LAWS(CAL)-2024-10-14

REJAUL KARIM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On October 08, 2024
REJAUL KARIM Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is the father of the deceased, one Tohid Karim, submits that his son was a student at the Jakir Hossain Institute of Pharmacy in Jangipur, Murshidabad, West Bengal herein respondent no. 14. On the evening of August 12, 2024, at around 8:30 p.m., the deceased had a routine conversation with his mother, requesting a gas oven, an umbrella, and some mango pickle to be sent through his father. This conversation, which showed no signs of distress, took place just hours before his untimely demise. On the morning of August 13, 2024, the petitioner, before leaving for work, attempted to contact his son at 8:04 a.m. and 8:06 a.m. but received no response, which was unusual as his son generally returned missed calls. The petitioner made several further attempts to reach his son throughout the day, but none were successful.

(2.) Concerned about the lack of communication, the petitioner's wife contacted one of their son's roommates, who responded rudely and claimed ignorance of Tohid's whereabouts, further exacerbating their anxiety. Later that day, at around 9 p.m., while the petitioner was en route to the college hostel, the same roommate contacted the deceased's mother, abruptly informing her that their son had died by hanging. The petitioner states that this abrupt and insensitive communication raised immediate suspicion. Upon arriving at the college, the petitioner found his son deceased under suspicious circumstances in his hostel room.

(3.) The petitioner recalls that a few months prior, when the deceased was newly admitted to the college, he had confided in the petitioner and his wife about incidents of ragging at the institute. He mentioned that seniors had harassed him and other juniors. The petitioner apprehends that these instances of ragging may have played a role in his son's death. Despite the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death, the respondent no. 14 failed to report the incident to the police or file an FIR, a highly irregular omission for an institution.