Jai Chandra Singh and others vs State of U.P.and another

Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate at a very great length. The background facts which has generated this Criminal Misc. Application are registered below:

A first information report of Crime No. 246 of 1996 under Section 392 I.P.C. was lodged by one Mahendra Bawra on 28.07.1996. In connection with that F.I.R. one Ravindra son of Mahipal (deceased) was taken into custody as the culprit on 07.08.1996. On the same day, Ravindra is alleged to have committed suicide. Circle Officer (CO), Police StationSardhana, in respect of the said suicide registered F.I.R. of Crime No. 254 of 1996 but after investigation a final report was submitted in respect of that F.I.R. (regarding suicide by the deceased Ravindra), ostensibly to let off the police personnels. On 03.06.1998, learned Magistrate accepted the final report submitted by the Police in aforesaid Crime No. 254 of 1996.

From this point, another story began. An unconcerned alleged social worker, Akshay Jain, moved an application on 06.09.1999 before National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as N.H.R.C.) in respect of the suicide of the deceased. He ultimately was found to be a black mailor and extraneous person. Therefore, Mahipal father of the deceased, lodged a report against said Akshay Jain, vide Crime No. 641 of 2000 under Sections 386, 420, 120B I.P.C. in which his mother was also made an accused. Investigation commenced which concluded in chargesheeting both mother and the son who are now facing trial in that Crime No. 641 of 2000.

It seems that N.H.R.C. ordered an inquiry in respect of the death of Ravindra. Three inquiry reports were submitted. N.H.R.C. was dissatisfied with the first two reports which, it seems, had exonerated the police personnels. In the third report, however, commission of crime was surfaced and therefore N.H.R.C. directed the matter to be further investigated and hence investigation of Crime No. 254 of 1996 was reopened, with Circle Officer being the informant. The matter was investigated further by C.B.C.I.D. which resulted in filing of a chargesheet against the present applicants, Jai Chandra Singh, Raisul Hasan, Rishipal Singh and Bhagirath. These applicants were arrayed as culprits for the offence of murder. Record further reveals that accused surrendered in the court and their case was committed to the court of sessions, where it is now registered as Sessions Trial No. 234 of 2010 (State Vs. Jai Chandra Singh and others), under Sections 304, 149, 306, 342, 330 I.P.C.

At this stage, the applicants have approached this Court by invoking its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash order dated 16.07.2010 vide Annexure no. 16 to this Application by which Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Meerut, before whom the said trial is pending, has rejected the discharge prayer of the present applicants under Section 227 and 228 Cr.P.C.

After hearing Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel in support of this Application and learned AGA in opposition, I find that the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant to quash the proceeding and discharge of the accused cannot be accepted, reasons being that the deceased had sustained six injuries, as are perceptible from his autopsy report dated 08.08.1996. The first injury is a ligature mark on upper part of neck above thyroid 27 X 1 cm. 3 cm below right angle of mouth echomaisis present. The other injuries are contusion on right and left buttock, left thigh and right thigh with abrasions on both palms. Whether the deceased sustained these injuries in an attempt to arrest him in discharge of official duties or he had suffered them by beating after he was brought to the police station while in custody cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only on the basis of affidavits. There are contradictory versions. If the version of the prosecution is accepted, the deceased was thrashed at the police station and was forced to die.

Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the applicant has not committed any of the offences under Sections 342, 306, 330 I.P.C. for which they have been chargesheeted.

The contention is not acceptable, ostensibly, for the reason that whether the deceased sustained injuries in discharge of official duties or not has to be decided by giving a proper opportunity to the prosecution to prove its charge. Whether deceased custody was justified and legal requires evidence to be led. It is trite law that this High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not enter into a critical analysis of disputed questions of facts. The very platitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. requires exercise thereof with utmost circumspection with due care and caution.

Ravindra had lost his life inside the premises of the police station. The applicants are police personnels who were on duty on the unfortunate day when the deceased lost his life. C.B.C.I.D. conducted an investigation under the agies of N.H.R.C. and came to the conclusion that applicants were the culprits and malafactors. They have got an opportunity to substantiate their defence at the stage of trial under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At earlier stage of trial also after prosecution evidence is over, the applicant can convince the trial court under Section 332 Cr.P.C., that there is no evidence against them and they should be discharged. This right is always vested with the applicants.

At this stage because of the reasons enumerated hereinabove, I am not inclined to interfere.

This Criminal Misc. Application therefore being bereft of merits is hereby dismissed.