Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 803 (PNJ)

Rampal Singh Tomar v. State of Haryana

2015-04-30

K.KANNAN

body2015
K. Kannan, J.:- 1. The application for review is sought at the instance of a person whose alleged involvement was a subject of a direction from this court for constituting a Special Investigation Team (for short, 'SIT') to investigate into the cause of death of the writ petitioner's son. 2. The case had been registered suo moto by this court under the orders of the Chief Justice on a complaint received by him that the petitioner's son had not committed suicide as it was made out to be, but it was a case of homicide. It was stated at the time of arguments when the order was pronounced on 10.02.2015 that there were several suspicious circumstances which had not been properly investigated. A cancellation report was said to have been filed before the jurisdictional magistrate but I believed at that time that in the light of some suspicious circumstances made out before me, it would be appropriate that the Director General of Police constituted a SIT with the officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and two other police officials to assist him to carry out the investigation of the complaint in FIR No. 667, dated 28.12.2009, registered after the death of the deceased-son. 3. An application for review is filed by one Sanjiv Chaturvedi under whom the deceased was admittedly working. He was not a party to the proceedings but he has moved the application for review to state that the court has not considered the fact that just not one, but as many as 4 SITs had been constituted at various points of time. It was found that there was nothing suspicious about the death and a fresh investigation would needlessly cause harassment to him, for, the writ petitioner's false imputation has been motivated and engineered by some persons who were out to settle scores against the applicant who had brought to light serious acts of corruption in the Forest Department. Some of the officials, who have been implicated and against whom criminal cases have been registered have now set up the writ petitioner to make wild allegations of the applicant's alleged involvement for the death of the petitioner's son. There is simply no room to implicate the applicant. A fresh investigation is a needless exercise. 4. Some of the officials, who have been implicated and against whom criminal cases have been registered have now set up the writ petitioner to make wild allegations of the applicant's alleged involvement for the death of the petitioner's son. There is simply no room to implicate the applicant. A fresh investigation is a needless exercise. 4. I must observe at the outset that a constitution of a SIT does not really amount to recording a finding that a particular person is guilty. At the time when I passed the impugned order, I was only under the impression that there were 3 important circumstances which would merit serious consideration: (i) there was a suicide note alleged to have been recovered at the place that implicated the applicant Sanjiv Chaturvedi as being responsible for carrying out witch hunt against him; (ii) there were some SMS registered in the cell phone of the deceased that gave indication of the persons, who had been tormenting the deceased and who could have abetted the suicide; (iii) there was a lady who was reportedly going out of place of occurrence whose name was disclosed to be Promila. The presence of the lady at the place and her own involvement was also required to be properly investigated. Apart from this, the writ petitioner was also attempting to point out there was no furniture within the room and it was inconceivable as to how the deceased could have reached upto the ceiling and hanged himself by merely standing on the ground. I had not given full expression of the doubts but I had merely observed in my order that interest of justice would require a further investigation. 5. Now it is pointed out to me that I had not made reference about the fact that a SIT was constituted by order dated 08.02.2012 by the Superintendent of Police, Jhajjar and at that time when the reply was filed by respondents 2 and 3, the investigation was still pending. A still earlier investigation was undertaken by the CIA staff, Jhajjar soon after the lodging of FIR and it was subsequently transferred to SIT headed by DSP (Headquarters) in terms of the order dated 08.03.2010. The investigation revealed that there was no substance in the allegations levelled in the suicide note against his superior officers and a decision was taken not to prosecute further. The investigation revealed that there was no substance in the allegations levelled in the suicide note against his superior officers and a decision was taken not to prosecute further. However, a fresh SIT was constituted on 08.02.2012 which is referred to above only when there were persistent demands and apprehensions raised that the allegations had not been properly considered. Apart from 2 SITs that were constituted, an affidavit given by the Superintendent of Police explaining the status report revealed that the predecessor of Mr. Anil Kumar Dhawan, in terms of the Orders No. 481-82/R, dated 28.03.2012, entrusted the investigation to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jhajjar to one Lal Singh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and his investigation was reviewed by the Superintendent of Police in terms of the Order No. 555/R, dated 10.04.2012. This led to the Inspector Naib Singh, SHO, Jhajjar, Sub Inspector Baljeet Singh and ASI Pardeep Kumar to investigate again. The SMS contents were appraised, the alleged suicide note was recovered and the applicant Sanjiv Chaturvedi was questioned with regard to the contents in the said note and the SMS. The hand-writing specimen of the deceased with the admitted signatures had been sent to the Forensic Laboratory, Madhuban. The applicant-father was at all times stating that his deceased-son was a teetotaler and this fact was also investigated because the post- mortem revealed contents of alcohol in the abdomen and the companion of the deceased Promila also gave a statement that the deceased used to take liquor. The police found that there were several problems which the deceased was going through: One, on account of wife initiating a matrimonial dispute against the deceased-husband and the deceased himself living with a woman by name Promila. Two, the deceased was proceeded against departmentally and found guilty and he was, therefore, in a state of depression and he had an overwhelming sense of shame about the wrongs done. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the police has collected criminal case details initiated by his wife against the deceased under Section 498-A and it had also collected the finding after the departmental proceedings that the deceased was liable to pay a sum of over ` 5,64,384/-. The 4th investigation was undertaken on 16.02.2013 when the team under the Superintendence of Sukhbir Singh Phogat was directed to conclude the investigation. The 4th investigation was undertaken on 16.02.2013 when the team under the Superintendence of Sukhbir Singh Phogat was directed to conclude the investigation. They were unable to bring any material to doubt the inference of suicide. 6. When I passed the order, I surely missed the fact that there were as many as 4 occasions when different teams had undertaken the investigation. A doubt was also sought to be raised that there was no furniture but the State counsel would produce before me photographs to show that there was a heap of cow dung cakes that were recovered at the spot which would show that the deceased must have climbed over a pedestal raised by bundling up the dry cakes before hanging himself. It is also brought out before me that the cancellation report was prepared but had not been filed immediately by the police which has given raise to a needless suspicion that the investigation was not being done properly. On the other hand, the investigation which was concluded immediately after the filing of FIR was raked up for the first time nearly 2 years after the institution by the father of the deceased only out of spite and to bring a disrepute to the applicant. The counsel for the applicant would state that at the relevant time of when the petitioner's son committed suicide, the applicant had been posted elsewhere, having been transferred more than 6 months earlier to another place. 7. As I had already observed, the direction for constituting SIT was not a direct indictment of the applicant and if the applicant perceived it to so and moved an application for review, I realise that it was to point out the fact that I had caused a SIT to be formed and a further investigation to be taken without referring to the earlier reports and the earnest efforts taken at several times for investigation into the cause of the death. It is truly poignant that the petitioner has lost his son. It is truly poignant that the petitioner has lost his son. Copy of the cancellation report dated 21.11.2014 has also been filed before me and I find that the report brings out all the essential facts revealed under investigation, as narrated above and prima facie, I am of the view that the dust of suspicion raised for the cause of death ought to settle down, unless the petitioner is able to point out any material to show that the investigation was defective. 8. The petitioner himself is reported to have examined but the counsel for the petitioner would deny that any statement was ever recorded from him. As of now to allow for a SIT to be constituted again would seem like a pointless exercise. The order that was passed by me was that without proper reference to the facts brought out through the affidavit filed by the police. If the police has reported that there was no reason to suspect the case to be homicidal and that it was only a case of suicide, I do not think there is appropriate justification for ordering investigation again. The petitioner, if so desires, may file a protest petition before the court orders closure of the investigation, if he can point out to any particular circumstance which is relevant and which has been missed in the police investigation. The direction given in the impugned order for constituting a SIT again is surely an error and there had been a clear oversight and without reference to the factual details brought in the affidavit of the police. The review application is allowed and the order already passed on 10.02.2015 is recalled. The writ petition is consequently dismissed as not requiring any further investigation.