KHIMJI DAMJI KANAN RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, party-in-person, was heard at length even after learned counsel Mr.A.J.Yagnik, appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court, had concluded his submissions and expressed his inability to further assist the court. The petitioner was asked if he wanted to engage an advocate of his own, but he had refused to engage any advocate and made his submissions in vernacular in his own fashion.

(2.) It appears from record that the present proceeding by way of criminal miscellaneous application in the main Special Criminal Application No.272 of 1997 has been initiated and continued as proceeding for restoration of the original petition which was dismissed for default. The original petition, i.e. Special Criminal Application No.272 of 1997, was filed by learned advocate Mr.D.M.Shah with an affidavit of the petitioner thereunder. According to that petition, the petitioner's son, who was serving with Gandhidham Nagarpalika as a wireman, had lost his wife on 1.2.1996 after accidental burn injuries. The petitioner's son was arrested in that connection on a complaint lodged by relatives of his deceased wife. While the son of the petitioner, namely Shanker, was kept in judicial custody at Sub-Jail, Anjar, Kutch, an application for his release on bail was filed by the petitioner and it was to come up for hearing on 15.2.1996. It was alleged by the petitioner that brothers-in-law of deceased Shanker alongwith some police officers were threatening the deceased. At the time of hearing of the bail application, a declaration was made in the court that, in the early morning of 15.2.1996, Shanker had expired by committing suicide in jail. When the petitioner reached the hospital at Anjar, he was informed that post mortem on the body of his son was carried out. It was only after an application to learned Sessions Judge and order of the court that the petitioner was handed over the body of his son for the last rites. It was also alleged that, when the petitioner had gone to jail to meet his son in the morning of 15.2.1996, the jailer had not allowed the petitioner to meet his son but informed that he was fine. The petitioner thereafter approached the Legal Aid Committee of the High Court, but it refused to initiate any proceeding in absence of any specific evidence about the allegation of murder of Shanker. Therefore, that petition came to be filed as late as on 4.3.1997.

(3.) During pendency of the previous petition, by an order dated 9.4.1997, learned Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj was directed to hold a preliminary inquiry of the incident and the cause of death of Shanker. The Inquiry Committee so appointed was required to find out the persons responsible if it were a case of murder and the Director General of Police (Prisons) or the Inspector General of Police (Prisons) was directed to depute a senior officer to assist learned Sessions Judge in the inquiry. Pursuant to that order, a detailed inquiry report dated 2.7.1997 running into 75 typed pages was submitted by learned Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj with the conclusion as under: