Crl. Misc. No. M-40996 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-40996 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.8.2009 Lakhwinder Kaur .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B. S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner, wife of her deceased husband-Mangat Ram, approached this Court seeking a direction to the official respondents to register a case under Section 302/34 IPC against respondents No. 4 to 6 for having committed the murder of her husband. It was alleged that the husband of the petitioner was involved in a false excise case. He was arrested and later on released on bail on 28.5.2007, but did not reach back home. It transpired that while returning home, respondents No. 4 to 6 in a pre-planned conspiracy had beaten him, as a result of which he died. His body was recovered from the Chari fields near Tanny Palace. In spite of complaint having been made to the police and appropriate action having not been taken, the petitioner had to approach this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though after filing of the present petition, the State has filed a status report in this court regarding the enquiry conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rural-II, Gurdaspur, however, that does not inspire confidence and the case deserves to be investigated by an independent agency, as it is a case of murder of the husband of the petitioner. He referred to the contradictions in the report under Section 174 Cr.P.C., post-mortem report of the deceased, reply filed by the State and the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that brother of the deceased had himself stated that the deceased was a drunkard man. Crl. Misc. No. M-40996 of 2007 [2] He was involved in trade of illicit liquor. On the fateful day also, he had consumed liquor and died on that account. It was further submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had conducted detailed enquiry and it was found that under the influence of intoxicants, he did not go home and roamed around at different places. He was eating cannabis leaves and drinking water from paddy fields, in which the farmers had mixed the poisonous pesticides. It is not a case of murder. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Though in the report of Deputy Superintendent of Police dated 29.9.2007, it is mentioned that on enquiry it was found that after release from jail, the husband of the petitioner was wandering here and there under the influence of intoxicants. He was seen by many people at different places. He was eating cannabis leaves and drinking water from paddy fields, in which the farmers had mixed the poisonous pesticides. However, in the post-mortem report, it was found that some semi-digested food was there in his stomach. Not only this, on the front portion of his body, there were four injuries. If the deceased had fallen in the fields, possibility of such injuries was quite remote. On the one hand, in the statement of brother of the deceased, it was mentioned that he died on the way to Navneet Hospital from the place he was found, whereas in the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, it was mentioned that he died while he was being taken home on scooter by his brother-Paramjit from adda Paniar. The aforesaid discrepancies prima facie do not inspire confidence in the investigation. In my opinion, considering the crime to be heinous, further investigation of the case is required. Let the needful be done and the matter be got investigated by a senior officer. Ordered accordingly. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 6.8.2009 mk