Crl. Misc. No. M-27649 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-27649 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 23-08-2011 Court on its own motion ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Sandeep Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for CBI MAHESH GROVER, J A reference has been received from the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal seeking the intervention of this Court to direct the matter pertaining to the custodial death of one Bhuvan to be referred to CBI for proper inquiry. On 1.9.2007 Bhuvan s/o Ganga Ram resident of village Kalram District Karnal died while he was in custody of police of Karnal. He died on account of severe burn injuries. The case was sought to be projected as the case of suicide. A complaint was preferred by the brother of the deceased in which allegations of custodial death were made. The deceased was in the police custody in connection with the FIR no. 115 dated 24.7.2007 pertaining to the murder of one Rajinder and during the investigation of which two persons namely Rakesh and Gopal were arrested who further disclosed that they alongwith Bhuvan had killed Rajinder and disposed of his body and had shared the articles of the said Crl. Misc. No. M-27649 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Rajinder. The dead body was recovered on the disclosures having been made by these two persons namely Rakesh and Gopal and subsequently the articles which were on the person of the deceased Rajinder were also recovered. Bhuvan who has now died in police custody was to be picked up by SI Vijender Singh after they had raided his house on 3.8.2007 but not finding the deceased there, the police party left after extracting an assurance from the family of the suspect Bhuvan that they would persuade him to surrender. On 1.9.2007 at about 10:15 AM one Sanjay Sharma reached the police station alongwith deceased Bhuvan. They were asked to wait by SI Ranbir Singh. After sometime SHO Ranbir Singh came to know that said Bhuvan has burnt himself in the police station. He was taken to the hospital by Sanjay Sharma where he died. According to the police, his dying declaration was recorded. FIR no. 137 dated 1.9.2007 was registered against deceased Bhuvan for commission of offence under Section 309 IPC. During the investigation of this case, the SHO of the concerned police station took into possession the burnt clothes of the deceased, motor cycle from where petrol was taken out and the match box. Further investigation was handed over to Jagdish Chander, District Inspector. Vijay Singh, Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the deceased Bhuvan wherein he disclosed that in order to avoid the stigma of his false implication in the case of murder of Rajinder and in view of the fact that the police has forced him to admit the involvement in said murder despite his resistance and for the reason that he was tortured and beaten up mercilessly he took out petrol from the motor cycle and set himself on fire. From the hospital in Karnal, Bhuvan was shifted to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak but he succumbed to his injuries. Being a Crl. Misc. No. M-27649 of 2010 (O&M) 3 case of custodial death, City Magistrate was deputed to conduct an inquiry under Section 176 Cr.P.C. The said Magistrate got the post-mortem of the dead body from Medical College, Rohtak and recorded statements of all concerned and also the dying declaration of the deceased and concluded that the death of the deceased was under suspicious circumstances but no action was taken. Thereafter the matter was inquired into by the SDM, Karnal who concluded that it seemed that Bhuvan had committed suicide. Dis-satisfied with the findings of the authorities, the brother of the deceased had preferred a complaint and the Additional District Judge, Karnal who found sufficient material to warrant a conclusion that the matter required fair and independent probe. The respondents- State of Haryana in response to the petition have filed several status reports including the one which has been filed today indicating that they have taken proper care in investigating the matter and according to them there is no deviation from the conclusion that has been earlier arrived at by them i.e that the deceased Bhuvan committed suicide. There is no doubt about the fact that the deceased died while in police custody. Even as per his dying declaration there is indication given by the deceased himself that he was forced into a confession and that he was tortured in order to extract such a confession. Whether he died on account of his having done to death or that he was forced into the extreme step on account of the extreme torture meted out to him or that he felt intensely humiliated to force him to take his life are questions which cry for answers. Suffice it to say that undeniably the death took place while the deceased was in custody which fact simpliciter requires a probe at a level deeper than Crl. Misc. No. M-27649 of 2010 (O&M) 4 ordinarily would have been expected. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the persons in whose custody the deceased lost his life would be extremely interested in covering up their tracks and make truth a causality. Investigation in a case of the kind where the authorities themselves are involved would thus require scrutiny by some agency which is not a party to it and whose interest in no way is at stake. All investigations are expected to be fair and independent but if the finger points to an authority in whose custody the death takes place then impartiality and transparency has to be imparted to the investigation with vigour. Criminal investigation apart from being an attempt to unveil the truth is also a process to which tremendous amount of confidence has to be attached in order to enhance the credibility of the system and in order to instill supreme confidence in the victim. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as State of West Bengal and others Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others reported as 3SCC (2010) 571 has observed as follows:- 69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Crl. Misc. No. M-27649 of 2010 (O&M) 5 Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. 70 . Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it Crl. Misc. No. M-27649 of 2010 (O&M) 6 difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” At this stage, learned counsel for the State of Haryana has pointed out that the offence under Section 302 IPC has since been added from the initial stage and the matter has been viewed in that perspective. This Court is also of the opinion that in cases such like these where custodial death takes place and the police which is facing such allegations should themselves offer probe by an independent agency as in the event of their exoneration it is their credibility which is likely to be restored but in the event of the police lingering on or dragging their feet in the matter, it is likely to tarnish their image for all times to come. In view of the aforesaid, I deem it appropriate that the matter pertaining to the death of Bhuvan on 1.9.2007 in custody with the Karnal police be investigated by Central Bureau of Investigation which shall seize the records promptly and proceed to investigate the matter. The respondents – State of Haryana are directed to hand over the entire material with them pertaining to the aforesaid case to the CBI within a period of three days from today. It is not necessary for them to wait for the copy of the order as this order has been pronounced in the open Court in the presence of the learned counsel for the State of Haryana and CBI. This Court also feels inclined to state that it is expected of the CBI to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible and thereafter the report be submitted to this Court after the conclusion of the exercise. Petition stands allowed. August 23, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge