DILIP RAKSHIT Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The family members of the petitioner, while returning by one Tata Sumo bearing No. WB 16 -F 6566 on 6th October, 2008 at about 23.15 hours to Panchra through Tarakeswar - memari road near Chowberia bridge fell in D.V.C. cannel and in all ten members of the petitioners family died by drowning. On the following day one Hafizur Rahaman Mallick lodged a written application before the Officer in charge of Jamalpur police station and on the basis of that written complaint Jamalpur PS case No. 121 of 2008 dated 7th October, 2008 under Sections 279/388/427/304A and Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code was started against respondent no.7, being the driver of that vehicle. The defacto complainant Hafizur Rahaman Mallick is not a relation of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter submitted a written complainant before Officer in charge of Jamalpur police station on 2nd November, 2008 stating inter -alia that one Sankar Mallick, a teacher of secondary school and owner of the said Tata Sumo vehicle, was a friend of deceased Ashim Kumar Rakshit and Sankar Mallick accordingly allured Ashim Kumar Rakshit and his family members to take the vehicle for visiting various Durga idols. Ashim Kumar Rakshit since deceased thus being pursuaded by Sankar Mallick went on to visit various Durga idols and at that time, he saw that a conversation was going between the driver and Sankar Mallick. The further case of the petitioner is that there was a business relationship between Ashim Rakshit and Sankar Mallick but subsequently the relationship between Sankar Mallick and Ashim Kumar Rakshit became strained on account of some financial issues and that's why the petitioner has strong reason to believe that in fact Sankar Mallick has murdered Ashim Kumar Rakshit and his nine family members by hatching a criminal conspiracy in collusion with respondent no. 7, being driver of the said vehicle.

(2.) Despite specific information given by petitioner, the officer in charge, Jamalpur police station did not pay any heed to such request of the petitioner to hand over the investigation to the criminal investigation department or detective department or to any other independent agency. In terms of such request of the petitioner learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan directed the Officer in charge of Jamalpur police station to take up the investigation personally and to submit report in accordance with law. The sub -inspector of police (investigating officer) ignoring such direction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan ultimately submitted charge sheet against respondent no.7.

(3.) Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision being CRR No. 2348 of 2009 before this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court directed the officer in charge of Jamalpur police station to comply with the direction given by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan on 19th January, 2009. The further case of the petitioner is that the officer in charge Jamalpur police station did not conduct the investigation properly despite having such direction from the Hon'ble Court and abused the petitioner in filthy languages the petitioner also informed the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan, Criminal Investigation Department, Chairman, Human Rights Commission for looking into the matter but all the efforts of the petitioner went in vein. The petitioner strongly believes that respondent no. 6 Sankar Mallick employed respondent no. 7 in order to murder Ashim Kumar Rakshit and his family members and in terms of their conspiracy, respondent no. 7 intentionally fell the vehicle into the canal but the respondent no. 7 neither sustained any injury on his person nor he died in such occurrence though ten passengers of that vehicle died by drowning.