H ’‘W, m HM 7W s£v%5‘§wy m zZoa/ 4V W N” @ ; pETITIONER : amt. Girija Tiwari SUS u RESPQ NDENT Gu inc :u barge ‘0 ac ha n — gin addl ah, . S .P . \ Jagdalpur (Bastar) HM 2 w q / . kwJa 1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIIASPUR (C.G) Writ pen don No. 57/2000 Smt.G1rija Tiwari OVSU State of Chhattisgagh & ors. :IORAL ORDER (02%5-2001) 0n 30-11~2000, after going through the case diary. this Court had made number of cbservations. This Court recorded that the accused persons were taken into custody and were kept 1n lock-up on 13-11-2000 but their arrest memos were prepared on 14-11-2000. This Court also recorded that on ~13th. no information was given to the parents/relations of ‘theaccused persons that they have been taken into custody. This court also recorded that in relation to accused Neeraj ‘riwari. two arrest memos were available on the record. one was showing that the arrest was effectedLat 1600 ‘ hours while the other was showing the arrest at‘v1530 hours. This Court also noticed that in each of the arrest memo, there was over-writing in the column provided for time of arrest... The said two Police _o£ficers were given number of- opportunities to explain their conduct and to explain be£ore this‘court as to why such actions were taken by them, but every time they submitted to the Court that in haste they committed n ( q/ x //\ certain mistakes which are bona-fide. / -2- (2) While going through the case diary, I found that 'atleast 3 aeeused were taken into custody on 13th itself. but no arrest Panchnama was prepared on the ‘ said date. Mr.’Sat1sh Bajpai, Town Inspector, Bemetara V. on‘being asked as to why the arrest Panchnaua was not . prepared on 13th itself, he says that but £0: the S.D.O(P) none other had right to make investigation into the matter. therefore, he did not wepare the Panohnama. The explanation is false beeause the very first line of the ease diary says that the matter was taken up for investigation by Mr.Bajpai. The very first line recordeo on 14-11:-2000 again says that the diary was opened on 14:11-2000 for investigation. In open Court in the presence of learned Deputy Advocate General, Shri Bajpai stated that two of the accused persons were caught on the spot and were brought to the Polioe Station and third came to the Police station later on, but unfortuna- tely the diary says that a search was made for these three accused persons and they were arrested or apprehended in he market. These three persons were available to the police and were kept in the lock-up on 13th itself. Undisputedly. no arrest Panchnama was prepared on 13th and no information was sent to the relations of the acoused persons on 13th itself. The diary of 14th says that Mr.Bajpai sent a wireless message to Gurubaohan Singh. S.D.O(P) regarding the report on which Mr.Gurubachan singh assured him that he would come bac immediately and &oceed with the investigation. From the diary. it appears that Mr.Gurubachan Singh came to Police station at about 1400 hours and called the complainant and his sister, recordeditheiristatements J( \rr ‘ k '3. u/s 151 Cr.P.C. and proceeded to the spot. On being asked. in open Caurc Mr.Gurubachan S1ngh says that he was informed by mnaajpai that all the accused persons were in the police lock-up right frcm 13th. The case diary contains, as many as 5 arrest memos. 4 are 1n original while the 5th is a phctostat copy. The photostet aopy shows that the time of arrest of Neeraj Tiwari was 1600 hours while the original with the over-writingsays that said Neeraj 'riwari was taken into custody at 1530‘ hours. It also conspicuously appears from the arrest memorandum that each of the memorandum contains over-writing in the column provided £or- the tithe of arrest. I repeatedly asked‘Mr.Gurubachan singh as to why there is over-writing in each of the arrest memo. He simply stated that by some mistake he made over-writing in the arrest mmorandums.~ It is also to be seen that in the diary of 14vl1-2000 the time of arrest was shown as 1600 hours, but it was later on deleted and was shown as 1530 hours. Mr.Guru- bachan Singh says that after making corrections in the arrest memos he made the corrections in the: case diary. I am’at a loss to understand as to why corrections 1n each of the memorandum and case diary were required. Mr.burubachan singh admitted in the Court that after preparation of the Panchnamas. the daily proceedings or the actions taken are recorded in the case diary. The Panchnamas if already had the oven-writings at the time of preparation before writing the diary, then. the time as shown in the corrected arrest memorandums could be mentioned in the case diary. Once it is found that the time or arrest was corrected in the memorandum and thereafter, a correctionwas mageinthieiicase diary, \\ \y @ .4- then there is no escape, but no hold that the entriés were made in the Panchnama and the caae diary at. a subsequent stage . (3) ' ‘B'emetara is at a distance of 70 KhMs. from the District Headquarters at Burg. On a vehicle the, ”distance-feonldbee‘aovered within two hours, these two police officers did not produce the accused persons before the c.J'.M., burg, but produced these 4 accused persons before the ksc.J.M., ’Bemetara. The officers admit before me that they knew well that the son of the said Judicial Officer was the complainant. I do not know that what pursuaded these two officers to produce these 4 accused persons before theJ'udicial Officer whose son was the complainant andunfortunately these officers are not ready to assign any reason. Mr.Gurubachan singh says’that he knew that the said Judicial officer could not try the offence. but he did not know whether such officer could grant remand or not. The case diary does not say that being in the horns of dilem. these two police offers ever sought any advice from their superior officers. The records show. that the accused. persons were produced before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bemetara. a‘t 7 pm. who in his turn granted the transitory remand, and required the Police to produce the accused persons before the chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg. I am again at a loss and am unable to understand as to why within 3Y2 hours from the time of alleged arrest, the accused persons could not be produced before the C.J.M. Undisputedly, one of the accused is below 16 years of age. ‘ He was required to be produced before the juvenile Court. but these Police officers did not produce that ljuveni‘le before the competent authority. p for the reasons best known to them. .6- records, he has ne further explanation. (‘1) The present diary and the conduct of theeé‘ two Police O£f1cers show a pathetic and sorry state; af affairs. Whether these 4 perscns ccmmitted the offence or not is yet to be decided by a competent Court, but these two Police officers have already punished them. Prakash, Dheeraj. Avinash and Neeraj in the yesence of these officers clearly statedthat Mr.$atish ~Bajpa1. k Jhadu Singh, Ajit Mahobia. Itwari Ram and one Gangrade, all posted at Police Station Bemetara.’ manhandled them and used 3rd degree methods against them. I am not making any enquiry into the correctness of these allegations, but if it so happened. the Police atrocities can never be forgiven. L (8) repeatedly asked the Police Officers to conduct themselves prOperly. If the subordinate police-staff feels that - the code of conduct prepared by their‘own department or by the senior police officials does not bind them, then it is for the Higher Officers to take note of it, but these officers must not forget that the directions issued by this Court or by the supreme Court are binding upon them. Erhese officers not only committed serious lapses in discharge of their duties, but have comitted the contempt of lawful authority of the supreme Court by ignoring the mandatory directions issued by the Supreme court in relation to arrest of the persons who are minors. in relation to supply of the information to the parents and relations of such accused psi-sons, Air in iiiiiii relationito th third degree methods etc. x 5o This CourtAalso the Supreme court have e ’7’ £9) Dr .N .K. Shukl'a . learned neputy Advoca te Genera l on being asked as to what action should be taken against these string officers. stated that these 4 boys should bc awn-dad proper compensation and the dead should be hurried. I am unable to concede to later part of this request. The present is not acase where the dead should be hurried, but present is a case which needs a further probe andebsolute autopsy into the actions of these two officers. § ‘ (10) Taking into consideration the totality-of the circumstances. it is hereby directed that the superintendent of Police; Burg. shall register offences against these two officers and against others in relation to wrongful confinement and beating of these 4 children, creation of forged documents making interpolations in ' the diary and documents and further offences after recording the statements of these 4 persons who were kept into custody. If the Superintendent of Police finds that he is unahle to make investigation. then. he may make a request to the Inspector General of Police of the circle who himself shall make the investigation and shall give his periodical report to this court A copy of this order be also sent to the Director General of Police and it is expected of him that he ’shall take suitable departmental action against these two erring officers. This Court, sincerely hopes that the higher police'officers shall not show any favouritism in favour of these two officers, but while investigating would discharge their duty in accordance with law. The boys present in the Court if are advised. may submit their statements before the superintendent of police in form of affidavit or inr‘thf feign of writing duly . ; \¢ -8- attested by the notary public so that at a later stage none can say that the‘ statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are d¢£ferent than the narration made in the High Court. If these boys submit. such affidavits or the written statements then the same shall begkept on record by the Investigating Officer and the court trying the o££ence may take into consideration the said‘statements at thetime of the trial. i (11) Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the manner in which these two officers wrongfully confined these 4rboys and prepared the forgea panchnamas, I hereby direct each of the officer to pay Rs. 5000/- to each of the complainant which means that each of the erring officer shall pay B. 20,000/. and each of the complainant shall get k. 10.,000/v as compensation. Payment of this compensation shall not put an end to the rights of these 4 boys in-claiming further compensation-before a competent civil court, if the law‘ permits them. It is further directed that the amount shall be paid by these two officers before the Special Judge‘atrocities). Durg. within a period 'of 15 days and the saidiJudge shall be obliged to inform this Court about the compliance of this Vordero' Non—compliance in relation to payment of compensation by these two officers shall be deemed to be a serious lapse on their part and they may be held liable under the provisions of ,the Contempt of Courts Act. All the 3 diaries in original are returned to Dr.Shukla. Dy.A.G. who shall keep the diaries in a sealed cover and send the same to the Superintendent of Police who shall open -9. the same, keep the Photostat copies of‘ all those documents with him so that no farther damage is done to these diaries . The petiuon 1s disposed of. C.C. within two days. ‘ Sd/— ‘ R.S.Gat:g k Judge aw