Narmada Bai vs State Of Gujarat & Ors

Thereafter, on 18.05.2006, the deceased also addressed a letter to the Chairman, National Human Rights Commission (in short `NHRC') alleging that there was conspiracy among the police officials of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, etc. to do away with him in a fake encounter by cooking up a false story of running away from custody. In the said letter, the deceased specifically requested that his security be ensured whenever 3 he is taken on remand. In the same letter, he also mentioned that the Gujarat Crime Branch and Anti Terrorist Squad (in short `ATS') were very notorious for staging fake encounters.

The NHRC acknowledged the receipt of the said letter and forwarded a copy to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, Rajasthan vide letter dated 22.06.2006.

(c) Thus from March 2006, the deceased had been expressing serious apprehensions and threat to his life at the hands of the police. The deceased had reasons to believe that Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, respondent No.8, had taken a huge sum of money from the Marble traders and dealers in Rajasthan with the assurance that he would do away with him in a fake encounter. Before he being interrogated by Ms. Geeta Johri, an officer investigating the matter of fake encounter killing of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi, in the night intervening 27/28 December, 2006, Tulsiram Prajapati was done away in a fake encounter by respondent Nos. 6-19.

(d) Quoting from certain newspaper reports, more particularly, the Times of India dated 29.12.2006, the 4 petitioner has alleged that her son was being escorted by Udaipur (Rajasthan) Police from Ahmedabad to Udaipur in a train. When the train was passing through Himatnagar-

Shymlaji Stretch, the deceased sought permission to go to the toilet. The policemen escorted him to the toilet where two of his accomplices disguised as passengers attacked the policemen by throwing chilli powder in their eyes. When the policemen called for the other members of the escort party, the goons fired at them and jumped off the moving train. In response, the police opened fire but the accused fled in the cover of darkness after shooting back at the police.

(e) Pursuant to such alleged fleeing of Tulsiram Prajapati from police custody, Mr. Dinesh Kumar, SP, Udaipur called Mr. Vipul Agarwal, SP Banaskantha and informed him of the same. Thereafter, local police of Banaskantha headed by Mr. Vipul Agarwal under direct supervision of Mr. D.G. Vanzara, Range DIG, swung into action and registered an FIR being Crime Register No. 115 of 2006 at Ambaji Police Station, Banaskantha, on 28.12.2006 at 8.00 hrs. claiming that Tulsiram Prajapati had been killed in an encounter.

(f) It is further alleged that when patrolling was carried out, three persons tried to stop one Matador van but the vehicle did not stop there. It has also been alleged that a police jeep of Mr. A.A. Pandya, SI was coming behind the Matador and the said three persons tried to stop it. On stopping the police jeep, Mr. Narayansinh Fatehsinh Chauhan, ASI recognized one of the three persons in the light of jeep as the absconding Tulsiram Prajapati. On seeing that, the deceased took out a weapon kept in the nylon belt on his waist and fired which hit the left side of the mudguard of the police jeep and ran away in the darkness. While running, they fired at the police party in which one bullet hit at the left shoulder of Shri A.A. Pandya, SI. It is alleged that in self-defence Shri A.A. Pandya fired two rounds from his service revolver and Mr. Narayansinh Fatehsinh Chauhan and Mr. Yuddharamsinh Nathusinh Rajput, Rajasthan police constables also fired from their weapons. On account of the firing by the police party, bullets hit Tulsiram Prajapati and he fell down on road side and the other two persons ran away and could not be traced.

(g) It is the further case of the petitioner that the deceased being a key eye witness to the murder of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi, the team of Mr. D.G. Vanzara and others planned to do away with him to avoid his interrogation by Ms. Geeta Johri, Inspector General of Police. The aforesaid facts create a strong suspicion on the conduct of respondent Nos. 6 to 19 and the petitioner has every reason to believe that her son- Tulsiram Prajapati has been killed by them in a fake encounter. She also alleged that the respondents/accused officers enjoy powerful position in their respective State Police and are trying to obstruct further inquiry into the fake encounter killing of her son, who was a material witness in the case of fake encounter of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi.

3) Stand of the State of Gujarat - respondent No.1

(d) The claim that the deceased-Tulsiram Prajapati was highly inconvenient witness for respondent Nos. 6-19 is without substance as respondent No. 10 - Mr. V.L. Solanki, an inquiry officer, has stated in respect of alleged killing of Sohrabuddin that during preliminary enquiry there was no link between Tulsiram Prajapati and the death of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi in an encounter. The same view has been expressed by Ms. Geeta Johri, IGP under whose direct supervision the case relating to Sohrabuddin was investigated. The `third person' allegedly present at the time of abduction of 10 Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi was Kalimuddin and not Tulsiram Prajapati.

Special Crime Branch, Mumbai, as per the directions of this Court in its order dated 12.01.2010, vide Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 6 of 2007 revealed that the alleged fake encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati on 28.12.2006 was done in order to eliminate him as he was the key witness in the criminal conspiracy of the abduction and killing of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi by the powerful and the influential accused persons.

accused of Sohrabuddin in Hamid Lala's case and was taken 22 into custody only on 29.11.2005. Obviously, he had been absconding till then. In other words, he had been absconding for nearly a year before he was arrested. After his arrest, he was lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur. While in custody, he and two of his jail-mates addressed a letter dated 11.05.2006 to the Collector, Udaipur informing him about the attack carried out on them in the jail premises and they were badly injured.

20) Countering the stand of the petitioner, CBI and Union of India, the State and other respondents projected the case relating to Navrangpura which took place on 08.12.2004. The scene of offence was the office premises of a firm called Popular Builders owned by two Patel brothers - Raman Patel and Dashrath Patel. Some unknown persons entered into the premises and they did not kill anyone but they fired shots which damaged the computer installed in the office. An employee of the firm, who was sitting on the ground floor, where the incident took place, lodged an FIR with the Navrangpura Police Station on 08.12.2004 in the city of Ahmedabad. The FIR did not name any one of the assailant, however, it was then discovered that the FIR was substantially a false one and the suspects were known and yet had not been named. As a result of fresh discovery made during the course 33 of investigation, it was Patel Brothers who were ultimately charge-sheeted for filing a false case. The second case is Hamid Lala murder case in which one Hamid Lala, a protector of marble dealers of Rajasthan against criminal extortion by Sohrabuddin gang was shot dead at a place within the jurisdiction of Ambaji Police Station, Udaipur in the State of Rajasthan. This incident took place on 31.12.2004. It is a fact that Sohrabuddin after committing Hamid Lala's murder absconded and was not available to the Rajasthan Police.

37) In view of our discussions and submission of learned counsel on either side and keeping in mind the earlier directions given by this Court, although, charge-sheet has been filed by the State of Gujarat after a gap of 3 = years after the incident, that too after pronouncement of judgment in Rubbabudin's case and considering the nature of crime that has been allegedly committed not by any third party but by the police personnel of the State of Gujarat, we are satisfied that the investigation conducted and concluded in the present case by the State police cannot be accepted. In view of various circumstances highlighted and in the light of the involvement of police officials of the State of Gujarat and police officers of two other States, i.e. Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan, it would not be desirable to allow the Gujarat State Police to continue with the investigation, accordingly, to meet the ends of justice and in the public interest, we feel that the CBI should be directed to take the investigation.

Submission of Report by the CBI to this Court and subsequent monitoring.

Conclusion:

APRIL 08, 2011.