Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 705 (CAL)

In the matter of : Syed Md. Reja @ Gora v. .

2012-07-31

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2012
JUDGMENT The present petition has been filed under section 482 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the order passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Third Fast Track Court, Sealdah whereby protest/naraji petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed be set aside and the direction be issued to the Investigating Officer to hold further investigation in the murder case. 2. Briefly stated, S. I. Ultadanga Police Station on 20th June, 2011 reported to the Officer-In-Charge, Ultadanga P. S. that at about 5.10 hours one person with gun shot injuries came to the ground floor of the police station in car no. WB-06-5311. The victim was identified later, as Syed Md. Salauddin. It was further reported in the report that the occurrence had taken place near Tank No. 13, Salt Lake. The injured was removed to the R. G. Kar Medical College for treatment but the attending doctor declared him as brought dead after examination. 3. On next day of the occurrence on 21st June, 2011, the present petitioner Syed Md. Raja submitted a written complaint to the Officer-In-Charge, Bowbazar Police Station wherein he stated that the deceased, his brother Syed Md. Salauddin was having a business rivalry with Md. Nayeem and further it was stated that Mr. Iqbal was an associate of Md. Nayeem. Further, it was stated that the above-said Iqbal was a very well-known criminal and he had threatened the deceased with dire consequences. 4. According to Sri Sanjoy Banerjee, learned counsel for the State Investigating Agency had concluded that the death of Syed Md. Salauddin was a result of a gun shot injury. It is further stated that one Ajoy Sen @ Ajoy Chatterjee @ Bapi was arrested. He suffered a disclosure statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and got the fire-arm recovered. It is further stated that another accused a lady namely Mili Pal had made a confessional statement. Sri Sanjoy Banerjee has further stated that from the car one cigarette butt was found. A DNA profile of the same was done and as per the result, cigarette butt pertain to a cigarette which was smoked by accused no. 1 Ajoy Sen @ Ajoy Chatterjee @ Bapi. It is further stated that valuable articles belonging to the deceased were recovered from the accused. A DNA profile of the same was done and as per the result, cigarette butt pertain to a cigarette which was smoked by accused no. 1 Ajoy Sen @ Ajoy Chatterjee @ Bapi. It is further stated that valuable articles belonging to the deceased were recovered from the accused. Furthermore, accused/assailants were identified in a Test Identification Parade by the morning walkers who had seen the accused near the place of occurrence. 5. Sri Arup C. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out various loopholes in the investigation carried by the State police. It is stated that the complaint (annexure P-2) submitted by the petitioner was not taken into consideration. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ajoy Chatterjee @ Bapi had no motive to commit the offence and the prosecution story that he did the matter only to enrich himself as he had fallen to bad times, has no legs to stand as the golden chain and other valuables of the deceased were not taken away by the accused. Sri Chatterjee, learned advocate for the petitioner has stated that it is a case of hired assailants. It is further submitted that had a deeper probe carried by the investigating officer, the nexus between the accused who has committed the murder and the persons who have been named by the petitioner would have emerged. 6. To counter the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjoy Banerjee, counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is having business rivalry with the persons named in the complaint annexure P-2. It is submitted that the bone of contention is business of the deceased. Petitioner being brother intend to oust the brother-in-law of the deceased who has been named as an accused. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and given my due consideration to the rival submission advanced before this Court. 8. Investigation is the prerogative of the Investigating Officer. This Court has neither the skill nor the expertise nor the infrastructure to hold investigation. This Court will not substitute its opinion with the opinion of the Investigating Officer till the conduct of the Investigating Officer, under scrutiny is assailed by levelling allegations against him of mala fide or extraneous consideration. 9. This Court will refrain to issue directions as to how and in what manner investigation should have been carried. This Court will not substitute its opinion with the opinion of the Investigating Officer till the conduct of the Investigating Officer, under scrutiny is assailed by levelling allegations against him of mala fide or extraneous consideration. 9. This Court will refrain to issue directions as to how and in what manner investigation should have been carried. This Court cannot permit anybody to use its platform to axe its own grind. 10. In the present petition, no allegation of mala fide have been levelled against the Investigating Officer. The petitioner has only pointed out the loopholes in the investigation. He has undertaken advisory role to suggest how a better investigation should have been carried and furthermore, had the investigation carried on the basis of suspicion divulged by the petitioner, it would have been more fruitful. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, neither act in supervisory capacity nor as a critic. Therefore, after perusing the pleadings in the petition and hearing the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that no case of interference is made out and the present petition is dismissed. 11. However, petitioner, if so advised, may take appropriate steps by taking recourse of lawful remedy available during the course of the trial. Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, to the parties after compliance of necessary formalities.