Order

On the night intervening 1st and 2nd October, 1996, in the vicin­ity of the Lodge of the vice-chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University, firing took place in which Nadeem Alam, the 20 year old son of the petitioner was killed. A formal report was filed by respondent No. (Proctor of the University) 3 or 2nd October, 1996 which was incomplete and therefore, an additional report in continuation of the earlier report was also filed.

2. In this petition, which has been filed by the father of the deceased Nadeem Alam, it is alleged that the police, with a view to cover up its act of commission of unjustified and unprovoked firing, manipulated the record and filed a final report in the committal court. According to the petitioner, the investigation into the incident of firing was conducted in a wholly slip shod and a biased manner. The petitioner has, therefore, inter-alia prayed in the petition that a fair investigation be got conducted into the incident through the C.B.I. and to punish the guilty and award exemplary damages to the family of the deceased.

3. Notice was issued in the Writ Petition on 13th November, 1997. Counter and rejoinder were filed thereafter by the parties. Not being satisfied with the reply, on 16th March, 1998, a Bench of this Court, felt that for proper disposal of the Writ Petition, the matter required to be inquired into by a competent judicial officer. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh was directed to inquire into the matter himself or to get it inquired by a competent officer, not below the rank of an Additional Sessions Judge and to submit the report of inquiry to this Court within two months from the date of communication of the order. The period of two months was, however, extended from time to time to enable the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh, who had been detailed to hold the inquiry, to submit his report.

4. The learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh, Sh. S.K. Raturi, submitted his report on 26th November, 1998.

5. The learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge had heard counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as those ap­pearing on behalf of Aligarh Muslim University, Administration and the Government of Uttar Pradesh. After recording evidence, the learned Inquiry Judge in his report dated 26.11.1998 conclud­ed as follows:

“(a) that deceased Nadeem Alam received injuries in the incident that took place near V.C. Lodge in the intervening night of 1/2.10.96;

(b) Investigating Officer of Crime No. 420/96 made no efforts to find out facts as to how and under what circumstances body of the deceased was transported to Azamgarh;

(c) that Panchayatnama prepared at Azamgarh (U.P.) under the supervision of the then S.D.M. PW 14 Rajeev Agarwal is a doubtful document;

(d) that injury report prepared by Dr. Salah Uddin at J.N. Medical College, Hospital. A.M.U. and post mortem report prepared by P.W. 4 Dr. G.C. Maurya and 2 others at District Hospital, Azamgarh are contradictory to each other. Hence, either of the report is false;

(e) that P.W. 2 Dr. Smt. Shaad Bano Ahmad, Proctor, A.M.U. handed over two written reports at P.S. Civil Lines, Aligarh on 2.10.96 in respect of incident that took place in the intervening night of 1/2.10.96 and about Nadeem’s death. This is evident from G.D. Reports Nos. 20 and 24 dated 2.10.96 of P.S. Civil Lines, Aligarh, but Police Civil Lines, Aligarh registered Crime No. 420/96 regarding Nadeem Alam’s murder only on 17.10.96 on the basis of a vague report dated 16.10.96 sent by P.W. 2 Dr. Smt. Shaad Bano Ahmad, Proctor, A.M.U.;

(f) that the Investigating Officer of Crime No. 420/96 made no efforts to record statements of injured students during inves­tigation.”

6. On 8th January, 1999, inspection of the report submitted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge was permitted by the Court. The