ROOPLATA HARSULE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADHESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing for investigation of the death of petitioner's son by the CBI or any other independent agency.

(2.) The facts, in nut shell, are that petitioner's son Aman (since deceased) left the house at 8 PM in the night of 26.01.2017 for giving Rs.6,000/- to his fiance at Parasia. However, he did not return that night. Next morning, his friend Pawan Nagre informed the petitioner that Aman was with him on the previous night at Muskan Dhaba. They were consuming liquor when the Dhaba was raided by the police. She was informed that Aman ran away from the spot. On receiving this information a missing person report was filed on 27.01.2017 at PS-Chandameta, District- Chhindwara. On the next day, i.e. 28.01.2017, the dead body of Aman was found lying in a 25-30 ft. deep rocky pit situated 250 mtrs. behind the Dhaba. The body of the deceased was taken for postmortem and thereafter was handed over to the family members who cremated the body on the same evening. According to the petitioner, the whole episode from the time the deceased was missing and the dead body was found, the behaviour of the PS-Junnardeo and Badkuhi and friends of deceased,was very suspicious.

(3.) It is argued that the postmortem was also conducted in a hurried manner. Taking this Court through the postmortem report and photographs of the deceased, it is further argued that the doctor had found ingestion of alcohol but the viscera was not preserved. It is further contended that the injury on the back of the head of deceased looked more like a pellet injury and not the result of a fall. In short, the petitioner has raised suspicion about the method and manner of investigation and postmortem.