Sheetal Verma vs State Of J&K And Others

Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J

Heard. Admit.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present case has been taken up for final disposal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the widow of the deceased, namely, Manoj Kumar who died under suspicious circumstances in police custody of Police Station, Reasi on 15.12.2010. It has been alleged by the petitioner and other family members that the cause of death of the deceased-Manoj Kumar was third degree torture given to him by the police officials in the Police Station, Reasi. Further, stand of the petitioner is that on 14th of December 2010, deceased-Manoj Kumar had gone outside in the evening and didn’t come back in the night and on 15th of December 2010 i.e. next day, someone from the market intimated the petitioner and other family members of the deceased that their son (Manoj Kumar) had been taken by the police officials in a gypsy towards the District Hospital, Reasi. The further stand of the petitioner is that she along with other family members rushed towards the hospital and found deceased lying on the bed unconscious surrounded by three police constables. The petitioner and her family members were informed by the police constables that the deceased-Manoj Kumar has been arrested on 14th of December, 2010 on the charge of keeping illegal Liquor under Section 48 of the Excise Act and during midnight he has got heart attack and fell down straight on his head and during that course deceased met with head injury.

It is further urged by the petitioner that during medical examination, Doctor-in-charge, namely, Inderjit Singh had persuaded the petitioner and her family members to take the deceased-Manoj Kumar to Govt. Medical College, Jammu for further treatment. It is stated that the petitioner and the other family members of the deceased approached the S.H.O Police Station, Reasi and requested him to take the deceased to GMC, Jammu as he has been arrested by the police authorities under Excise Act, but the S.H.O concerned refused to take the deceased to Govt. Medical College, Jammu and in the meanwhile, other three constables escaped from the hospital.

Further stand of the petitioner is that this action of the police authorities for not taking her husband to GMC, Jammu clearly shows their malafide intention and causes a certain amount of suspicion regarding the ambiguous work done by the officers in charge at that time. It has also been projected by the petitioner that on December 16th, people of the concerned area, Reasi held a massive protest over the death of the deceased-Manoj Kumar against the police outside the office of the SSP and SDM, Reasi demanding a magisterial probe over the custodial death of the petitioner’s husband in Police Custody and they also demanded job for the widow (petitioner) of the deceased. During the protest, mob gathered there turned violent and S.I Tilak Raj (Investigating Officer of the case) was also thrashed by the public at that time. It is averred that adhering to the demands of the public, the Deputy Commissioner, Reasi on 16.12.2010 ordered Magisterial probe into the case pertaining to death of the deceased namely Manoj Kumar in Police Custody in Police Station, Reasi.

The petitioner has averred in the petition that in addition to that, the Deputy Commissioner, Reasi further directed 1st Class Magistrate (Tehsildar), Reasi, Gopal Singh to conduct inquiry and submit a report within a month. Pursuant thereto, a Medical Board was constituted on the demand of public for conducting Post-Mortem of the body of the deceased-Manoj Kumar and three doctors, namely, R. C. Sharma, P. S. Thakur and Mohan Atri were selected as members of the Board so constituted with a further direction that the Post-Mortem of the deceased will be conducted under videography in presence of the

The further stand of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 3 & 4 were under a legal obligation to register an FIR against the persons who have caused injuries to the deceased which resulted into his death under section 302 RPC. Besides that, it has been projected that the respondent No. 5 was also under a legal obligation to expeditiously complete the enquiry entrusted to him.

Since the legal and fundamental rights of the petitioner were violated, thus, as per the petitioner, she was/is entitled to fair investigation of the case regarding the death of her husband and simultaneously, the State is also under a legal obligation to conduct free, fair and unbiased investigation in the case.

Since the respondents were not discharging their obligations despite an enquiry being ordered by the Deputy Commissioner on 16.12.2010 it compelled the petitioner to file the present petition.

Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and has sought the following reliefs which are reproduced as under:-

a) To transfer the Magisterial Inquiry pending before Tehsildar, Reasi as directed by Deputy Commissioner on 16.12.2010 regarding custodial death of Deceased namely Manoj Kumar for conducting the same through Crime Branch Jammu, by the issuance of a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus.

b) To command and direct the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs to the petitioner for causing custodial death of her husband namely Manoj Kumar by the issuance of a writ, order or direction, in the name of Mandamus.

c) To command and directed the respondent No. 5 to expeditiously conduct the special enquiry being ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, Reasi on 16.12.2010 in a fair manner by recording by supplying appropriate information to the petitioner and his family member, by the issuance of a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus.”

