Indu and another vs Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

Mrs. Indu and Rakeshpetitioners, who are the sister and brother of the deceased Rajesh alias Kala, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to mark an enquiry to the Central Bureau of Investigation into the incident in which brother of the petitioners has been murdered. They have (levelled) an accusation in this petition that their brother Rajesh alias Kala has been murdered by a Union Territory, Chandigarh, Police commando, posted in the personal security of Inspector General of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration.

It is averred in the petition that the parents of the deceased Rajesh are no more alive and both the brothers i.e. the deceased and Rakesh were staying in their own House No. 1047, Sector 29B, Chandigarh. It is then stated that the parents of the deceased had migrated from Jammu and Kashmir due to the fear of J & K militants in the year 1985 and the U.T. Administration had allotted the accommodations to such migrants to rehabilitate them at a safe place.

It is stated in the petition that on 18.7.1997, Rajesh alias Kala, aged 24 years, was not at home when Yog Raj an STD owner residing in H.No. 1058, Sector 29B, Chandigarh came along with Ranbir, a U.T. Police Commando to the house of Rajesh. It was around 10 A.M. when they enquired about Rajesh from his brother Rakesh, who is petitioner No. 2 in this petition. Rakesh petitioner informed both of them that Rajesh was not at home and thereafter they left the house. Around 12 noon or 12.30 P.M. Yog Raj and Ranbir again came to the house of the deceased and enquired about Rajesh and when Rakesh asked them the reason of their repeated visits, he was disclosed that Rajesh had to make some payment of STD calls and they wanted to meet him in that connection. Later in the evening at 4 P.M. when again Yog Raj visited the house of the deceased and by that time Rajesh returned home and Yog Raj asked Rajesh to accompany him to the STD Booth for the settlement of STD bills lying pending in his name. Rajesh left by telling Rakesh that he will come back soon and he accompanied Yog Raj to the STD Booth. The houses of the petitioners and Yog Raj are just close to each other and Rajesh accompanied Yog Raj on foot to his STD booth in house No. 1058, Sector 29B, Chandigarh.

It is then stated in the petition that Jagtar Singh who lives in a nearby house and was standing in the ground on the left side of the STD booth had witnessed that Rajesh alias Kala since deceased was having an altercation with Yog Raj STD owner, his brother Hari, wife Anita who runs the STD and Ranbir a U.T. Police Commando and all of them started beating Rajesh alias Kala. Witnessing the same Jagtar Singh went running to the house of Rajesh to inform his brother Rakesh and thereafter by the time Jagtar and Rakesh reached the spot they saw Ranbir coming out of H.No. 1056 and speeding away towards the Maruti Car of white colour along with his weapon, which was still in his hand. Rakesh and Jagtar immediately went to the house No. 1056, Sector 29B, Chandigarh where they found Rajesh alias Kala lying dead in a pool of blood.

It is then stated in the petition that Mrs. Sunita, the house lady of H.No. 1056 disclosed to Rakesh and Jagtar that Rajesh had come running to her house and Ranbir was chasing him with a pistol in his hand. Rajesh alias Kala pushed aside her children and in the meanwhile when Rajesh was trying to escape from the front door, Ranbir fired two shots which missed Rajesh and thereafter when Rajesh was trying to open the door he was hit by the third fire which pierced his neck through and through and Rajesh fell down in the presence of Sunita wife of Sanji Ram and she started wailing and also tried to shake and have a conversation with him, but she found that he had already died. It is further stated in the petition that the incident was reported in a local daily ''Chandigarh Newsline'' dated 19.7.1997 and thereafter on the next day i.e. 20.7.1997 another news concerning the same incident was also reported. These news items have been annexed with this petition as Annexures P1 and P2.

It is then stated in the petition that due to great hue and cries of the residents of the locality, the Local Member Parliament Sh. S.P. Jain, also visited the spot and a representation was submitted to him, before the dead body was cremated. Copy of the representation is attached as Annexure P3 with this petition. The Member Parliament marked the application to the Inspector General of Police for necessary action.

