Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Malati Das – Petitioner
Versus
State of Assam and Others – Respondents
W.P. (Crl.) No. 4 of 2014
Decided On : 07-01-2016
For the Petitioners: A.D. Choudhury, S. Deka and D. Choudhury.
For the Respondent: P.S. Deka.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226, 21 and 32 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 342/302/201/34 - Arms Act - section 27(1) - Imposing penalties - Seeks a direction to the respondents - First Information Report - Petitioner is sister of deceased - It is stated that was a socially active person and was involved in various social activities in district and a few others had gone to Police Out Post - Lodge one First Information Report regarding an incident of assault on brother of one of persons whom he had accompanied to Police Out Post - Officer In-charge of Police Out Post refused to register first information - It is stated that said Officer In-charge was not in his uniform at that time and misbehaved with him and team - They were asked to re-write First Information Report through Secretary of Village Defence Party - Other members of group left Police Out Post to get first information re-drafted as suggested while he remained seated inside Police Out Post waiting for their return - When other persons came back to Police Out Post, they found gate of Police Out Post closed and they were not allowed to enter into premises - Officer In-charge was standing at gate, this time, in uniform and received re-drafted first information from group assuring them that he would investigate matter – Held, Made clear observations in this judgment have been made for deciding this case only and should in no way influence trial Court while conducting criminal trial - Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to review penalties imposed on respondent Nos. 6 and 7 by disciplinary authority and impose appropriate penalties commensurate with gravity of misconduct committed by said respondents - Respondent No. 2 shall examine role of respondent No. 4 while imposing penalties on respondent Nos. 6 & 7 as to whether he had shown any laxity or any attempt to safeguard interest of delinquents - Respondent No. 2 may identify policemen who were posted in Police Outpost when he was killed and may consider withdrawing them from such duty involving handling of fire arms - Respondent No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay a further sum of Rs. 3 lakhs to mother of deceased, if necessary from funds earmarked for District Police and ensure that said sum is paid to her within eight weeks from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order - Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, shall assist petitioner and her mother in receipt of compensation and submit report to Registry of the Court within 3 months from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order - Respondent No. 2 shall also submit compliance report to Registry of the Court within 3 months from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order - Petition is allowed
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
1. Heard Mr., learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None has appeared for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 though served.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents for handing over investigation of Tinsukia PS Case No. 296/2014 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and further seeks a direction for payment of adequate compensation to the family of deceased Kartik Das.
3. Facts of the case may be briefly noted at the outset.
4. Petitioner is the sister of deceased Kartik Das, a resident of Guijan, in the district of Tinsukia, Assam. It is stated that Kartik Das was a socially active person and was involved in various social activities in Tinsukia district. On 15.04.2014 at about 9.30 p.m. Kartik Das and a few others had gone to the Guijan Police Out Post, which is under Tinsukia Police Station, to lodge one First Information Report regarding an incident of assault on the brother of one of the persons whom he had accompanied to the Police Out Post. However, the Officer In-charge of the Guijan Police Out Post refused to register the first information. It is stated that the said Officer In-charge (respondent No. 6) was not in his uniform at that time and misbehaved with Kartik Das and the team. They were asked to re-write the First Information Report through the Secretary of the Village Defence Party. At that stage, other members of the group left the Police Out Post to get the first information re-drafted as suggested while Kartik Das remained seated inside the Police Out Post waiting for their return.
5. When the other persons came back to the Police Out Post, they found the gate of the Police Out Post closed and they were not allowed to enter into the premises. The Officer In-charge was standing at the gate, this time, in uniform and received the re-drafted first information from the group assuring them that he would investigate the matter. When he was queried about Kartik Das, he told the group that Kartik Das had already left the Police Out Post. Believing the version of the Officer In-charge, the group returned back from the Police Out Post.
6. Later on, petitioner could learn that her brother Kartik Das was killed by police Constable, Sri Thaneswar Phukan (respondent No. 7) inside the Guijan Police Out Post in presence of all police personnel, including the Officer In-charge on 15.04.2014 itself and that he had wrongly and deliberately misinformed the group that Kartik Das had left the Police Out Post when Kartik Das was already dead.
7. It is stated that when the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid development in the dead of night (01.00 a.m.) she along with the family members rushed to the Guijan Police Out Post. They found the Police Out Post being surrounded by a large number of police personnel, including high police officials and they were not allowed entry into the Police Out Post. There petitioner could learn that her brother was taken to the Tinsukia Civil Hospital where also she and other family members were restrained from entering into. However, petitioner noticed police personnel wiping blood stains from the floor of the hospital.
8. On 16.04.2014, petitioner lodged First Information Report before the Superintendent of Police, Tinsukia regarding killing of her brother Kartik Das by police Constable Sri Thaneswar Phukan (respondent No. 7) in the presence of the Officer In-charge Sri Mohan Sena Singha (respondent No. 6) of Guijan Police Out Post. The first information was treated as FIR and on the basis of the same, Tinsukia Police Station Case No. 296/2014, under sections 342/302/201/34 IPC read with section 27(1) of the Arms Act was registered. It is stated that the first information had to be lodged by the petitioner as the deceased was a bachelor and was survived by his old and ailing mother.
9. It is further stated that subs
