JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is one for initiating action in the case of an alleged custodial death as a result, allegedly, of physical torture in police custody. Ajit Singh, the petitioner, is the father of a certain Kuldip Singh, aged about 21 years, who arrived from Germany in the morning of 28th May, 1994 having been deported to India by the authorities in Germany. His deportation was on the ground that he had obtained entry into that country on the basis of forged documents. 2. On arrival in India, on 28th May, 1994, Kuldip Singh was taken into custody by the Delhi Police at the Indira Gandhi International Airport. Kuldip Singh was produced before the Magistrate sometime after 2 p.m. on 29th May, 1994 and was taken from the judicial lock-up to the jail at 4.30 p.m. A few hours later, on the same day, i.e. on 29th May, 1994 at 7.45 p.m., Kuldip Singh was taken to the D.D.U. Hospital Order dated September 2, 1994 in W.P.(CrI.) No. 225/94. where it was pronounced that Kuldip Singh was brought dead. The police claim that Kuldip Singh died of a heat stroke while the petitioner says that the death was the result of custodial violence and torture. 3. The averments in the writ petition as to the manner in which the police are alleged to have dealt with the detenu, if true, are quite disturbing. The police alleggdly demanded illegal gratification from the father and upon failure to gratify the demand Kuldip Singh was subjected to cruel and inhuman torture resulting in his untimely death. 4. The Delhi Administration took the stand that the matter of the alleged demand of illegal gratification was under investigation by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Vigilance). However, upon this Court requiring to know the stage and progress of that investigation, Sri Hira Lal, the Assistant Commissioner of Police filed an affidavit. It is not necessary to go into the details of this affidavit at this stage. Suffice it to say that the report which Sri Hira Lal had submitted to the Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance), to which the affidavit refers, purports to give a clean chit to the police as to the allegation of demand of illegal gratification. 5. It was also stated that the Crime Branch was investigating the allegation of torture in custody. Suffice it to say that the report which Sri Hira Lal had submitted to the Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance), to which the affidavit refers, purports to give a clean chit to the police as to the allegation of demand of illegal gratification. 5. It was also stated that the Crime Branch was investigating the allegation of torture in custody. Sri Raj Narain Singh, Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Delhi has filed an affidavit in which, amongst other things, he says: "I have commenced examination of the above documents and the oral statements recorded, mentioned above and I have also examined the case file relating to FIR No.272 dated 28.5.94 under section 420, 468, 471, I.P.C. and Section 12 of the Passport Act. A report on the enquiry so far made has been sent to the Director of Prosecutions for obtaining legal opinion thereon. I submit that the estimated time for concluding the investigation under section 342 IPC would be 3 weeks from today, by which time a report is expected to he submitted to the concerned court." 6. There is also an affidavit of Dr. Aditya Arya, Deputy Commissioner of Police. This officer is at pains to impress - or at least that is the implication of his averments - that there were no external marks of injuries on the person of Kuldip Singh when he was put into judicial lock-up and later transferred to the jail. In the course of his affidavit, it is stated: "... It is also pertinent to mention that the custody of the accused was transferred to the authority posted at judicial lock up and the authority of the lock up did not find any injury on the person of Shri Kuldip Singh while taking him into custody at about 3.30 P.M. Subsequently, the accused Shri Kuldip Singh was taken from judicial lock up in the Jail Van along with other accused persons at 4.30 P.M. to Tihar Jail. At Central Jail Tihar, at 4.55 P.M. accused Shri Kuldip Singh was taken in Central Jail No.4 after proper checking and questioning of accused Shri Kuldip Singh and jail authorities also did not find any injury on his person. At Central Jail Tihar, at 4.55 P.M. accused Shri Kuldip Singh was taken in Central Jail No.4 after proper checking and questioning of accused Shri Kuldip Singh and jail authorities also did not find any injury on his person. It is pertinent to submit here that in case the jail authorities find any injury on the person of the accused brought for custody in jail, jail authorities refuse to take over the custody of such an accused as in case of failure to do so they render themselves liable to answer the charge of injury having been caused on the body of the accused while in their custody.... " "... He was physically examined at the judicial lock up at Patiala House and Jail Authority at Jail No.4, Central Jail Tihar and no visible injury was detected by any agency." This is obviously intended to show that there were no external marks of injury on the person of Kuldip Singh at or after 2.00 P.M. on 29th May, 1994 when he was produced before the Magistrate. This stand, or what is implicit in it, is demonstrably inconsistent with the later averments in the same affidavit which admits that there were, at least, eleven external marks of injuries found in the-course of the autopsy. Some were, admittedly, even 1 prior to the time of remand to judicial custody. The implication of the statement of this officer that since the jail authorities did not note any marks of injuries on the person of Kuldip Singh at the time of admission to the i jail "they must themselves liable to answer the charge of injury having been caused on the body of the accused while in their custody." There is, here, a clear indication of an effort to shift the blame and to prepare for a possible escape route. The fact remains that there were external marks of injuries. Indeed, there were attempts to explain away. In the affidavit, Dr. Arya says: "SDM Punjabi Bagh further questioned the Board of Doctors regarding the external ante-mortem injuries. The Board of Doctors was of the view that injuries described in postmortem report individually or collectively could not; have caused death. The fact remains that there were external marks of injuries. Indeed, there were attempts to explain away. In the affidavit, Dr. Arya says: "SDM Punjabi Bagh further questioned the Board of Doctors regarding the external ante-mortem injuries. The Board of Doctors was of the view that injuries described in postmortem report individually or collectively could not; have caused death. As to the manner of sustaining these injuries and the object used in causing these injuries, the Board was of the view that the injuries No.1 to 7 which have been mentioned as recent in nature are present on bony prominences and as such could have been caused by friction against hard surface or even by fall. Board further clarified that the possibility of these injuries being caused. by lathi or danda or fist blow/kick blow is very remote and unlikely since the injuries are very small in size and are placed on bony prominances. 1(vi) As to injuries No.8 to 11 the. Board was of the view that these injuries were 3 to 4 days duration. These were only abraisons in healing stage. These injuries could be possibly caused by striking against hard/rough surfaces and also possible by fall. It would be pertinent to bring out here that Shri Kuldip Singh died in the evening of 29.5.94 and his custody was taken over by PS IGI Airport, New Delhi on 28.5.94 after he landed at this airport and as such these injuries could not have been caused to him by the PS IGI Airport police officers and these injuries obviously were caused either in Germany or in transit somewhere." 7. We have heard Sri R.S. Sodhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.C. Mahajan, learned senior counsel for the State of Delhi. On a consideration of the matter, prima-facie, we are not satisfied that the explanation offered by the Police for the custodial death of Kuldip Singh is bona fide or convincing. The veiled suggestion of the possibility of the jail authorities causing the injuries is far- fetched if not altogether ridiculous. Kuldip Singh was in jail custody just for a couple of hours. Such attempts to shift the blame only serve to enhance suspicion and are susceptible of a perception that they are more a manifestation of resourcefulness than sincerity. The veiled suggestion of the possibility of the jail authorities causing the injuries is far- fetched if not altogether ridiculous. Kuldip Singh was in jail custody just for a couple of hours. Such attempts to shift the blame only serve to enhance suspicion and are susceptible of a perception that they are more a manifestation of resourcefulness than sincerity. Having regard to the fact that a young man lost his life in police custody - no matter whether he was himself an offender or not - the case requires to be investigated. The stand taken by the Delhi Police does not lend itself to any re-assurance of an objective, impartial investigation by it. We, therefore, direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to undertake this investigation immediately and submit its report within a month to this Court. Copies of the writ petition, counter affidavits documents, photographs produced shall all be sent to CBI. The CBI will also investigate the bona fides of the medical report and also whether there were attempts of a cover-up by higher officers. 8. There is, prima-facie, material to indicate that the death was the result of or, at least, precipitated by custodial violence, could not be excluded, though, however, we do not want to pronounce on this question finally as the investigation by the CBI would establish the criminal liability of the police. We think that there are sufficient grounds to award an interim compensation. We direct that a sum of Rs.1 lakh be paid to the petitioner subject to such further claims as the petitioner and other heirs of the deceased may prosecute in a civil court or which may ultimately be determined and awarded in these very proceedings themselves. This amount shall be paid within three weeks from today under report to this Court. List this matter after a month.