Back
2023 Supreme(Megh) 59
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
SANJIB BANERJEE, C.J., W. DIENGDOH, J.
Smt. Dorothy Marbaniang - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Ors. - Respondents
WP (C) No. 169 of 2015
Decided On : 31-08-2023
For the Petitioner: Mr. N. Syngkon with Ms. L. Phanjom.
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Khan, AAG with Ms. T. Yangi B., AAG, Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.Sr.GA, Ms. A. Thungwa, GA.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 174 - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 306 - Investigation into the death of a police officer - Original investigations were deemed insufficient by the petitioner's mother, leading to allegations of suppression of facts - Court discussed anomalies in medical reports indicating gun-shot injuries and the implications for a competent suicide defense - Court rejected the request for further investigation, deeming it unnecessary after thorough assessment post-Supreme Court directive. (Paras 2-30)
(B) Legal standard for investigation - A court may direct further investigation despite completion of prior investigations if perceived irregularities arise. The state’s failure to protect citizens against the dangers of illegal mining was acknowledged but did not warrant further investigations in this instance. (Paras 11, 27)
Facts of the case:
The case involves a police officer's suspicious death deemed a suicide by the initial investigation, contrasted with medical reports suggesting foul play, leading to concerns by his mother. The Supreme Court's order necessitated a reconsideration of these findings.
Findings of Court:
The court found no basis to pursue further investigations, affirming the conclusion of the police officer likely taking his own life without external involvement.
Issues: The primary issue involved determining the adequacy of the investigation and whether further inquiries were warranted based on apparent inconsistencies in the findings related to the cause of death.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court upheld that irregular investigations do not automatically compel further inquiries, particularly when definitive findings had been established that did not indicate foul play.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial facts surrounding the case and investigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. analysis of procedural anomalies in the original investigation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. details on the investigation findings and court observations. (Para 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. court's reasoning for not ordering further investigation. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 5. final conclusions and orders of the court. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
ORDER :
Sanjib Banerjee, C.J.
The petition was disposed of by a judgment and order of March 22, 2016, declining the principal prayer for a reinvestigation into the circumstances leading to the death of a police official in Patharkhmah.
2. The petitioner was the mother of the deceased. The grievance of the petitioner was that the procedure under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had not been followed in course of the investigation and that there was an attempt by the investigating agency to suppress the real facts and give the incident a colour of suicide.
3. There were three important allegations in the petition filed by the mother who, unfortunately, has died since. The mother pointed out an anomaly that the doctor, who had treated the deceased when he was still alive and was taken to the Patharkhmah community health centre, indicated that the gun-shot wound that the then patient had suffered was from behind his head. Such opinion revealed that the then patient had been shot on the back of his head and the bullet exited the cranium from the left part of the forehead. However, as the petitioner duly emphasised, the post-mortem examination conducted at the Civil Hospital in Nongpoh on the next day indicated that the gun-shot wound was suffered on the left forehead and the bullet entered the skull from such part and exited from slightly off the middle of the back of the head.
4. The second anomaly that the petitioning mother brought to attention was that her son was right-handed and there could not have been any good reason for him to either commit suicide or, even if he did, to use his left hand to pull the trigger. The third aspect alluded to was that the deceased police official may have earned the wrath of the mafia which is aggressively active in the State, with connections to the most influential and the powerful, dealing with illegally-mined coal.
5. There is no dispute that about 32 trucks laden with coal, almost invariably illegally-mined, had been stopped at the Patharkhmah Outpost in the morning of January 24, 2015. The incident pertaining to what led to the death of the police officer occurred slightly before 9 pm when two junior police personnel in neighbouring lodgings said that they heard an explosion and first thought it may have been a fire-cracker, but later, on hearing a moaning sound, they followed the sound which took them to the quarters of the in-charge at the outpost and found such in-charge lying in a pool of blood in his bedroom with the front door to the modest flat and the bedroom door ajar.
6. The charge-sheet in this case was filed on October 10, 2015 in Nongpoh PS Case No.28(1) of 2015 under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860. Charges have since been framed against five persons under Section 306 of the Penal Code.
7. At the time that the writ petition was taken up for final disposal, the relevant Bench noticed that the investigation had been concluded. The manner in which the final order of March 22, 2016 is worded gives an impression that the relevant Bench of this Court perceived that since the investigation had already been completed, it was a fait accompli and the Court could not do anything further.
8. Aggrieved by the failure of the High Court to order further investigation or reinvestigation or a de novo investigation as had been sought by the petitioner, such petitioner carried a petition for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, being SLP (C) No.15461 of 2016. The relevant petition was dis
