GAMKEN BAM Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T.T Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ete, learned Advocate General in-charge for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

(2.) The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate in this Court, has instituted this public interest litigation seeking for a direction that the investigation wing in the Arunachal Pradesh police be separated so that the police personnel in the investigation wing are entrusted only with the duties of investigating criminal offences and are not made a part of the general duties of the police force. The petitioner refers to the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2006) 8 SCC 1 to substantiate that there is also a requirement by the order of the Supreme Court to have the investigation wing within the police force separated from other general duties.

(3.) The petitioner states that in view of several instances of inadequate investigation in police cases in respect of heinous crimes in the State of Arunachal Pradesh which ultimately had resulted in acquittal, there is a requirement of separating the investigation wing. The petitioner also states that in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, there are several instances of excesses being committed by the police force in dealing with the public, some of which are also referred in the press and because of such excesses, there is also a requirement of establishing an operating a police complaint authority, which again is also one of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh (supra). The petitioner also refers to several instances that had arisen in dealing with the criminal appeals that in respect of many heinous offences, because of certain infirmities in the investigation stage, the accused persons therein were given the benefit of acquittal. In many such instances, had the investigation being done in the proper manner and such glaring lacunas would not have been there, perhaps the same appeal might have resulted in a conviction of the accused concerned.