Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1067
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
Rameshwar Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(CRL) 1838 of 2015 & CRL. M.A. 11690 of 2016
Decided On : 19-01-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajinder Kumar and Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC with SI Nishant Dahiya and SI O. P. Mandal, P.S. Ranjit Nagar.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for fair and proper investigation in cases of suspicious death, especially involving women within seven years of marriage, and the need for compliance with procedural requirements.
Headnote:
Fair Investigation - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 174, Section 302, Section 120-b, Section 467, Section 471, Section 34 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, and the interpretations provided in the cases of Tarun Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Sher Singh v. State of Haryana. The court highlighted the mandatory holding of an inquiry into the cause of death of a woman under suspicious circumstances within seven years of her marriage, and the requirement for examination of the deceased woman's body by the nearest Civil Surgeon when such death is caused under suspicious circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought fair investigation and registration of FIR under various sections of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents for the suspicious death of his daughter. The police permitted the cremation of the body without conducting a proper investigation, despite the deceased's history of complaints of harassment by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious lapses in conducting a fair and proper investigation by the police officers. It directed the transfer of the investigation to the Crime Branch, Delhi Police, and initiation of appropriate proceedings against the erring police officers. It also noted the threats made by the accused and expected expeditious action by the Crime Branch.
Issues: The issues involved the lack of fair investigation, non-registration of FIR, threats made by the accused, and the violation of procedural requirements in cases of suspicious death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the serious lapses in the investigation, the violation of procedural requirements, and the need for expeditious action by the Crime Branch.
Final Decision: The court directed the transfer of the investigation to the Crime Branch, Delhi Police, and initiation of appropriate proceedings against the erring police officers. It also expected expeditious action by the Crime Branch.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
1. This writ petition has been preferred by the father of late Ms. Sumanlata under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for issuance of directions for conducting fair investigation and for the registration of FIR under sections 302/120-b/467/471/34 IPC against respondent nos.8 to 12 .
2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased, Ms. Sumanlata got married to the respondent no.8 on 06.04.2006 and had two children out of the said marriage. On 26.06.2015 at about 12:30 a.m., the petitioner received a call from his relatives that his daughter had committed suicide in her matrimonial home. However, the petitioner was unable to contact the in-laws of his daughter as their mobile phones were switched off.
3. The same night, the petitioner received a call from the mobile phone of Sub Inspector Satender Singh Rathi, Police Station Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi, the then Investigating Officer (IO), who informed the petitioner that his daughter had committed suicide and that her body was lying in the mortuary of Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. Upon making his apprehensions clear to the said IO that his daughter's death was not merely a suicide, the latter reassured the petitioner that the postmortem of the body will be conducted in his presence, for which reason, they could wait for 72 hours for him to reach Delhi from Punjab, to facilitate proper investigation of the matter. However, upon reaching the hospital, the petitioner came to know that the postmortem had already been conducted on the body of the deceased, i.e., within an hour of the hospital receiving the body. According to the postmortem report, the body was sent by SI Pradeep Sharma, who provided the inquest papers to the doctor at about 01:40 p.m. on 27.06.2015 and the doctors started autopsy at about 02:00 p.m, which was completed an hour later (i.e. 3 pm). The manner of death was ‘determined’ concluded to be suicide. However, when the petitioner directly reached the matrimonial house of his daughter on 27.06.2015, he noticed that the family was preparing for the cremation of the body. Upon his protest that the death occurred under suspicious circumstances, the police officials on the scene threatened him with dire consequences and forced him to leave. In this manner, the police permitted the cremation of the body following the postmortem, without conducting any further investigation apropos the death and thereby destroying crucial evidence.
4. Section 174 Cr.P.C. mandates that in case of a suicide or death under circumstances raising reasonable suspicion, a report of the apparent cause of death is to be forwarded to the nearest Magistrate. The provision reads as under:-
“Section 174. Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.
(1) When the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two' or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any); such marks appear to have been inflicted.
(2) The report shall be signed by such police o
