BUDHESHWAR KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON perusal of the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and on consideration of all facts forming the subject -matter of this petition, I cannot persuade myself to take a view that the girl. Ruby Karmakar, might have been killed in the police station by the police -men. Actually, considering the chain of circumstances and various facts as brought out in the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the version put up by the respondents with respect to the girl perhaps committing suicide, apparently does not seem to be improbable, impossible or untenable. I am quite sure that this Court in these proceedings, sitting so remotely, placed as it is far from the scene and factum of the occurrence and at such a far too distant point of time (almost two years from the date of oc - currence have since elapsed) cannot be the best Judge of what actually, might have transpired, but in a situation in which every one is presently placed, the preponderance of probabilities cannot be totally lost sight of and based on such facts and circumstances as might be probable, open can be permitted to guess that perhaps there were under no warrant, nor any facts or situations which might have led the policemen to torture the girl resulting in her death. I am saying so because admittedly the death of Jai Prakash Singh, the alleged lover of the girl, is alleged to have occurred on 25th October, 1999, and the accused persons in the case allegedly were taken into custody either in the evening of 25th October, or in the morning of 26th October, 1999, and allegedly at their alleged instance some alleged recovery might have allegedly been made on 26th October, 1999, itself. The case being almost less than a day old at that point of time, and the girl admittedly not having been cited as an accused in the FIR there was no need for the police to unusually and extensively interrogate her or to physically or otherwise torture her? My view is that perhaps the fears and apprehensions of the petitioner are not properly founded. At this point of time, I can, therefore, venture to think, perhaps based on the aforesaid facts of this case that the girl perhaps did not die because of any torturing or physical violence by the police.

(2.) IN the absence of the aforesaid hypothesis, therefore, one is left with the theory, as proposed by the police that the girl had committed suicide. Committing suicide in the fact situation, as has been projected by the respondents in the counter -affidavit, surely might not be the most ideal situation, that too in a room in a police station. There might be two views possible, or more, as to whether the girl in that bent of mind and under such a stress of sentiments, emotions and feelings might or might not have chosen that spot for committing suicide but then when, the totality of circumstances applying the rule of preponderance of probabilities and when one has ruled out the possibility of the police torturing the girl so much as to not to warrant inference of her committing suicide out of torture, one has no option or choice but to stick to the suicide theory. This theory of the suicide might get some credence from a substantial foundation of fact that the alleged lover of the girl was alleged to have been killed and that too allegedly at the hands of her brother -and brother -in -law. This also coupled with the post -mortem report which clearly says that the body of the girl did not bear any injury marks, external or internal, except a ligature mark around her neck, which perhaps would be an indication of the suicide having actually been committed by hanging. All these, plus the last fact that this petition was filed almost one and a half years after the death of the girl and what the petitioner was doing in the meanwhile has not been sufficiently explained.

(3.) I have made certain observations in this order only with reference to the particular issue relating to the death of the girl. Ruby. I have tried very hard to steer clear of making any direct or indirect reference or observation with regard to any other issue concerning anyone else. Therefore, no part of this judgment shall be construed as any expression of opinion by this Court with respect to any other person, or any other issue or occurrence.