Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 974 (JHR)

Rahul Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2018-05-01

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent-Cantonment Board, Ramgarh to issue the death certificate of the deceased father to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that on 17.09.2012 at about 6 PM, the petitioner’s father, namely, Banji Gope had gone to sell milk in PRC Camp, Ramgarh, but he did not return till 21.09.2012. The petitioner apprehended that one Kuldip Singh had kidnapped his father and kept somewhere in the camp. On earlier occasions also, the said Kuldip Singh used to give threatening of dire consequences to the petitioner’s father for not giving milk to him and some time when the petitioner’s father denied to give milk to said Kuldip Singh, he was assaulted and his cycle was also taken away by said Kuldip Singh which led to lodging of Ramgarh Police Station Case No. 253/2012 against the accused persons. The Police has submitted the charge sheet against one of the accused Kuldip Singh under Sections 364 & 302 IPC stating therein that the circumstantial evidence has been brought against the said accused. The body of the deceased was subsequently recovered which was absolutely decomposed and only bones were available. Accordingly some organs of the deceased i.e. a piece of limb bone and blood gauze of the petitioner were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi for extraction of D.N.A for establishing connection of the deceased with the petitioner and other relatives. In the meantime, the petitioner filed representation on 06.12.2012 before the respondent No.2 for issuance of the death certificate of his deceased father. 3. On 10.11.2012, the petitioner had written a letter to the In-charge Police Station, Ramgarh that the dead body which was found in the premises of the P.R.C Camp, Ramgarh, seemed to be the dead body of his father, as he and his other relatives had identified the dead body on the basis of some cloths and articles. On 15.01.2014, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi was submitted before the Inspector-cum-In-charge of Ramgarh Police Station containing opinion of the Director of the said Laboratory, which reads thus:- “It has been opined by the Director, F.S.L, Ranchi that D.N.A could not be extracted from Ext. A (source piece limb bone) and Ext. B (source putrefied blood gauze of the petitioner). A (source piece limb bone) and Ext. B (source putrefied blood gauze of the petitioner). Therefore, no opinion is being furnished herewith.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that though no definite opinion could be given in the forensic repot of the F.S.L, Ranchi, yet submission of the chargesheet by the police in the criminal case sufficiently indicates that the deceased died in the premises of P.R.C, Ramgarh Camp and his dead body was recovered from there which is under the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent No.2, who is the competent authority to issue the death certificate of the deceased father of the petitioner. Due to non-availability of the death certificate, the petitioner/his mother could not draw the L.I.C claim of the deceased as well as the pensionary benefits etc. However, the respondent No.2 has not issued the death certificate of the deceased to the petitioner, which has deprived the petitioner and his mother of their lawful rights. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 stating therein that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 44/2015. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2015, dismissed the said writ petition with a liberty to raise all the points before the Cantonment Board. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Cantonment Board and pursuant to the representation of the petitioner and in compliance of the order dated 06.08.2015 of this Court, the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 23.09.2015, requested the District Statistical Officer, Ramgarh (the respondent No.5) to clarify as to how the Cantonment Board can issue the death certificate in view of the fact that from the forensic report it has not been established that the recovered dead body was of Banji Gope. The respondent No.5 vide letter dated 08.02.2016, informed the respondent No.2 to issue the death certificate on the direction of the competent Court. The respondent No.2 again vide letter dated 17.01.2018, requested the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh to inform him as to whether the death certificate can be issued or not. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh has not responded as yet, however, the Statistical Officer has stated that the death certificate can be issued on the direction of the Court. 6. The respondent No.2 again vide letter dated 17.01.2018, requested the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh to inform him as to whether the death certificate can be issued or not. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh has not responded as yet, however, the Statistical Officer has stated that the death certificate can be issued on the direction of the Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the petitioner had already represented in the year 2012 itself before the respondent No.2 for issuance of the death certificate of his deceased father. The Ramgarh Cantonment Board has been constituted under the Cantonment Board Act, 2006 and by virtue of the provisions of Clause (e) of Article 243(p) of the Constitution of India read with Section 10(2) of the said Act, it functions as the Municipality of the concerned area. The stand taken by the respondent No.2 in his counter affidavit shows that he has made several communications with different authorities seeking advice as to whether he can issue the death certificate or not. The respondent No.2 being the head of the Ramgarh Cantonment Board cannot sigh away from the responsibility to take appropriate decision with regard to issuance of the death certificate of the petitioner’s deceased father. The respondent No.2 is, accordingly, directed to take appropriate decision in this regard within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.