Jangir Singh vs State of Punjab

S.C. Malte, J.

By this petition under Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction from the Court to direct the police to register a case against respondents 4 and 5 on the allegations that they were responsible for the death of the son of the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks the compensation for the unfortunate death of his son.

Circumstances giving rise to this petition may be summarised as follows :

Pal Singh, the son of the petitioner, was one of the contesting candidates for Zila Parishad election. He filed an election petition (Annexure P1) dated 11.10.1994, against Returning Officer and Nirat Pal Singh Lali (respondent 5). That petition was pending. It is claimed that the said Nirat Pal Singh Lali (respondent) wanted that Pal Singh should withdraw that election petition. It is alleged that in order to pressurise Pal Singh, one threatening letter (Annexure P3) dated 7.6.1995 was sent to him, which was purported to have been sent by some anonymous person. As per that letter, threats were given to him that he will face dire consequences if he declined to withdraw the election petition. In the background of these events, on 2.11.1995, the alleged incident in this case took place. On that date, allegedly, the said Pal Singh was detained in the police station at about 5 P.M. Shortly thereafter, he felt uneasy, and started vomitting. He was, therefore, taken to the hospital where he breathed his last at about 7.55 P.M. on the same day. Postmortem on his body was performed. Viscera from the various internal organs, etc. were collected. The viscera was eventually sent for Chemical Analysis. The report of the Chemical Analyst, now available on file indicates that a poison Aluminium Phosphide, which is a pesticide, was detected in the viscera, and that was the cause of his death.

In the set of these events in respect of which there seems to be not much dispute, this petition has been moved. The events clearly indicate that the said Pal Singh had died due to poisoning. That he died shortly after he came in the hospital. That his death preceded with the events pertaining to election.

Petitioner believed that the death of his son was a wellhatched conspiracy to murder him. Therefore he went on making grievances to the higher police officers. As a result of that, the Superintendent of Police (D) held an enquiry whose report is at R3 dated 8.2.1996. The enquiry by him revealed that the said Pal Singh had swallowed some poisonous substance and was immediately taken to the hospital where he died. According to Superintendent of Police (D), Sub Inspector Darshan Singh (SHO, Dhamola) or any other police officer was not responsible for the death of Pal Singh. The petitioner, therefore, rushed to the Court with a prayer as mentioned above.

Counsel for the respondents brought my attention to the fact that respondent No. 5, who was a party to the election petition filed by contestant Pal Singh, was not even made aware of the filing of such petition. In support of that my attention was invited to (Annexure R1) filed with the reply, which shows that respondent 5 on 27.3.1996 applied to the Deputy Commissioner to supply a copy of petition, if any, filed by Pal Singh. In response to that it was replied in writing on 29.3.1996, that no such petition had been filed before the Deputy Commissioner. In the context of that, it may be recalled that as per (Annexure P1) the said Pal Singh had submitted that election petition to the District Collector (Deputy Commissioner) on 10.11.1994. It is said to have been submitted through Advocate G.S. Sidhu etc. One does not know whether such election petition was with the office of the District Collector or Deputy Commissioner. That apart, the limited question before me is whether this Court should exercise power under the Constitution to direct the police to register a case against respondents 4 and 5.

Counsel for the petitioner placed before me a ruling in a case of Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1993 SC 1960. In that case the deceased was taken in custody by the police. Later on his dead body was found on the railway track. The question arose whether the police would be answerable for the death of the deceased. In para 6 of the reported judgment their Lordships have referred to the various injuries which were 11 in number. On internal examination it transpired that seven out of those injuries resulted in fracture of the bones. There was rupture and laceration of brain. It is not necessary to mention all those injuries, but suffice to mention that the injuries on the face and left temporal region were postmortem, while the rest were antemortem. The doctor excluded the possibility of injury resulting from dragging of the body by a running train. That led to irresistible inference that the deceased met homicidal death as a result of those injuries. Under those circumstances, Their Lordship have cast responsibility on the police to explain how a person in their custody sustained those homicidal injuries. This factual aspect is distinguishable from the facts in the case in hand. The counsel for the petitioner relied on another judgment in a case of State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and others, 1995(4) Supreme Court Cases 262. In that case also the deceased had in all 14 injuries on his person and doctor had opined that the deceased met death due to extensive external injuries and the death had taken place within 24 hours of postmortem examination. In the set of these facts, it was quite clear that the deceased had sustained injury while in the police custody. In the set of those facts, that case was decided. I may further mention that in that case the allegations were that the deceased was tortured with an intention to extract confession from him.

In the present case, undoubtedly the deceased died under mysterious circumstances. The death of the petitioner has given rise to enquiry into the question whether it was homicidal or otherwise. In case of death of a person, the cause is attributable to different reasons such as homicidal, suicidal or accidental. In a given case, it may be even failure of some vital organ of the body due to some natural reasons. In this case, since the death was due to poisoning by consuming pesticide, the question arises whether such pesticide was administered to him, or whether for some reasons unknown, the deceased himself consumed it to commit suicide. If it is considered as a homicidal death, following questions would naturally crop up :

whether there was some motive on the part of the police to administer poison ?

whether the police station would be selected as a place most suitable for such purpose ?

whether the deceased would be taken to the hospital for treatment and thereby create the possibility of his survival ?

If the case is considered as suicidal, even then certain questions, such as following, would crop up :

(i) what good reasons the deceased had to commit suicide ?

(ii) if he wanted to commit suicide, whether he would select the police station as a suitable place for achieving that object ? and

(iii) if he wanted to commit suicide, was it not possible for him to have left a note to indicate why he committed suicide ?

Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that since election of respondent 5 was at stake due to the election petition filed by the son of the petitioner, he in connivance with the police must have committed the murder of Pal Singh. That submission also gives rise to a question mark whether the police will venture to conspire for such purpose. The further question would be what the police is likely to gain thereby, and at what costs.

Briefly stated, such questions would require finding of facts. If the petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation in the circumstances resulting in the death of his son, the alternative remedy available to him was to approach the Magistrate by filing a regular complaint. In that case, under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate would have himself undertaken enquiry to ascertain whether there is sufficient material to proceed further. In the course of enquiry, the statements of the witnesses would be recorded and the Magistrate would also exercise his powers to secure such documents as may be necessary for the purpose of enquiry. It is not always necessary that the High Court should exercise its power, particularly in a case in which the death of Pal Singh cannot be said to be either homicidal or suicidal. Had it been the case that the death was unmistakably attributable to be homicidal, then the question would certainly arise for calling upon the police to explain. In the set of facts of this case, I find no justification to invoke the powers under the Constitution, particularly when the petitioner has efficacious remedy, as mentioned above.

With these observations, petition is dismissed.