It is further stated in the petition that the Chandigarh Police has not cared to register any FIR against the STD owner nor against Ranbir, the Commando for the reason that Ranbir was in the personal security staff of the I.G. Police, Chandigarh, and the police is shielding Ranbir by taking a plea that Ranbir had shot dead Rajesh in self defence as Rajesh had attacked Ranbir with a knife. The police has also come out with the version that Ranbir Commando had incidentally visited the STD Booth where he was at that time proceeding towards the Police Line in order to deposit his weapon; whereas, according to the petitioner, the fact is that Ranbir was a regular visitor of the Booth and most of the people of the locality knew him by face and also that he was a Commando in the U.T. police.

According to the petitioners, the inaction of the U.T. Administration by not registering a case concerning the incident though the same made headlines in the newspapers and the nonvisiting of any police official on the spot in order to record the statements of the witnesses till today have convinced the people of the locality and close relatives of the deceased that the Chandigarh Police is all out to shield Ranbir Commando as he is working in the personal security of I.G. Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh and he is having the clout in the U.T. Police. In these circumstances, it is stated that it is not possible that any free and fair investigation will be conducted in this case.

It is then stated in the petition that the police has shown injuries on the thigh of Ranbir Singh, which are alleged to have been given by Rajesh, in order to create self defence.

In the end, a prayer has been made, that the investigation of the incident may be ordered to be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation for bringing the truth to light and to bring the culprits to book, in the interest of justice.

Writtenstatement has been filed by Shri Baldev Singh, Officiating, Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh, on behalf of respondent No. 2. Some preliminary objections have been taken in which it has been stated that the apprehension of the petitioners is without any foundation particularly when there is not even a suggestion of mala fide attributed in the body of the petition. Then the stand taken in the preliminary objection is that constable Ranbir Singh (No. 349 CP) is working in the police department, Union Territory, Chandigarh, and on 18th July, 1997, he was posted in VIP security. Constable Ranbir Singh was admitted in the General Hospital and a message was received that stabbing had taken place in House No. 1058, Sector 29B, Chandigarh and the injured has been removed to General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. On receipt of the wireless message from Control Room, the Station House Officer, Police Station Industrial Area, in whose jurisdiction the area fell, went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of constable Ranbir Singh on the basis of which case was registered vide FIR No. 81 dated 18th July, 1997 under Section 307 IPC with PoliceStation, Industrial Area against Shri Rajesh, since deceased. Then the translation of the statement made by constable Ranbir Singh in FIR No. 81 dated 18.7.1997, has been reproduced. It is then stated that after recording the statement, the investigation team headed by the Station House Officer came to the spot. It was found that after receiving the shot Rajesh had died on the spot and his body was lying on the spot. Photographer was summoned at the spot. Knife was taken into possession in the presence of witnesses namely Yog Raj, owner of the STD booth and Mohd. Sadiq, President of Residents Welfare Association. Two empty cartridges were recovered from open area near STD booth and one empty was recovered from within house. Bloodstained earth was lifted. Bloodstained earth, knife, empties, clothes removed from Ranbir Singh, pistol with magazine have been sent for examination to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory.

It is then stated in the reply that statements of the witnesses from the spot have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the same day i.e. 18th July, 1997 i.e. of Yog Raj, Umesh Singh another person who had come to the STD booth to make a call. Statements of Ram Gopal son of Shri Paras Ram, who was present at the site at the time of occurrence had also removed the injured to the Hospital, Anita Verma wife of Yog Raj, Upkar Dewan son of Amrik Singh, as also a witness of the occurrence, Hanuman son of Mam Raj, also a witness of occurrence, have been recorded. Thus, six witnesses of occurrence have been joined in investigation and their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have been recorded.

