MALLIKA KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On consensus of the counsel representing the parties, this petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage in consideration of the urgency attached to the matter. The petitioner is the wife of a slain journalist, namely Anil Majumder who was holding the post of Executive Editor of an Assamese daily, 'Aji'. On 24-3-2009 when the said journalist was returning home by his car being AS-01-A-8-5973 and when his car reached a nearby place to his residence at Rajgarh road at about 10 p.m. and he was getting down from the said car, he was shot at allegedly by a group of unknown persons who were waiting at that spot. The driver of the vehicle is an eye-witness to the said gruesome murder. It is averred that one Khagen Sarma lodged the FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Chandmari police station briefly narrating the commission of the said cognizable offence and the police on receipt of the said FIR registered the Chandmari PS case No. 114 of 2009 under Section 302/34, IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. It further appears from the narrative as embodied in the writ petition that the killing of the said journalist stirred a sharp reaction in the society particularly in the media community. Even the Chief Minister of the State publicly condemned such killing and assured that the murder of the said journalist would be investigated with "top most priority" by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to nab (he assailants. In para 7 of the petition, the petitioner stated as under :

(2.) The petitioner's grievance, in a nut shell, is that despite she received solace and assurance of doing justice from the top brass of the administration, but no positive signs of succeeding in the investigation surfaced as yet. The petitioner knocked the office of the CID which is entrusted with the investigation and also the office of the Director General of Police, but could not have any satisfactory reply regarding the progress of the investigation. Ultimately, the petitioner claims to have realized that the Government and its agencies never bothered to do the investigation to nab the culprits rendering justice to the bereaved family comprising of the petitioner and her two minor daughters who respectively lost husband and father at the prime phase of life. She, therefore, stated to have lost confidence in the investigation as being conducted by the CID. This writ petition has been filed for securing a genuine and fair investigation in the murder of the said journalist inasmuch as the murder had invaded the fundamental right as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner has categorically alleged against the CID that the said agency was dealing with the investigation in such a manner that ultimately it would be instrumental to disappearance of the evidence. On discovery of such lackadaisical attitude of the CID and its manner of investigation, the petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction to the Government of Assam to handover the said case to an independent investigation agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as established under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for making a fair and just investigation to ensure justice.

(3.) On 23.11.2011 when the matter was taken up, this Court directed the State respondents to furnish a status report in regard to the Chandmari PS case No. 114 of 2009 (hereinafter referred to the 'police case') within 23.11.2011. But the State respondents failed to furnish the status report on that occasion and the matter was again listed on 19-12-11. When a warning was sounded to the State respondents that no further time would be provided to the State Government for that purpose. However, the State respondents filed a status report under Memo No. CID/SSP/PF/2011/162 dated 29-11-11 in a sealed cover. This Court has considered the said status report and finds that a serious contradiction is apparent so far the statement appearing at para 7 of the writ petition as reproduced and the statement of the writ petitioner as stated to have been made to the investigating agency. It is also found that one of the very important 'leads' in the investigation has not been pursued by the CID at all for undisclosed reason. Moreover, the commission of offence though occurred on 23.4.2009, the investigating agency did not succeed to book the culprits and it appears further that they have been lost in the lurch. It has also been found that the investigating agency has virtually completed the investigation with murder of the one of the 'suspects' and that appears to be a sheer escapade and a strange way to draw curtain over the investigation. With serious concern, this Court finds that the investigating agency has been traipsing so long and definitely that can point the needle of suspicion to the role of the investigating agency i.e. CID. This Court finds further that the Government of Assam is not averse to the effective investigation in the murder of the said journalist. It is the principle of justice that justice has not only to be done but it has to be shown to have done. No citizen should be pushed in such a corner where he or she should burn his or her confidence in rule of law. Whatever possible within the framework of the constitution shall be provided to keep the confidence of the citizens in the rule of law kindled.