RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court invoking its powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for directing to hand over the investigation of the case, registered vide FIR No. 31 dated 1.4.2002 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, P.S. Anandpur Sahib, to the C.B.I. for proper, fair and thorough enquiry and/or to issue any other appropriate order or direction.

(2.) THE father of the petitioner, deceased Madan Lal, was running a grocery shop near the canal in village Gambhirpur, P.S. Anandpur Sahib District Ropar. On the intervening night of March 31, 2002 and April 1, 2002, the petitioner, his mother and his nephew came to the shop to serve dinner to deceased Madan Lal and went back to their village Dabat, PO Majri, Tehsil Naina Devi, District Bilaspur on a scooter at about 11.00 P.M.; that next morning, at about 7.00 A.M., the petitioner came to know from Baldev Raj son of Bhana Ram, resident of Dabat that the shop run by his father was still locked and his father could not be seen there. On this information the petitioner went to the shop and found that there was pool of blood in front of the shop and blood stains went right upto the canal; the petitioner then came to know that some one had killed his father, Madan Lal and his dead body might have been thrown into the canal; that on a search, the dead body of deceased Madan Lal was recovered at the Ganguwal Power House Gate No. 4 and on the statement of the petitioner, FIR No. 31 dated 1.4.2002 under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. was registered in P.S. Anandpur Sahib against unknown persons; that the petitioner gave names of some persons whom he suspected to be involved in committing or might have abetted in the committal of the crime in relation to the murder of his father; however, having noticed that no tangible steps were taken by the police regarding investigation of the matter, his mother, Smt. Usha Rani, made a representation on April 29, 2002 (Annexure P-1) to the Director-General of Police, Punjab; subsequently, copy whereof was also sent to different authorities including the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar on May 30, 2002 (Annexure P-2), followed by a representation by the petitioner to A.D.G.P. (Crime) on June 25, 2002 (Annexure P-3) that a theft was also committed in the shop on February 26, 2002 at about 3.00 A.M. when material worth Rs. 2,00,000/- was stolen from the godown of the petitioner; and that the matter was reported to the Local Police but no DDR/FIR was registered; that due to lukewarm response of the local police in investigating the matter, the murderer(s) of his father have gone scot free; indicating the needle of suspicion towards some of the suspects allegedly involved in the murder of his father, the petitioner avers that Mukesh and Vishal, both sons of Jasvir Singh, who is a cousin of his deceased father, were sleeping in the shop adjacent to the shop of his father and despite the occurrence having taken place in front of their shop, they have flatly refused to have knowledge of any kind thereof; that the petitioner approached the Punjab State Human Rights Commission as well, who vide its order dated July 8, 2002 (Annexure P-4) marked an enquiry to the Crime Branch; that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Crime Branch, Chandigarh held the enquiry but unfortunately in a pretty casual manner and failed to find out the culprits and finally the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar on February 26, 2003 submitted a report (Annexure P-6) to the Commission, stating that there was no need to take any further action as the Crime Branch of the local police has already allegedly conducted sufficient enquiry into the matter.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no doubt the murder of deceased Madan Lal, namely, the father of the petitioner took place during the night hours and apparently the occurrence was not witnessed by any one. From the affidavit of Varinder Singh Brar, D.S.P., Anandpur Sahib, one, however, gathers an impression that the Police Authorities directed themselves in relation to investigation of the case qua those persons only who were suspected to have been involved by the petitioner. Apparently, the investigation does not seem to have been carried out with a reasonable intelligent perception by looking into all the pros and cons. While suspicion and/or apprehension of the family members of a victim can facilitate the investigation into a crime, it might not necessarily lead the police to lay its hands on the real culprit(s). The independent application of mind and investigation of a case from different angles, namely, motive like enmity, or an attempt to robbery etc. are some of the aspects which the Investigating Agency should have looked into. The affidavit is unfortunately silent, particularly in respect of the scientific investigation of the matter. No such effort seems to have been made by the Police to pick up the threads of evidence so as to complete the chain of events and reach to the accused person(s).