Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 388 (MP)

Rambabu Pawaiya v. State of M. P.

2006-03-13

RAJENDRA MENON

body2006
ORDER 1. Petitioner is husband of late Smt. Rajni Pawaiya, and in this petition claims the following reliefs: (a) Circumstances leading to death of petitioner's wife late Rajni Pawaiya on 18.5.2005 be investigated by any officer other than respondent No.4. (b) Action be taken against the respondent No.4 for not registering the FIR properly with regard to offence committed on petitioner's wife so also on his daughter Ku. Neetu Pawaiya. (c) Petitioner be granted compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) for his wife's death and to direct disciplinary action be taken against the respondent No.4 for irregularity committed by him. During the course of hearing of this petition respondent No.4, who was initially impleaded by his designation, has been impleaded by name as respondent No.5. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 18.5.2005, his brother one Surendra Pawaiya came to his house and tried to commit an offence of rape of his wife Smt. Rajni Pawaiya, assaulted her and harassed her. When his wife Rajni Pawaiya went to Police Station Morar for lodging the report, respondent No.5 Chhaviram Jatav, Town Inspector of the said police station, did not record the FIR and therefore, petitioner's wife consumed poison in the police station. She was taken to JA Hospital where she died after about 8 days. After death of petitioner's wife, FIR was registered and offence under section 306 only was registered against Surendra Pawaiya, this was bailable offence and bail was granted to Surendra Pawaiya; after his release on bail Surendra Pawaiya immediately went to petitioner's house and forcibly tried to give poison to his minor daughter Ku. Neetu. This was also reported. FIR for this offence was registered under sections 294, 323, 506B, IPC. Inter alia contending that respondent No.4 has not registered the FIR properly for offence u/s 376 IPC against Surendra Pawaiya and has not investigated properly, petitioner has filed this petition and has claimed the relief as indicated hereinabove. 3. While issuing notice of this petition interim direction was given by this Court on 24.8.2005 to the Superintendent of Police to ensure that the offence is investigated by any officer other than respondent No. 4/5. Accordingly an order was passed by the Superintendent of Police respondent No.3 on 31.8.2005 transferring investigation of the case to another officer of another police station, i.e., Gole Ka Mandir. Accordingly an order was passed by the Superintendent of Police respondent No.3 on 31.8.2005 transferring investigation of the case to another officer of another police station, i.e., Gole Ka Mandir. This officer has investigated the matter and challan has been filed. According to the report filed by the State Government there is some dispute between the petitioner and his brother with regard to their property and therefore, it is stated that Smt. Rajni Pawaiya may have made a false report of rape, however after her death on 20.5.2005 offence under section 306 of IPC in Crime No. 386/05 was registered and for the offence committed against petitioner's daughter after enquiry in Crime No. 472/05 even though initially offences were registered under sections 323, 294 and 506B of IPC but now offence under section 228 of IPC has also been registered. According to the State Government investigations into Crime No. 386/05 for offence under section 306 IPC relating to death of petitioner's wife have been completed and Sessions Trial No. 256/05 is in progress. It is stated that if during the process of trial the learned Sessions Court comes to the conclusion that offence under section 376 of IPC is also made out Sessions Court is competent to take action, therefore, that for the said relief no further directions are required. 4. As far as the other case, i.e., Crime No.472/05 is concerned it is stated that matter is being investigated by Station House Officer, Gole Ka Mandir and on being satisfied under section 328 of IPC is also made out, this offence is also added. After investigation challan will be filed. Accordingly State Government has filed return indicating that action in accordance with law is being taken. Respondent No.5 has also filed separate return and it is stated by him that he is falsely implicated in the matter, he was not persent in the police station on 18.5.2005 when the petitioner's wife is said to have consumed poison. By filing Rojnamcha Annexure R-15 this respondent has tried to indicate that on the said date and time he was not present in the police station. Accordingly he seeks for total exoneration in the matter. 5. By filing Rojnamcha Annexure R-15 this respondent has tried to indicate that on the said date and time he was not present in the police station. Accordingly he seeks for total exoneration in the matter. 5. During the course of hearing of this petition State Government has indicated that more than six witnesses have been examined in the sessions trial and they have filed statement of petitioner's son Suraj PW 5 in the aforesaid sessions trial, recorded on 7th January 2006. 6. From the aforesaid narration of facts it is clear that for the first grievance of the petitioner with regard to investigation of the offence by respondent No.4 and 5 the same is now rendered infructuous after the investigation is handed over to Station House Officer, Police Station Gole Ka Mandir. 7. As far as the second relief of non-registration of case is concerned the matter is pending consideration in ST No. 256/05 in the Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Gwalior. During the course of trial if the Sessions Court finds that offence under section 376 is also made out, the Sessions Court is competent to take action in the matter; that being so no further directions are required in this regard. In connection with the offence committed with regard to giving poison to petitioner's daughter, matter is already under investigation and the records indicated that investigation is in right direction and necessary offences have been registered; that being so interest of justice would be met in this case if respondent No.3 is directed to ensure that investigation into this offence registered as Crime No.472/05 is done in accordance to law and he ensures that challan is filed at an early date. 8. As far as claim for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- is concerned, on the basis of material available on record it cannot be held that the State Government or respondent No.5 are directly responsible for death of petitioner's wife and therefore he is entitled for compensation; this is the disputed question of fact which can be decided only after the investigation and trial are completed. At this stage the claim for compensation is premature and on the basis of material available on record this Court cannot grant any compensation in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. At this stage the claim for compensation is premature and on the basis of material available on record this Court cannot grant any compensation in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioner shall be at liberty to claim compensation afresh after the investigation and trial in the matter is completed. 9. As far as direction to intiate action against respondent No. 4/5 is concerned it is clear from the records that registration of case and enquiry was not done by the authorities of Police Station Morar properly. Even though petitioner's daughter Ku. Neetu was forcibly administered poison, no case under section 328 of IPC was registered, cases were registered only under sections 294, 323 and 506B, IPC. That apart, the role of respondent No. 4/5 in the entire matter becomes very doubtful and suspicious, in the statement of PW 6 Suraj recorded on 17.1.2006 in Sessions Trial No. 256/05. In his statement this witness who is son of late Rajni Pawaiya and who had accompanied his mother to the police station on 18.5.2005, has categorically stated that Town Inspector of Police Station Morar respondent No.5 did not record the statement of his mother and because of this frustration his mother consumed poison. This serious allegation is levelled against TI respondent No.5 and therefore, the role of this respondent in the entire matter casts a cloud of suspicion. Dying declaration of Rajni Pawaiya recorded by doctor concerned and contained in Annexures R-2 and R-3 also gives indications of rape committed by her jeth. That being so the conduct of respondent No.5 and the manner in which he proceeded to investigate the matter requires to be considered departmentally. There is prima facie material available on record for taking departmental action against respondent No.5. His action in registering a bailable offence initially against Surendra Pawaiya and thereafter in not registering proper case after Surendra Pawaiya has tried to administer poison to petitioner's daughter, all requires proper enquiry and investigation by the departmental authority and in view of the statement of Suraj and dying declaration of Rajni Pawaiya and other material available on record. His action in registering a bailable offence initially against Surendra Pawaiya and thereafter in not registering proper case after Surendra Pawaiya has tried to administer poison to petitioner's daughter, all requires proper enquiry and investigation by the departmental authority and in view of the statement of Suraj and dying declaration of Rajni Pawaiya and other material available on record. That being so it would be proper to direct respondent No. 3 to proceed departmentally in the matter as per rules and in case it is found that case for taking departmental action is made out, respondent No. 3 Superintendent of Police, District Gwalior shall take such action as is permissible under law departmentally against the respondent No.5. 10. It is however clarified that observations made in this order are only a prima facie assessment made by this Court and while taking action respondent No.3 shall be free to proceed in the matter without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 11. Accordingly this petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction without any order as to cost.