (b) the pregnancy was aborted within 24 hours of her death. The record also suggests that the petitioner had declined to consent to the removal of the foetus from the womb of the deceased despite being counselled about the consequences that would follow, should that procedure be not followed. From the medical record it appears that no removal of foetus was conducted by the doctors for want of consent by the father of the deceased. What is alleged is that the post mortem report does not establish in clear terms the presence of a pregnancy or a 14 week old foetus. This according to the petitioner belies the story that the deceased was pregnant which could give her a possible reason to commit suicide. The Petitioner’s case also is that a complaint about harassment by the ragging had been made to the college authorities who did not act in the matter. The petitioner alleges that the deceased had remained unattended on the ground after the fall for about half an hour because of the negligence of the college authorities. There is also an allegation that although the deceased had sustained serious injuries which eventually proved fatal no complaint or report was lodged by the college authorities with the police. No statement or dying declaration of the deceased was recorded during the time she was in the hospital even though she was conscious and oriented. The medical record has been, according to the petitioner, fabricated as the college is owned and run by influential people in the state of Rajasthan, apart from the fact that a senior doctor in the hospital is related to one of the respondents. There are also allegations of the college authorities having pressurized the younger sister of the deceased not to disclose the true facts to anyone for otherwise she will face consequences. All told the petitioner is totally dissatisfied and disillusioned with the investigation conducted by the State Police. That is why he prays for a fair and proper investigation into the episode to bring the truth to light so that justice is done not only at the stage of investigation but even at the trial which depends so much on the fairness of the investigation.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus to initiate an independent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the death of his daughter S.S., a student of B. Tech 1st Year of Rajasthan College of Engineering for Women, Jaipur, who succumbed to injuries which she sustained by falling from the IV th floor railing of her hostel room.

2. Briefly stated case of the petitioner is as follows:- The petitioner is a resident of Bihar and is working at Visakhapatnam. Petitioner’s two daughters, namely, S.S. and T.S., took admission in B.Tech on 25.8.2011 in Rajasthan College of Engineering for Women, Jaipur and were admitted in the college hostel. Petitioner contends that on 2.9.2011 his two daughters were ragged by two senior girls of 2nd year and the same was informed to him by his daughter S.S. over phone. S.S. is also stated to have called up her maternal aunt to inform her about the incident. To enquire further, her aunt (Raj Kumari Devi) went to the hostel and met Shalini, Chief Warden, who, in turn, assured her that the matter would be looked into and steps would be taken. On 6.9.2011, S.S. is said to have informed her younger sister T.S. that she was not well and so she would not be attending classes and T.S. went to college. On the same day at about 12.30 P.M., it is alleged that two senior girls again caught S.S. for ragging by making her climb on the railing of the fourth floor forcing her to look towards the ground and while doing so, S.S. fell down and sustained injuries, and she remained as such on the ground for about half an hour. After someone noticed her, she was taken to “Dulet Hospital” where she was given first aid treatment and she was referred to Sawai Man Singh (SMS) Hospital, Jaipur. The petitioner contends that his younger daughter T.S. was threatened by the college authorities and warned not to disclose the fact of ragging or else her career would be ruined. Further, he claimed that the statement of his younger daughter T.S. recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained under coercion and threat of false charges being implicated against her and her sister.

5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, namely, the police authorities and the State of Rajasthan, have filed their counter affidavits contending that none of the statements of the sister of deceased, other friends, Principal of the college, chief warden, warden and other staff and members revealed about any incident of ragging. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contend that considering the pain and agony of the family of the deceased, they conducted a fair investigation in a proper manner so as to sub-serve the best interest of justice. It is averred that the investigation of the case was conducted under the direction of the senior officers and during investigation no evidence of ragging was found and it was found to be a case of suicide and to that effect, final report was filed before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur.

6. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, namely, the college authorities, filed counter affidavit denying each and every averment in the petition. According to the college authorities, immediately after the incident S.S. was taken to “Dulet Hospital” which is hardly 500 metres from the campus. After first aid, S.S. was referred to Sawai Man Singh (SMS) Hospital, Jaipur where she was admitted in the emergency ward and doctors had given her immediate treatment. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 further stated that all the risk factors were explained to the petitioner by the doctors about septicaemia and infection and other complications if unwanted substances are not removed from the uterus of S.S. by induction. The respondents also contend that the college authorities constituted a committee on 6.9.2011 itself to investigate the matter with regard to the ragging and the committee found that the deceased was having medical problems like nausea, vomiting and headache and there was no incident of ragging, as alleged by the petitioner. It is averred that the allegations levelled in the petition are totally baseless and unfounded. According to Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, the complaint was thoroughly investigated by the police and on finding that there was no evidence of ragging, the police filed a final report in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur.