Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 829 (PNJ)

Raj Rani v. State of Punjab

2000-07-31

V.M.JAIN

body2000
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This is a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code filed by the petitioners, seeking transfer of investigation of case FIR No. 174 dated 9.3.2000 under Sections 365, 341 and 302 Indian Penal Code (the FIR was originally registered on 9.3.2000 under Sections 365 and 341 Indian Penal Code and later on the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was also added on 15.3.2000 after recovery of the dead body of Des Raj, deceased from the canal), to the CBI. Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Raj Rani is the widow of Des Raj deceased, while petitioner No. 2 Sandeep Kumar is brother-in-law of the deceased. 2. In the petition, a detailed history has been given about the dispute regarding paddy between Des Raj deceased and respondent No. 4 H.S. Bains, District Manager, Markfed. It was alleged that on 7.3.2000, Des Raj had left for Samana at about 4.30 or 5.00 p.m. to drop Mr. Darshan Singh at Samana and after dropping Darshan Singh at Samana, Des Raj left for village Todarpur where he reached at about 8 p.m. and had left Todarpur between 8.30 and 8.45 p.m. on the night of 7.3.2000 but never returned home. It was alleged that the car driven by Des Raj was found abandoned on the road leading to Patiala near the rice sheller of Hardaspur with blood-stains on it. It was alleged that FIR under Section 365 Indian Penal Code was registered on 9.3.2000 against respondent No. 4 H.S. Bains, District Manager, Markfed, Ashwani Kumar Field Officer Markfed alongwith Gian Chand Bhardwaj and Rishi Goyal who are connected with the trade of rice shelling. It was further alleged that a few days after, the dead body of Des Raj was fished out from Bhakra Canal with his head badly smashed and as per the post mortem report the cause of death was injuries received on head which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It was alleged that thereupon the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was also added on 15.3.2000. It was alleged that thereupon the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was also added on 15.3.2000. It was alleged that inspite of the FIR having been lodged and the persons named therein, the police of District Patiala had not even arrested or interrogated the said accused in the said F.I.R. In this manner the local police was trying to shield the accused as they are powerful, influential and resourceful officers. It was further alleged that the police had arrested three other persons, who according to the police had already confessed their guilty and had stated before the police that they had killed Des Raj for the purpose of robbing him. No other motive has been narrated by these persons for killing Des Raj. It was accordingly prayed that the matter be got thoroughly investigated from the CBI so that real culprits may be brought to book. It was also alleged in the said petition that in connection with some other incident a CBI inquiry has already been ordered against respondent No. 5 Ashwani Kumar, Field Officer, Markfed, in another murder case in which said Ashwani Kumar was an accused. 3. In the reply filed by DSP Jagjit Singh, it has been alleged that on 18.3.2000, Jyoti Verma @ Bhupinder Verma and Vinod Kumar @ Ram Kumar were arrested by Samana Police, who had disclosed that the murder of Des Raj was committed by them in connivance with Raj Kumar @ Raju and Jatinder Singh @ Bittu and these accused were arrested on 18.3.2000, who disclosed that Des Raj was abducted by them alongwith his car from Samana-Patiala Road on the night intervening 7/8.3.2000 and was murdered in the house of Jyoti Verma in Partap Colony, Samana by hitting a iron rod on the head and later on the dead body of the deceased was thrown in the Bhakra canal, from where dead body was recovered on 15.3.2000. It was alleged that Ashwani Kumar, respondent No. 5 and H.S. Bains, respondent No. 4 were joined in the investigation of this case who were named in the FIR alongwith Gian Chand and Rishi Goyal and from their investigation to clue regarding the murder of Des Raj was raised. It was further alleged that some finger prints were lifted from the car of Des Raj deceased but the report of the Finger Print Bureau was still awaited. 4. It was further alleged that some finger prints were lifted from the car of Des Raj deceased but the report of the Finger Print Bureau was still awaited. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. A persual of the various allegations made by the petitioners in the present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code against the respondent No. 4. H.S. Bains, District Manager, Markfed, would show that it is really a serious matter. Contempt proceedings were initiated at the instance of the deceased against said H.S. Bains. It was found by this Court in COCP No. 1609 of 1999, copy Annexure P-9, that H.S. Bains who was respondent No. 5 in the said contempt petition had wilfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court and in order to purge himself of the contempt it was directed that the stocks shall be released in terms of the agreement within 4 days and thereafter he shall appear in the Court on 28.3.2000 for further proceedings. Considering the apprehension of the petitioners and the past history between the deceased and respondent No. 4 H.S. Bains, to my mind, it appears that the local police has not investigated the case in the proper perspective. Even if the accused, who had already been arrested in this case, had admitted their guilt with regard to their committing the murder of Des Raj deceased, yet it was duty of the local police to investigate the case with regard to the involvement of the persons named in the FIR for the murder of Des Raj deceased. There is nothing on the record to show that the investigating agency had directed the investigation about the accused who had already been arrested in this case having committed the murder of Des Raj, deceased, at the instance of any of the persons named in the FIR. This is especially so, when the petitioners have got suspicion against those persons, especially respondent No. 4 H.S. Bains. In my opinion, the investigation so far conducted by the local police cannot be said to be proper investigation. I am further of the opinion that it requires further investigation by an independent agency like CBI. 6. This is especially so, when the petitioners have got suspicion against those persons, especially respondent No. 4 H.S. Bains. In my opinion, the investigation so far conducted by the local police cannot be said to be proper investigation. I am further of the opinion that it requires further investigation by an independent agency like CBI. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and it is directed that the investigation of case FIR No. 174 dated 9.3.2000 under Sections 365, 341, 302, 201-A, 34 Indian Penal Code and P.S. Sadar Patiala shall be entrusted to CBI, Chandigarh. The CBI is hereby directed to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible and thereafter shall take steps as are required under the law depending upon the result of the investigation. Petition allowed.