BABITA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the learned Counsel for Respondents No.5 & 6.

(2.) The Appellant is the mother of Manju, who died on 09.11.2013. According to the Appellant Writ Petitioner, Manju committed suicide and that her suicide is relatable to her affair with the 7th Respondent who is a constable in the police department. The Appellant pleads that the 7th Respondent has abetted the suicide of Manju. Stating that the police are not investigating the issue, the Appellant filed Writ Petition seeking a direction to constitute Special Investigating Team. That has been turned down by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this Appeal.

(3.) The fact that Manju died an unnatural death is not in dispute as between the Appellant and the State. The plea of the Station House Officer is that it is a case of suicide while the Writ Petitioner/Appellant alleges that the unnatural death is attributable to the conduct of the 7th Respondent. The admitted fact is that recourse to Section 174 Cr.P.C. was not made by the officials by having an inquest conducted through an Executive Magistrate. As noticed in an order issued by us in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 6 of 2017, the practice in the State of Chhattisgarh appears to be that Section 174 Cr.P.C. proceedings are carried forward in total disregard to the contents of that provision. We have therefore issued an order in that Public Interest Litigation which related to the death of one Vikas Patel, requiring the State Government to issue directions to the Station House Officer and Police Officers for strict compliance of Section 174 Cr.P.C. by having inquests conducting by the Executive Magistrate.