It was then stated in the reply that exhaustive endeavour has been made by the investigating officer to record statements of the persons living in adjoining houses/locality, but despite best efforts they are not coming forward to give their statements. It is further mentioned in the reply that because of concerted efforts of Investigating Agency to get statements of persons living in adjoining houses/locality, a complaint was made to Shri Sat Pal Jain, Member of Parliament. Shri Sat Pal Jain, visited the house of Shri Rajesh alias Kala and advised the Investigating Officer as also the DSP, East Division, Incharge of police, namely Shri S.C. Sagar, not to ask the persons of the locality time and again to give statement with respect to the occurrence.

In the reply on facts, the averments made by the petitioner have been broadly denied. It is stated in para No. 3 of the reply that even on 26.7.1997 the Investigating Officer visited the House No. 1058 and 1056 and asked the residents to make statement about any fact within their knowledge with respect to the occurrence of 18.7.1997. However, nobody came forward to give the statement. It has been admitted in the reply that constable Ranbir Singh was on duty on 18.7.1997 at the residence of the Inspector General of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh from 8.00 A.M. to 3.00 P.M. It is further admitted in para No. 3 of the reply that a complaint at the instance of Yog Raj was received in the PoliceStation at 11.45 A.M. on 18.7.1997 containing allegation against Kala, since deceased, to the effect that he had gone to the STD booth of Yog Raj where Anita wife of Yog Raj was present and Kala wanted to make a call. Anita asked Kala to make payment of Rs. 300/ which was due to him whereafter he could make the call. Kala got agitated on this and abused Anita in filthy language and threatened her. On these allegations application was made to the PoliceStation to take action against Kala.

In the reply, it has been stated that the investigation officer tried to persuade Mrs. Sunita who was a witness of immediate vicinity to record her statement but she refused to give any statement. She was again contacted on 26.7.1997. However, she again refused to give any statement. It is admitted in the reply that a complaint sent to Shri Sat Pal Jain, has been marked for inquiry and Sardar Baldev Singh, S.P. Headquarter has been appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The inquiry is in progress and separate witnesses are being examined.

In reply to para 9, it has been denied that any complaint under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was made to the policestation, Industrial Area to bring out the facts as narrated in the petition. It is then stated in the petition that Shri Rajesh alias Kala deceased was an accused in FIR No. 41 dated 12.5.1995 under Sections 324, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Industrial Area, wherein, he had attacked an innocent person. In another incident Rajesh alias Kala, has given beatings to Yadvinder Singh and Parminder Singh, residents of the same locality and DDR No. 44 dated 7.4.1996, was recorded in PoliceStation, Industrial Area in this regard.

It is denied in para No. 10 of the reply that Chandigarh police is shielding Ranbir Singh or that Ranbir Singh had any clout with the Chandigarh Police. The investigation was being carried out sincerely as required by law, as mentioned in the reply.

Plantation of a knife on Rajesh alias Kala since deceased is denied. In the end of the reply it has been stated that this petition may be dismissed.

An additional affidavit was filed by Shri Baldev Singh, S.P. City, Chandigarh. In that affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioners forwarded a complaint to Satya Pal Jain, Member of Parliament, Chandigarh. The said complaint was forwarded to Satya Pal Jain on 21.7.1997 on his visit to the locality. The complaint was sent to Inspector General Police on the same day i.e. 21.7.1997 for appropriate action.

It has been further stated in the additional affidavit that as per complaint, it was alleged that Rajesh alias Kala was killed by Ranbir serving as Commando, Union Territory, Police on 18.7.1997 and the police is shielding him by taking the stand of self defence. It was further alleged in the complaint that in fact the police is not registering the case of murder with a criminal conspiracy and is shielding their own man.

It is admitted in the affidavit that the said complaint was sent to the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh by Shri Satya Pal Jain, M.P. Union Territory, Chandigarh. The Inspector General of Police forwarded the complaint to the deponent i.e. S.P. City Chandigarh for conducting the enquiry on the above mentioned complaint. The said enquiry was marked to him on 21.7.1997.

It is then stated in the affidavit that in pursuance to the complaint marked to deponent, he, vide his letter dated 29.7.1997 called upon Hardev Singh, SHO PoliceStation, Industrial Area, Chandigarh who is the investigating officer in the abovementioned FIR No. 81 dated 18.7.1997 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide the aforesaid letter the deponent called upon the investigating officer to appear in his office on 30.7.1997 at 4.P.M. along with a copy of the FIR registered in connection with the death of Rajesh alias Kala, photo copy of the postmortem report, list of the prosecution witnesses with their addresses along with the photocopies of the statements and further if there is any criminal record of Rajesh alias Kala in his policestation. The letter dated 29.7.97 has been annexed as Annexure R1 with the affidavit.

It is then stated in the additional affidavit that after the appearance of the investigating officer before the deponent, he called upon the present petitioner Mrs. Indu as well as her brother Rakesh Kumar vide his letter dated 21.7.97/D/1505A/3PHeadquarter, and the said letter was sent to the petitioners through special messenger constable Gurcharan Singh. The special Messenger on the same day informed the deponent that the petitioner refused to accept the letter and further stated that as the matter is still subjudice, therefore, they will appear for the inquiry after the decision of this Hon''ble High Court. The above mentioned letter along with the information of the special messenger is annexed as Annexure R2.

It may be noted here that Annexure R2 is letter dated 31.7.1997 and not a letter dated 21.7.1997 as has been mentioned above in the additional affidavit filed by Shri Baldev Singh S.P. Headquarters. Obviously there could not be any letter dated 21.7.1997 as mentioned in the additional affidavit as the S.P. entered into to enquire the matter only on 29.7.1997. This averment is further falsified by Annexure R2 which is dated 31.7.1997 and not 21.7.1997.

It is further submitted in the additional affidavit that the deponent while enquiring the matter, recorded the statement of one Yog Raj STD owner, Anita Verma wife of Yog Raj and Ram Gopal who were stated as prosecution witnesses in FIR No. 81/97, apart from some other witnesses. He submitted the interim report to the Inspector General of Police on 6.8.97 and he sought two weeks'' more time to complete the inquiry. He has then stated in his additional affidavit that he again sent a letter dated 7.8.97 to the petitioners through Inspector CID. After receipt of the letter dated 7.8.1997, petitioner Rakesh appeared before the deponent and submitted a letter dated 9.8.97 to the deponent. The petitioner submitted in his letter dated 9.8.97 that since the matter is subjudice and moreover his sister who is one of the complainants, had also gone abroad so they will not be able to give the statements.

Reply to the additional affidavit filed by S.P. Chandigarh, has been filed by Mrs. Indu on 2.9.1997, by way of an affidavit. In reply to para No. 2 of the additional affidavit, it has been submitted that Chandigarh Police is trying to shield the culprit Ranbir Singh, who is serving as a Commando in the personal security of the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh. It is then stated that the conduct of the police since 21.7.1997 till date, gives clear picture of the manner they are proceeding with the investigation.

It is stated in para No. 4 of the reply that it is apparent from the record that even though the Commando had committed an offence of murder and there was great hue and cry of the residents of the area and the relatives of the deceased, but the Superintendent of Police City chose not to come into action for full nine days as he himself submitted in this additional affidavit that on 29.7.1997, he called upon the investigating officer to his office. In reply to para No. 5 of the additional affidavit, it is submitted that it is totally a false assertion that the petitioner or her brother Rakesh Kumar, was called by the S.P. City Chandigarh and neither any information was given to the petitioner. It was only a paper transaction between the police and no one from the locality has been taken as a witness that the information was given to the family of the deceased. In reply to para No. 6 of the additional affidavit, it is stated that the S.P. City has stated that he recorded the statement of one Upkar Singh Dewan on 2.8.1997 and two others Umesh Kumar and Hanuman on 5.8.1997. The S.P. City has failed to explain as to why he has not cared to record the statement of the eye witnesses namely Smt. Sunita in whose house No. 1056, all Sector 29B, Rajesh was killed by Ranbir Singh. It is then stated in the reply to the additional affidavit that it is also a mystery as to why the Investigating Officer has till today not recorded her statement even though the dead body was taken into custody from her house. In reply to para 7 of the reply to the additional affidavit, it has been submitted that no notice for 31.7.1997 was served upon the deponent so there was no occasion to appear before the S.P. City.

