URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Binit Chandra, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III, appearing for the State.

(2.) This petition has been filed for a direction upon the authorities to hand over the case to any other independent agency, particularly the CBI, considering that the husband of the petitioner was put to death in police custody, in connection with Lesliganj P.S. case No. 19 of 2015, which was instituted on the basis of the complaint case No. 1333 of 2014, which was sent under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter the said case was registered, now the case is pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Palamu at Daltonganj.

(3.) Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of Late Ayodhya Mahto, resident of Village-Lukuwa, P.O.-Ambabar, P.S.-Pipratar, District- Palamau. He submits that on 9/9/2014 when the petitioner was present in her house with her husband Ayodhya Mahto, the Officer-in-Charge of Lesliganj Police Station Nirmal Oraon has come to the house of the petitioner along with constables Mukesh Singh, Raghunath Paswan and Chaitu Ram and asked her husband to produce her son Manoj Mahto. He further submits that when the husband of the petitioner asked them as to why they are searching for Manoj Mahto and intimated that Manoj Mahto is not present in the house. He further submits that the Officer-in-charge of Lesliganj P.S. Nirmal Oraon told that there is a case against Manoj Mahto, as such either they should produce Manoj Mahto or he will arrest the husband of the petitioner and in the meanwhile villagers also gathered there and after knowing the position, raised protest, then said Officer-in- Charge threatened and said that if they will resist the police, then they will be also arrested. He further submits that due to fear and threatening, the villagers as well as petitioner has been compelled to keep mum and the Officer-in-charge with the help of constables have forcibly taken away the husband of the petitioner. He further submits that after three days i.e. on 12/9/2014, the husband of the petitioner retuned back and disclosed that the Officer-in-Charge as well as aforesaid constables have freed him with a direction to the husband of the petitioner that he will arrange Rs.1,00,000.00. He further submits that on 18/10/2014 at about 10.00 A.M., while the husband of the petitioner was ploughing the land near his house, once again, the Officer-in-Charge along with said constables has come and taken the husband of the petitioner in their custody and when the husband of the petitioner did not return till the evening, then the petitioner along with villagers and others went to the police station and saw that the police was torturing her husband physically and mentally. He further submits that on 19/10/2014 at about 3.00 P.M. the son of the petitioner has got information on his mobile that Ayodhya Mahto died in police custody and the police has brought the dead body of the deceased to hospital for post- mortem without giving intimation to the petitioner or any other family members about the death of the husband of the petitioner. He further submits that the son of the petitioner raised an objection vide letter dtd. 19/10/2014 to the Superintendent of Police, Palamau, about the post- mortem, which was done without giving any intimation to the family members of the deceased family, which is contained in Annexure-1 to this petition. He further submits that the son of the petitioner also represented to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau vide letter dtd. 19/10/2012 to take action against the Medical Officer, who illegally conducted the post- mortem examination, which is contained in Annexure-2 to this petition. He further submits that the newspaper also reported about the death of the husband of the petitioner in police custody and the paper cuttings have been annexed as Annexure-3 series to this petition. He further submits that certain photographs of the deceased have been brought on record, which is Annexure-4 of this petition and original photographs of the deceased have been produced by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, which has also been shown to Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the State and looking into the said photographs, it appears that several injuries are there on the dead body of the deceased.