ABDUL QUDUS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the last occasion the case diary of Bhargama P.S. Case No. 34 of 2009 was called for, which has been received and is on record of the case.

(2.) On perusal of the case diary, it is apparent that in the name of investigation, nothing has been done, simply in different paragraphs same statement has been made, changing the name of witnesses. It was a serious case regarding kidnapping of a minor boy and whatever steps are required to be taken that has not been taken by the Investigating Officer. The case has been investigated since the date of its institution by three Investigating Officers. Initially, Indradeo Paswan, Probationer S.I., took over the charge of investigation. He continued to investigate this case till 25.12.2009 and he handed over the charge of investigation to Sunil Kumar, Officer In-charge of Bhargama Police Station. Since 25.12.2009 to 3.8.2010, Sunil Kumar has investigated the case, but his investigation was also on the same pattern, as it was being done by Indradeo Paswan. On 16.8.2010, Sunil Kumar was transferred and he handed over charge to S.I., Bhola Singh, who finally submitted charge-sheet on 17.8.2010. In between, the case was supervised by Dy. S.P. on 2.9.2009. In his supervision note, he has given specific direction to the Investigating Officer for recovery of the kidnapped boy and to take all measures in this regard. It seems that in spite of specific direction of the superior officer, the case was not properly investigated by the Investigating Officer. The case diary indicates that instead of investigating the case in order to trace out the kidnapped boy, motive of the Investigating Officer was to protect the accused persons. The statement made under different paragraphs shows that an alibi is being created for the protection of the accused persons. All Investigating Officers, who have investigated this case have actually not done any investigation, rather they have simply prepared a table case-diary instead of investigating the case at places, where there was any chance of the recovery of the kidnapped, which is a field work.

(3.) This was a case of kidnapping, which is a very serious offence. In such cases, it is required that the photographs of the kidnapped boy should have been flashed through different media and circulated in the different areas, where there was any possibility of concealment of the victim boy, which was not done. The Investigating Officer has worked in a most perfunctory manner, which is completely unsatisfactory.