In reply to para No. 9 it is submitted that the petitioners on 7.8.1997, received the letter, whereby they were called to the office of the S.P. City in order to join the enquiry. In pursuance of that Rakesh brother of the deceased alongwith his relatives and other residents of the area met the S.P. City. He gave in writing to the S.P. City that since Chandigarh Police did not take any action on the complaint submitted by them, so they had approached the Hon''ble High Court, where, they had made a prayer for the C.B.I. enquiry. In the reply, it has further been submitted that Annexure R4 also discloses that the petitioner Rakesh Kumar had told that he had no faith in the U.T. police due to their past conduct.

It is then stated in the reply to the additional affidavit that on 11 or 12.8.1997, the petitioners and their counsel contacted S.P. City (Mr. Baldev Singh) and the petitioners wanted to still associate with the enquiry, but the S.P. City showed his inability and said that he would not be free till 18th or 19th and he could contact the party thereafter. It is then submitted in the reply to the additional affidavit that Chandigarh police was trying to shield the Commando Ranbir Singh as he is posted in the personal security of the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh and the fact that till today the eye witness. Smt. Sunita has neither been examined by the Investigating Officer or the Enquiry Officer which proves beyond reasonable doubt that Chandigarh Police will not hold a fair and free investigation into the matter.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have lost confidence in the local police as no immediate action was taken by the police against the culprits. Though the brother of the petitioners Rajesh alias Kala was murdered in House No. 1056, Section 29B, Chandigarh by Ranbir, a U.T. Police Commando, serving in the personal security of I.G. Police, Chandigarh, but instead of registering a case against Ranbir and the other culprits, a case under Section 307 IPC was registered against Rajesh alias Kala though he died immediately after Ranbir fired a shot at his head.

Learned counsel further stated that on the basis of hue and cry made by the petitioners and the residents of the locality, this incident of 18.7.1997 was published in a newspaper called ''Chandigarh Newsline'' on 19.7.97 with the heading ''Man shot dead by U.T. Police Commando'' annexed as Annexure P1 with the petition. Again the news was published on 20.7.1997 in the same newspaper with headlines ''Commando being shielded, allege relatives'' annexed as Annexure P2 with the petition. After this hue and cry the petitioners alongwith many other residents of the locality handed over a complaint signed by them as well as many other persons of the locality to Shri Satya Pal Jain, M.P. Chandigarh Parliamentary Constituency, Chandigarh for registration of First Information Report against Ranbir and other guilty persons i.e. Yog Raj, Mrs. Anita, Hari and other accused persons. Their complaint was forwarded to I.G. Police, Chandigarh for proper investigation and necessary action by Shri Satya Pal Jain, Member of Parliament.

Though it is alleged that the complaint was further forwarded by the I.G. Police to Shri Baldev Singh, S.P. (City), but even Baldev Singh, SP (City) did not take action on the complaint till 29.7.97; and even on that day also he neither visited the spot nor any investigation was made by him about this case nor the statement of the witnesses including the statement of Smt. Sunita in whose house the murder took place was recorded.

It is further contended by the counsel for the petitions that the people in the vicinity are afraid of the Chandigarh Police and they are reluctant even to depose about the incident before them. The learned counsel then submitted that the letter annexed as Annexure R4 with the reply of S.P. Chandigarh itself disclosed that the petitioner Rakesh Kumar had disclosed before him that he had no faith in the U.T. Police due to their past conduct. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioners alongwith their counsel contacted the S.P. (City) Mr. Baldev Singh and told him that the petitioners still wanted to associate with the enquiry but the S.P. (City) showed his inability and told them that he would not be free till 18th or 19th and he could contact the party thereafter.

In view of the these circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners had no faith in the Chandigarh Police and it proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Chandigarh Police will not hold free and fair investigation into the matter and, thus, he ultimately prayed that the enquiry of this case should be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation so that the real truth may come out and justice may be done to the family of the deceased.

In order to substantiate his contentions, the counsel cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. and others with State of U.P. v. R.S. Sodhi and others, 1994(1) Criminal Law Journal 111 and Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association v. State of Assam and another, 1994(2) Crl. Law Journal, 2197.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh and S.S.P. Chandigarh has submitted that this petition is highly premature as investigation into the occurrence is still going on. The occurrence related to 18th July, 1997 and this petition was filed on 22.7.1997 and, thus, the apprehension of the petitioners is without any foundation particularly when there is not even a suggestion of mala fide attributed in the body of the petition. The petition, thus, deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel has cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd.) through its President v. Union of India and others, 1996(4) Crimes 180 (SC).

Learned counsel for the U.T. Administration has further submitted that the Chandigarh Police immediately swung into action and started investigating the matter and a case under Section 307 was registered on the basis of a statement of Ranbir, Commando of the U.T. Police and the investigation was started. He further submitted that six witnesses of occurrence have been joined in the investigation and their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have been recorded. He explained that Shri Satya Pal Jain, M.P. had visited the house of Rajesh alias Kala (deceased) and advised the Investigating Officer as also the D.S.P. East Division, Incharge of Police, namely Shri S.C. Sagar not to ask the persons of the locality time and again to give statement with respect to the occurrence. He further submitted that the Investigation Officer tried to persuade Mrs. Sunita to give her statement if she had seen anything. However, she refused to give any statement. She was again contacted on 26.7.1997 but she again refused to give any statement.

Learned counsel for the U.T. Chandigarh has admitted that a complaint sent to Shri Sat Pal Jain, M.P. was marked for enquiry and Sardar Baldev Singh, S.P. Headquarter has been appointed as Inquiry Officer, and the enquiry is in progress and separate witnesses are being examined. Learned counsel denied that Chandigarh Police is shielding Ranbir Singh being in the personal security of I.G. Police. Chandigarh. He further contended that Rajesh alias Kala (deceased) was an accused in FIR No. 41, dated 12.5.1995 under Sections 324, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Industrial Area wherein he had attacked an innocent person. In another incident Rajesh alias Kala has given beatings to Yadvinder Singh and Perminder Singh, residents of the same locality and DDR No. 44, dated 7.4.1996 was recorded in police station, Industrial Area in that regard.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant files produced before me by the counsel for the U.T. Administration.

The following are the admitted facts in this case :

(i) The occurrence took place on 18.7.97 at about 4.15 pm in which Rajesh @ Kala died due to a pistol shot fired at him by Ranbir, Constable, who is working in the police Department, U.T. Chandigarh and was posted in VIP security with the I.G. Police, Chandigarh.

(ii) Rajesh alias Kala died in House No. 1056, Sector 29B of Smt. Sunita.

(iii) A news published in a newspaper called ''Chandigarh Newsline'' on the next day i.e. on 19.7.97 with the heading ''Man shot dead by U.T. Police Commando''. Some portion of the news is reproduced as under :

"CHANDIGARH, July 18 : In the sixth murder reported in the city this month, a resident of Sector 29, Rajesh Kumar alias Kala, was shot dead by a commando of the U.T. Police following a scuffle here today.

The injured commando identified as Ranbir has been admitted to the General Hospital in Sector 16 with stab injuries. Ranbir is currently deployed with the Security Staff of the U.T. Inspector General of Police.

According to eyewitnesses the incident took place at a STD booth in Sector 29B. The booth is being run by Yog Raj and his wife Aneeta."

(iv) Again a news was published on 20.7.1997 in the same newspaper with headlines ''Commando being shielded, allege relatives''.

(v) A complaint signed by the petitioners alongwith many other persons of the locality was handed over to Shri Sat Pal Jain, M.P., Chandigarh Parliamentary Constituency, Chandigarh for registration of First Information Report against Ranbir, Constable and other guilty persons i.e. Yog Raj, Mrs. Aneeta and others

(vi) The above said complaint, which is annexed as Annexure P3 with the petition, was forwarded by Shri S.P. Jain, M.P. to I.G. Police, Chandigarh for proper investigation and necessary action.

(vii) This complaint was further forwarded by I.G. Police Chandigarh to Shri Baldev Singh, S.P. (City) on 21.7.1997 itself, with the following note :

"Enclosed please find a complaint forwarded by Sh. S.P. Jain, M.P., against C. Ranbir Singh, serving in U.T. Police as Commando in IGP''s Security, Yograj, Mrs. Anita and Hari for killing Rajesh alias Kala, resident of H.No. 1047, Sector 29, Chandigarh. In the complaint Sh. Rakesh, the deceased''s brother and his sister alongwith certain other people have indicated that the commando constable exceeded the protection granted to him under general provision of IPC and, as such, a case of murder should be registered against him. Since the allegations are made that Constable belonged to the security set of IGP, I would like you to personally verify the facts for further action in the matter. Your report should reach this office latest by Ist August, 1997.

Sd/ IGP.

21.7.1997.

The original complaint as well as its endorsement to Shri Baldev Singh, SP, City has been shown to me by the learned counsel for Chandigarh Administration.

(viii) For the first time, it was written by Shri Baldev Singh, SP, City, Headquarters, U.T. Chandigarh vide No. 1596D/SP/HQ/UT, Chandigarh, dated 29.7.97 to Inspector Hardev Singh SHO, PS, Indl. Area, Chandigarh which reads as under :

"You are directed to appear in the office of undersigned on 30.7.97 at 4 pm alongwith copy of FIR registered in connection with the incident of the death of Rajesh @ Kala, photo copy of Post Mortem report, the list of prosecution witnesses with their addresses, alongwith the photocopies of their statements, if there is any criminal record of Rajesh @ Kala in your police station or connected otherwise should also be brought.

Sd/

Superintendent of Police

(HQ) U.T. Chandigarh."

(ix) A positive stand has been taken by the Chandigarh police that the story put forward by the petitioners is false and the character of the deceased Rajesh @ Kala being a bad man is reflected in their reply saying that the deceased was an accused in cases registered against him and the story given in the FIR by the U.T. Constable, Ranbir Singh is correct.

(x) A complaint at the instance of Yog Raj, the owner of the STD Booth was received in the Police Station on the same day containing allegations against deceased Rajesh @ Kala to the effect that he had gone to the STD booth of Yog Raj wherein Anita wife of Yog Raj was present and Kala wanted to make a call. Anita asked Kala to make payment Rs. 300/ which was due to him whereafter he could make call. Kala got agitated on this and abused Anita in filthy language and threatened her. On these allegations application was made to the Police Station to take action against Kala.

(xi) The police has made Yog Raj and Mrs. Anita as the eye witnesses of the main occurrence.

(xii) the statement of Mrs. Sunita in whose house the murder took place has not yet been recorded by the police.

(xiii) The statements of the witnesses of the place and the occurrence where murder took place have not been recorded by the police, though the stand taken by them is that they are not ready to cooperate the police to give their statements.

In Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association''s case (supra), the following observations of the Supreme Court need mention:

"Since the local police at the highest level have taken a stand that the assault on the deceased was by members of the public and not the police after the apprehension of the deceased it is futile to expect an independent and wholly objective investigation by the State police. Even otherwise, the people will have little confidence in the investigation no matter how honest and objective the investigation be. In the circumstances, we deem it most appropriate that the investigation of the crime in regard to the murder of the deceased under CR Case No. 275/93 and/or FIR No. 120/93 should be undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In doing so, the C.B.I. will bear in mind the allegation of the wife and other relations of the deceased that he died on account of the beating given to him after his apprehension on 9.3.93, without being influenced by the fact that in the FIR No. 120/93, it is alleged that the assault was by the members of the public."

In R.S. Sodhi''s case (supra), the following observations of the Supreme Court are relevant:

"We have perused the events that have taken place since the incident but we are refraining from entering upon the details thereof lest it may prejudice any party but we think that since the accusations are directed against the local police personnel it would be desirable to entrust the investigation to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation, so that all concerned including the relatives of the deceased may feel assured that independent agency is looking into the matter and that would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility. However faithfully the local police may carry out the investigation, the same will lack credibility since the allegations are against them. It is only with that in mind that we having thought it both advisable and desirable as well as in the interest of justice, to entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation forthwith."

The authority cited by the learned counsel for the U.T. Chandigarh in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd) through its President''s case (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the above mentioned case, the petitioners had not reached the police at any point of time. They had laid all the information before the Director as well as the Minister concerned and also the Prime Minister bringing to their notice all the offences committed by the doctor but no action had been taken by the authorities concerned. In those circumstances, the petition moved before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed and the same was the result before the Supreme Court.

In the case in hand, the close relatives of the deceased i.e. his brother and sister had submitted a written complaint signed by them alongwith many other residents of the locality and in that complaint a request was made that FIR be registered against Ranbir serving in the U.T. Police as Commando in I.G. security, Yog Raj, Mrs. Anita and Hari (Yog Raj''s brother) for killing Rajesh alias Kala, resident of H.No. 1047, Sector 29B, Chandigarh. In that complaint, the name of one lady Mrs. Sunita in whose house the murder took place has also been mentioned. A specific allegation has been made in that complaint that the police is not registering the case and the police was shielding its own man.

The petitioners i.e. the nearest relations of the deceased had, thus, shown lack of faith in the local police and that is why they requested to the local M.P. through a complaint to tell the police for registration of FIR against the accused persons.

The occurrence in this case has taken place on 18.7.97 at about 4 p.m. As stated above, a news was published in the newspaper called ''Chandigarh Newsline'' on the next day itself i.e. on 19.7.97 with the heading ''Man shot dead by U.T. Police Commando''. Again on 20.7.1997 a news about the same occurrence in the same newspaper was published with the heading ''Comando being shielded, allege relatives''. So it cannot be said that in the case in hand the local police was not approached for registration of the case. Thus, the plea of the counsel for the U.T. Chandigarh that the petition is highly premature and deserves to be dismissed on the basis of an authority in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union through its President (supra).

The local police of U.T. Chandigarh has taken a firm stand that Ranbir Singh, Constable fired at the deceased Rajesh alias Kala who died immediately thereafter, in his self defence. As it has been stated above a news about the incident of murder had appeared in the local newspaper on the very next day and as also a complaint signed by the petitioners i.e. the nearest relatives of the deceased in which accusation of murder was made against Ranbir, Constable but the police does not seem to have investigated the case on the basis of a newspaper report or on the basis of a complaint submitted to the local M.P. which was forwarded to I.G. Police, Chandigarh who further forwarded the same to Shri Baldev Singh, S.P. (City) on 21.7.97. Though on the application submitted by the M.P. the I.G. Police, Chandigarh had ordered on 21.7.97 to Shri Baldev Singh, S.P. City that he should personally verify the facts of the case and take further action in the matter and his report should reach by 1.8.97 but as has been stated above, Shri Baldev Singh, SP (City) moved only on 29.7.97.

I have perused the events that have taken place since the incident and have also perused the police file with the help of the counsel for the U.T. but refrain from entering upon the details thereof lest it may prejudice any party.

In the circumstances of this case, independent and objective investigation may not be expected from the local police and the people may have little confidence in the investigation no matter how honest and objective the investigation may be. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate that the investigation of the crime with regard to murder of deceased Rajesh alias Kala should be undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

I, thus, order that the investigation of the case shall be taken up by the Central Bureau of Investigation and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to immediately hand over the investigation of the case to the C.B.I. Chandigarh.

While entering upon investigation of the case, the Central Bureau of Investigation will bear in mind the allegations of the petitioners and the residents of the house in which the murder took place as well as the other residents of the locality.

In ordering so, I mean no reflection on the credibility of the local police; but I am guided by the larger requirements of justice. This petition is disposed of accordingly.