Crl. Misc. No. M-42311 of 2007 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-42311 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 27, 2011 Smt. Chandrapati ................. ......................... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. S.C.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. R.K.Hooda, Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 6 and 8. Mr. J.S.Virk, Advocate for respondent No.7. ... RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Smt. Chandrapati, widow of Late Shri Satbir Singh, is seeking a direction to the respondents to pay adequate compensation to her for the murder of her son (Manoj) and Daughter-in-law(Babli) on 15.6.2007 on account of unauthorised withdrawal of their security/protection. Manoj and Babli, who were both majors, performed their marriage on 7.4.2007 through Pandit Ram Sewak Crl. Misc. No. M-42311 of 2007 (O&M) [ 2 ] Tripathy in a Mandir in Sector-56, Chandigarh according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The couple had gone missing with effect from 6.4.2007 as mother of Babli had opposed her marriage with Manoj. The petitioner had sought directions in Crl. Misc. No. 28083-M of 2007 for registering a criminal case against mother of Babli (Smt. Om Pati). FIR No. 54 dated 26.4.2007 under Sections 363/366/120-B IPC was registered at the instance of Smt. Om Pati, mother of Babli. The petitioner and her daughter approached the Court of Sessions Judge, Kaithal seeking anticipatory bail. While granting anticipatory bail to Manoj in FIR No. 54 dated 26.4.2007 directions were issued to S.P.Kaithal to ensure the safety of lives of Manoj and Babli. Statements of Manoj and Babli were recorded on 15.6.2007 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Shri V.P.Sirohi, A.G. J.M., Kaithal. They left Kaithal under the protection of respondents No. 4 to 8 in a police gypsy. These police officials accompanied Babli and Manoj upto Pipli (Kurukshetra) and thereafter left. Manoj had informed his mother (petitioner) that the police officials had left them. After waiting for two hours they decided to board a bus for Karnal. This telephone call was received by the petitioner at 3:38 P.M. on 15.6.2007. On 23.6.2007 dead bodies of Manoj and Babli were recovered from Barwala Link Canal and an FIR No. 155 dated 26.6.2007 under Sections 302/201 IPC was registered Crl. Misc. No. M-42311 of 2007 (O&M) [ 3 ] against unknown persons at Police Station, Narnaund. It is alleged by the petitioner that Manoj and Babli have been murdered by the accused persons by conspiring with respondents No. 4 to 8. The security granted by the Court was suddenly withdrawn on 15.6.2007. Petitioner is a widow lady who has lost her young son. Petitioner has only 1 kila of agricultural land and has two daughters and one son, who was studying. Manoj had passed ten plus one examination and had also got a Diploma in Computers from Red Cross Computer Centre and had opened an electronics shop in village Karodan by investing `40,000/-. He was earning around `8,000/- a month. The dispute arose due to inter-caste marriage between Manoj and Babli. In compliance of the order dated 12.6.2007 when Manoj and Babli left Kaithal under police protection, they gave in writing that they do not require the police protection and as and when they come in this area, they will seek police protection. On 20.6.2007 petitioner got registered an FIR No. 138 under Section 364 IPC at Police Station, Butana. On recovery of the dead bodies of Manoj and Babli, FIR No. 155 dated 26.6.2007 under Sections 302/201 was registered at Police Station, Narnaund. The Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, initiated a regular departmental inquiry. Initially, as per departmental inquiry respondent No.4 was punished with stoppage of four Crl. Misc. No. M-42311 of 2007 (O&M) [ 4 ] increments with cumulative effect. This punishment was set aside by the Appellate Authority. Respondent No.7 was punished with dismissal of service. The Appellate Authority accepted the appeal and set aside the punishment. Subsequently, the Director General of Police, Haryana, decided to review the matter. Ultimately, the punishment awarded in departmental proceedings was restored by the DGP. Now, the only question to be decided by this Court is grant of compensation to the petitioner. Mr. H.C.Arora, counsel for the petitioner, has argued that in the order dated 29.4.2008 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, in the departmental inquiry against SI Jagbir Singh and HC Jeyinder it has been observed that HC Jeyinder was constantly in touch with the accused and was responsible for leaking the information i.e. whereabouts of Manoj and Babli. He has since been removed from service. All the accused have since been convicted vide judgment dated 25.3.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. In the judgment, observation has been made that police personnel entrusted for security of Manoj and Babli had got written request of the victims (Annexures P49 and P50) and left them unattended. They never informed their superiors before leaving the couple unattended. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge has recommended action against these police officials. He Crl. Misc. No. M-42311 of 2007 (O&M) [ 5 ] has referred to a judgment of this Court where compensation of `3 lacs was paid by the State where the mob had attacked a boy who was provided security by the police. Vide order dated 28.7.2010 the State Government was given time to make the payment of compensation. This payment was ultimately paid by the State of Haryana. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, counsel for the State, does not dispute the payment of compensation by State of Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 11100 of 2009. He has referred to a Draft Scheme which is being framed by State of Haryana for creation of funds for preparation of Victim Compensation Scheme by adding a new Section 357-A in the Criminal Procedure Code. As and when the scheme is finalised, the petitioner's case for compensation will be considered. Heard learned counsel for the parties. On 12.6.2007 Manoj and Babli had been granted security vide order dated 12.6.2007 (Annexure P-3). While granting anticipatory bail to Manoj, Sessions Judge, Kaithal, had directed the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, to provide security for the safety of the lives of Manoj and Babli. It was advised that a senior officer be deputed to investigate the case. Manoj and Babli were directed to get their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After making their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 15.6.2007 they left Kaithal. In the judgment dated 25.3.2010 whereby all the Crl. Misc. No. M-42311 of 2007 (O&M) [ 6 ] accused have been convicted it has been held that accused Gangaraj has conspired with the other accused and was responsible for kidnapping and ultimately killing Manoj and Babli. It has been observed by the Additional Sessions Judge that the police personnel had left them unattended and never informed their superiors. It is a matter of record that the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, in its order dated 29.4.2008 had come to a conclusion that HC Jeyinder was constantly in touch with the accused and was responsible for leaking the information regarding Manoj and Babli. He has since been removed from service. Argument of the counsel for the State that a Victim Compensation Scheme is in the making and petitioner's case will be considered in that scheme is rejected. As per the judgment of Supreme Court in D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal 1997 A.I.R. (SC) 610 and the judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others 2005 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 581, it is directed that `3 lacs each on account of death of Manoj and Babli be paid to the petitioner as compensation. The petition is allowed. 27.5.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE