COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPU R .P. fC) N0. PETIT30NER Zameela W/o Late Shri Rashin ^s ^'•^y ^, Mohammad, aged about 55 years $^%-".-- Ryfo TalaPat'a. Sanjay Nagar, Bilaspur .•^^ // ;.G. ^ l^eu^^^'^y ^) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh Department of Home Affairs, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Director General of Police Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur District-Biiaspur , Chhattisgarh 5. The Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines Distt-Biiaspur (C.G.) Superintendent of Jait, Bilaspur Central Jait Distt-Biiaspur (C.G.) Prisoner No. 16, Central Jail Bilaspur (C.G.) Medicat Officer Department of forensic science C.I.M.S. Bilaspur(C.G.) UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF OPRIAT! WRIT/WRITS. ORDE R7 ORDE RS, CTION/DIRECTIONS. ^•- V. ^ AT-^ v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0.3507 OF 2007 PETITIONER Zameela. Versus RESPONDENTS Stateof Chhattisgarh & others. ff_ Post for pronouncement of the order on _/o day of September, 2010 Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge ; V:- •s--. ^^s,.i'-l-'f-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 3507 OF 2007 PETiTIONER RESPQNDENTS Zameela. Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others. V5l WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER M. (Delivered on this 'O day of September, 2010) 2. The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus direeting enquiry into the incident of death of his son namely Jameel (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") who died in Central Jail, Bilaspur, on 26.05.2007. Further, to register a ^case for serious offences against the guilty persons. It is further prayed that a compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs may also be awarded. The facts, in nutshetl, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is the mother of the deceased Jameel. On 20.05.2007, four police officers came in civil dress and arrested one Jagmohan on account of alleged theft of a motor-bike. Deceased visited the police station and he was also taken into custody on21.05.2007. The petitioner came to 1 • ^^--4, ~''%, r &.....''! (/. '.!... ' 'v £f '^ "ife"-*^ ^ ^'^.c':-': ^ know about the arrest of deceased on 22.05.2007. The deceased Jameel was taken into custody and put in Central Jail, Bilaspur. The petitioner met the deceased on 22.05.2007 at about 10.30 A.M. wherein she found that the deceased was having visible bruises and marks on his body. The deceased was crying and the petitioner was told by the deceased that he had been beaten at the police station by the poliee officers and thereafter, he was transferred to the Central Jail, Bilaspur and placed in barrack No. 16 of the Jail. On 26.05.2007, at about 1.30 P.M., the petitioner was informed that her son, Jameel, died in prison. A protestwas lodged. The family ofthe deceased took the body of the deceased at about 5 P.M. from the Central Jail and thereafter, while the body was being bathed, numerous injuries and marks were noticed by one Abdul Quadir and Hafiz in presence of Mohammad Joseph. Thus, this petition for registering a case against the po!ice officers as well as other prisoners who had brutally assaulted the deceased which lead into his death. 3*- Shri Jain, learned eounsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the death of Jameel took place in the suspicious • circumstances and this is a case of custodial atrocities while in police custody. Thus, the case may be registered against the concerned police officers and a compensation as aforestated begranted. 4. On the other hand, Shri Bhatia, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, relying on the 'y ¥• return filed by the respondent No. 1 to 6 would submit that the rules under the Prisons Act, 1894 have been followed strictly which provides that in the event of death or serious illness, intimation should be given to the District Magistrate of the District. Accordingly, the death of the deceased Jameel @ Chhotu was intimated to the District Magistrate, immediately on26.05.2007 (Annexure R/1). Information is also required to be sent to the Judicial Magistrate who has passed the order for arrest of a person. The same was also done on 28.05.2007 (Annexure R/2). The case was referred to the City Magistrate for magisterial enquiry by the District Magistrate Bilaspur, into the death ofJameel @ Chhotu. Shri Bhatia would further submit that post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted by the Medical Officer, C.l.M.S. Bilaspur, wherein the Medical Officer has not found any injury on the body of the deceased. It was stated in the report that "no definiteopinion can be given regarding cause of death. The deceased must have died due to cardio- respiratory failure. Viscera preserved for chemical examination." (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, viscera report was also received during pendency of the case. Viscera report (Annexure R/5) states that nothing poisonous was found in the pieces of stomach, small intestine and large intestine. Thereafter, in the magisterial report dated 24.08.2007, the Magistrate found that the death of the deceased was due to cardio-respiratory failure. •T' f ..s'1^ •ls!'*«» ¥- 8. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleading and documents appended thereto. 7. The City Magistrate has recorded the evidences of Jameela Begum, prisoner Rafique Khan s/o Majid Khan who was in the next barrack No. 16adjacent to barrack where the deceased was placed. Statement of Diwakar Jaiswal s/o Mahant Jaiswal, Shivlakhan s/o Chandsiram, Pradip Singh s/o Ramnihor was also recorded. According to the petitioner, Jameela Begum, her son was arrested on account of alleged theft of motor-bike and the deceased was beaten by co- prisoners which resulted into his death. Rafique Khan s/o Majid Khan in his deposition stated that there was exchange of beating between the deceased and Rayter Diwakar who was in barrackNo. 16 as he was informed by Goutam s/o Ratiram. Gautam and the deceased were arrested for the same offence. The relatives and the family members of the deceased stated that the postmortem report was not correct and the death had taken place on account of beating. Diwakar Jaiswal s/o Mahant Jaiswal, who was co-prisoner in barrack of the deceased denied that there was any beating by the co-prisoners but has stated that the deceased was a habitual drinker and on account of non-supply of alcoholic drink and drugs, he started vomiting and there was blood in vpmiting also. Shivlakhan s/o Chandsiram, who was also a eo- prisoner in the same barrack, also stated that there was no beating by any co-prisoner or anyone in the night of ^\. •^^\ aws & 1 'ia.^'/*'' w' -25.5.2007, the day the deceased was admitted to the prison. He further stated that the deceased was weak as he was addicted to drinks and drugs, which was not supplied to him during the custody. Pradeep Singh s/o Ramnihor reiterated the same statement and declined the allegation that the deceased wasseverly beating by Nambardar Diwakar. Gautam Diwakar s/o Ratiram who was arrested for the same offence alongwith the deceased stated that the deceased was brutally beaten by Nambardar Diwakar in the morning of 25.06.2007 which resulted into death of the deceased on 26.6.2007. The deceased was neither addicted of drugs or any drink. However, it was clarified by him in his statement that the deceased was in habit of taking Beer. 9. After having considered all the depositions, examining statements ofJail Superintendent, Jail Officers, Dr. R.L.Tiwari, the City Magistrate found that thedeceased fell sick on account of denial of alcoholic drink and drugs to which he was addicted, which resulted into vomiting with blood. The ¥• petitioner was immediately taken to C.I.M.S. at 9 O'Clock in the morning and he died at 9.20A.M. in the C.I.M.S. The City Magistrate has not found any suspicious circumstances or anything extraneous to the effect that the death of the deceased occurred due to beating or assault by the co- prisoners or by any other person. 10. Itappears thaf except Goutam s/o Ratiram, who was arrested with the deceased for the same offences, alt other witnesses exapiined by the City Magistrate, have not supported the allegations made by the petitioner and other relatives. The allegations are not based on the facts, but on the understanding of the petitioner and other famity members. Thus, the City Magistrate, in his report, came to the foilowing conclusion: "1/ ^ ^cr ^ g^se st^ ^ <^ ^ f^ft ^ITft ^ iflf^d ^ W (Tarr ^cT ^rtecr st^ ^ wra ww^ mi 2/ T^t ^ 1^'tft T®Rt^t Sill'flR* WtRT ?l€T ^t^ aftl 3/ ^"^t v^pf '^' yRbd ?t"^ ^ ^ '•^ f^ft ^)*)l'ft ^ ^ir^ci ^s sn\ 'sfvv ^' aitii-i* \a\^\ vifw •SRW ?^ IR ^ OTari'1?? RlRirtll ^t uira;-? RpAff ^ urrarr ufr ^gr a)T, ^H <;1<i'i -m^ '^' ^ •di\<f\ y^ ?t ^ | 4/ 3RT qit^ 'HllRl* ^^ tfFf^ •^" an^ |" 11. In response to the reply fited by the respondents, the petitioner has filed rejoinder stating that the police officers are duty bound to register an FIR on receiving any information disclosing congnizable offence, and if the death has taken place in the police custody, case has to be registered against the police officers. Learnedcounsel for the petitioner has cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Deepak Kumari v. State of Delhi (NCT)\ The finding of the City Magistrate was objected by the petitioner on the ground that the deceased was not suffering from any ailment prior to admission in jail. Thus, inference can be drawn that he fell sick on account of cruelty committed by the police officers and the co-prisoners. The City Magistrate has completely ignored 2006 CW L.J. 1622 ^' llie'statpment of the petitioner and one other person Oautarn. SNri ..lalri v/ould further place reliance on section 3:2 of the liidian Evidence Act to show that the circumstan.ces were Kl.iph vuherein the statement of the petitioner ought to have laeen gliven weightage. . The veracity of the depositions cannot be examirlecl by this Cdi.irt in exercise of its power under writ jurisdiction. If £in iilvffistigation, it is not found that the death has taken place cin accouhl of suspicious circumstances or allegedly caysed by beatiriE) of police officers and other co-prisoners, no case is iiiade Out for any direction or compensation, as souglit by Ihe 13 TTiel'e is noreason to disbelieve the postmortem report, viscera examination report, panchayatnama and the enquiry iepf:)i{ submitted by the City Magistrate. 14 lii view of the for'egoing and for the reason?, stated Herinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. 13 Md order asto costs. Sd/-: .'" Satisti K.Agnihotri , Judge , Aii'lit