Per contra, the stand of the respondents in their objections is that deceased-Manoj Kumar was accused in case FIR No. 255/2010 u/s 48 Excise Act of Police Station, Reasi who was arrested by police on 14.12.2010 and was not released on bail due to his non-production of bail and surety bond. It is further submitted that on 15.10.2010, he suffered a fit and fell sick and died en-route hospital. The respondents have averred in the objections that the accused was not put to any torture or harassment by the police in the Police Station, Reasi. Moreover, a Magisterial enquiry was also ordered by the District Magistrate, Reasi. As per the stand of the respondents, the deceased had died due to his illness and not due to police torture or harassment. The police made every effort to save the precious life of the deceased-Manoj Kumar, but the doctors could not save him and he died due to his illness.

It has been projected by the respondents that to bring transparency and truthfulness in the investigation, the police requested the District Administration to hold an independent enquiry into the matter and, as such, the District Administration ordered the magisterial enquiry. The further stand of the respondents is that the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report vide no. 679/JC dated 09.04.2011 and as per report, the deceased Manoj Kumar had suffered heart attack and due to that he fell down and injuries were caused on his body like bruises over the left occipital parietal region etc. As per inquiry, the deceased died due to illness and not due to police torture or harassment.

The respondents while filing reply have also placed on record the Magisterial enquiry which was conducted by the concerned Tehsildar in the capacity of Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Reasi, a perusal whereof reveals that after collection of the evidence, examination of the dead body of the deceased and going through the statements of the witnesses and the medical opinion which has been corroborated with other evidence i.e. statements of witnesses, the enquiry officer came to conclusion that the death of the deceased-Manoj Kumar was not caused by the torture of the police but because of the circumstances narrated by the witnesses. Besides that, the concerned Executive Magistrate while conducting the magisterial enquiry has observed that when a person is in the custody of police, it is prime duty of the police to take every care and caution of the person who is in the custody of police, which as per the Enquiry Officer, was lacking.

While parting with the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has observed that though death was not caused/occurred because of torture or harassment of the police but there was dereliction of duty on the part of those who were deputed to accompany the deceased for his treatment i.e. Investigating Officer and three others, namely, Yash Paul Head Constable, Constable Safiq Ahmed, Constable Shiv Charan for which the Enquiry Officer has recommended that the departmental enquiry must be initiated against the erring Investigating Officer and three others mentioned above.

The findings have been arrived at by the Executive Magistrate after appreciating all the mentioned facts, record and also recording statements of family members, police officials and other civilians and also appreciating all the documents which were seized coupled with the medical opinion which was corroborated with other evidence and the same cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising the power of an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence/facts while exercising the powers under Article 226 of Constitution of

The respondents are relying upon the Magisterial Enquiry conducted by Tehsildar, who has gone in detail and touching all the aspects of investigation. Accordingly, I am in agreement with the recommendation/findings of the Enquiry Officer who has given clean chit to the police authorities by holding that death of the deceased-Manoj Kumar has not been caused by the torture or harassment of the police but because of the circumstances which have been narrated and discussed in the said enquiry report.

In the light of the aforesaid magisterial enquiry report, nothing survives in the present writ petition and the same, as such, does not survive and, accordingly, is disposed of. The petitioner, is however, is at liberty to challenge the aforesaid enquiry report, if so advised.

However, before parting, I would like to add that since the Enquiry Officer has recommended that there is dereliction of duty on the part of those, who were deputed to accompany the deceased for his treatment with the Investigating Officer including three others, namely, Yash Paul Head Constable, Constable Safiq Ahmed, Constable Shiv Charan.

Accordingly, it is directed that the departmental enquiry be initiated against erring Investigating Officer and three others mentioned above which would be concluded within a period of one month from today.

The copy of the said departmental enquiry which is likely to be initiated and concluded along with the final order be supplied to the petitioner, who will be at liberty to question the same, if aggrieved.

The writ petition, as such, is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Registry is directed to return the record forthwith to the concerned