Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Amar Nath Poddar - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 68 of 2021
Decided On : 07-04-2021
Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 226 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 – Bihar Police Manual, 1978 – Rule 164(h)(iv) – Death of young boy in Police firing – Petition for Court monitored CBI investigation as well as compensation of Rs.5 Crores – Boy was fatally shot by a Police Officer when he was watching immersion procession of Maa Durga in Munger – Arms of police personnel who were on duty and against whom there were allegations of firing upon mob were not examined – No arms parade took place and there was no verification of cartridges – Officers were allowed to continue as in-charge of same police station – Investigation would reveal whether due to any laches on part of I.O./SIT evidences vanished or were allowed to disappear – Investigation on all aspects shall be done independently and prima-facie observations of this Court shall not cause any prejudice to those who are likely to be investigated – A.D.G is now personally supervising the case and 53 points action plan has been prepared by him on which investigation has already begun – In cases where investigation has not been conducted in a proper and objective manner, Court may consider handing over investigation to an independent agency to meet ends of justice – Transfer of investigation of a case to CBI may not be done on mere asking – Investigation is no longer with Munger police – There is nothing before Court against CID so as to cast a cloud over credibility of investigation by C.I.D. – Allegation of firing is against an officer in rank of Sub-Inspector/Inspector of Police – Alleged occurrence has taken place at district town Munger in State of Bihar, therefore it has to be normally investigated by Bihar police – Only because investigation may involve ‘CISF’ as well may not be a plausible ground to transfer investigation from C.I.D. to CBI – Test as laid down by Supreme Court for purpose of transfer of investigation is not satisfied for present – CID shall proceed with investigation of case in the natural direction, in accordance with law and submit its first report in a sealed cover before this Court within a period of four weeks from today. (Paras 56, 58, 59, 69, 77, 79, 84 and 85)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 357-A – Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 226 – Death of young boy in Police firing – Petition for compensation of Rs.5 Crores – Son of petitioner was unarmed in procession, there is no allegation that he was indulged in any unlawful act, however he has been killed as a result of firing – Normally, in such cases State Government is giving some ex-gratia payments to victims who die accidentally leaving it open for him to realise adequate amount of compensation from wrongdoer but in this case, no compensation at all has been made available to petitioner who is admittedly a victim being father of deceased – It is one of those cases in which victim is required to be compensated by State – This Court would not disclose contents of enquiry report but it’s judicial conscience compels it to exercise it’s extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of Constitution of India to award a suitable amount of compensation to Petitioner – Deceased was a young man aged about 18 years – He got serious injuries while participating in Maa Durga Idol Immersion procession – State had responsibility to safeguard life of a citizen – Whether son of petitioner was killed in police firing allegedly resorted by police or by some one else from crowd are matters of investigation but in facts of this case where enquiry report of Commissioner, Magadh Division is available for taking a prima-facie view State need not wait for outcome of investigation even as to make available compensation to victim – Whether son of petitioner died as a result of firing by police or by any miscreants from mob would not be relevant for simple reason that in any case State had failed to protect life of son of petitioner who was a spectator in procession of Maa Durga Idol Immersion – State respondents directed to pay sum of Rs.10 Lakhs towards compensation to petitioner. (Paras 87, 93 and 96)
JUDGMENT :
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
This writ application has been preferred for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3, Central Bureau of Investigation (in short C.B.I.) to conduct a free, fair, independent and effective investigation, in a time bound manner, under monitoring of this Court; further prayer has been made to direct respondent nos. 1 and 2 to immediately disburse a compensation of Rs. 5 crore to the petitioner, for the brutal killing of the young son of the petitioner in the alleged police firing. Petitioner has prayed for such other order(s) or relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Case of the Petitioner
2. Briefly stating, it is the case of the petitioner that on 26.10.2020 while his son namely Anurag Kumar, aged about 18 years was peacefully watching the procession of immersion of Maa Durga idol, he was killed in a police firing. The petitioner alleged that the police personnel led by the then Superintendent of Police (S.P.) of Munger, namely, Ms. Lipi Singh was insisting the procession for hurriedly completing the Maa Durga idol immersion in the night itself without following the traditional hierarchical procession which led to a chaos. The son of the petitioner was present in the immersion procession near DCM Showroom at Deen Dayal Chowk and he was peacefully watching the Maa Durga idol immersion procession. He was completely unarmed and was peacefully standing at that place, out of his devotion.
3. The petitioner has alleged that the Munger Police led by the then S.P. did not follow the procedures provided under the Bihar Police Manual in the matter of resorting to firing on a crowd, they indulged in indiscriminate and brutal firing on the Maa Durga Devi devotees. The petitioner has named one Sushil Kumar Singh, a police officer, who was officer in-charge of Basudevpur Outpost and it is alleged that he had fired upon the son of the petitioner. The petitioner refers to the photographs of the body of his son lying in his mother s lap to submit that it was a brutal murder in the hand of the police who resorted to firing unauthorizedly and without putting a word of caution to crowd.
4. The petitioner refers to the video footage which emerged in the social and electronic media in which few officials of Munger Police and also a person in white cloth (later on identified as one Kumar Krishna) were seen brutally beating the innocent and unarmed Maa Durga devotees near an idol, in the middle of the road. He has also placed before this Court the internal report of the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter called CISF) which states that the bullet firing was initiated by Munger Police. A copy of the newspaper report has been brought on record as Annexure 4. It is stated that two days after the alleged incident, the then S.P., namely, Ms. Lipi Singh and the then District Magistrate were transferred under order of the Election Commission of India.
Lodgement of F.I.R.
5. It is stated that on 27.10.2020 the post-mortem of the petitioner s son was conducted at Sadar Hospital, Munger where his cause of death was mentioned as injuries caused by firearm. Petitioner has alleged that while the petitioner was receiving the body of his son at the Sadar Hospital, Munger, few police officials of the Munger Police fraudulently and deceitfully obtained petitioner s signature on a paper. According to him, he could not even understand the ulterior motive of the police personnel of Munger Police, however, subsequently the petitioner came to know that the Munger Police had converted the said signed document in a complaint and after four days registered F.I.R. No. 311 of 2020 dated 31.10.2020 at P.S. Sadar, Kotwali, District-Munger under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with the murder of the petitioner s son against unknown accused persons.
6. The petitioner claims that he had been repeate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's duty to ensure fair investigation and prosecution, as well as the power of the Constitutional Court to direct re-investigation in excep....
The necessity for a C.B.I. investigation arises in cases where police personnel are accused, ensuring fairness and public confidence in the judicial process.
The court ruled that the lack of credible investigation necessitated transferring the case to an independent agency, recognizing a widow's right to justice for her husband's unlawful death.
Criminal Law - Transfer of investigation - Not rarest of rare case - Investigation to be conducted officer above rank of A.C.P.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
