Chayarani Bhowmik vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

[1] Heard Ms. R. Guha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned PP appearing for the respondents.

[2] By means of this petition, the petitioner who is the mother of the deceased namely Dipankar Bhowmik has urged this court (i) to investigate BLG P.S. U.D. Case No. 32 of 2020 which was registered on 28.10.2020 in accordance with law (ii) to direct the respondent No.5, the police officer who was inquiring in the unnatural death, to perform his duty under Chapter XII of the CrPC and submit the entire investigation report to the Sessions Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura. Further, it has been urged by the petitioner to direct the respondent No.5 to investigate the case 'in accordance with law'. The other reliefs as sought are either consequential in nature or for some other purpose not related to the core of the controversy. The petitioner had lodged an information (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) on 28.10.2020 to the Officer-in-Charge, Bishalgarh Police Station, Sepahijala, Tripura.

[3] In the said information, the petitioner has made allegation that she saw nail marks around the neck of Dipankar Bhowmik, her son. Dipankar was seen lifeless and laid on the bed. The respondent has disputed by stating that no information was filed on 28.10.2020. On the contrary, according to the respondent, the information was recorded on 28.08.2020 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) in the police station diary and the same was received by the Officer-in-charge, Bishlgarh Police Station, Sepahijala District. The said information as received by the officer-in-charge contained the following narrative:

To

The O.C.

Bishalgarh PS

Sepahijala, Tripura

Subject: Seeking justice for the unnatural death. Respected Sir,

It is most humbly submitted that, almost 5 (five) years ago, my son Dipankar Bhowmik got married to Smt. Anamika Sharma (Bhowmik) and started living separately in our house premises. For last four years there were several fights and quarrels happening between the husband and wife. On 27.10.2020, at about 10.30 PM, I heard quarrel between the couple. At about 11.15 PM, my daughter- in-law called us from our room and started yelling that something happened to my son, when I went to their room, I saw lifeless body of my son on their bed. Immediately, his body was taken to Hapania Hospital. There he was declared dead by the doctors. We got to know from his wife that he committed suicide chocking himself with a gamchha in his own room.

Therefore, respected sir, I humbly request you to kindly punish appropriate person.

[4] The petitioner had signed the said information and the petitioner did not state that the said information was not signed by her. Further, it appears from the records, as appended with the writ petition that on 08.02.2021, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Sepahijala District where some allegations had been made against the police viz, the police at Bishalgarh Police Station had refused to receive the complaint and asked one Santosh Sarkar to write a new information without naming anybody as the accused. The police personnel had in front of everyone declared that the previous complaint was worthless and it would not benefit anyone. Then, further allegations have been levelled. As per instruction and dictation of the police of Bishalgarh Police Station, one Santosh Sarkar wrote the complaint which was registered as Bishalgarh PS U.D. Case No. 32 of 2020 dated 28.10.2020 and BLG PS GDE No.23 dated 28.10.2020.

[5] Thereafter, the petitioner obtained a certified copy of the FIR (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and found that her son has been reported to have committed suicide. That was written following the dictation of police. One line was added by interpolation to the said information. It has been alleged in the said letter that several times, the petitioner's husband and her elder son, Apurba went to the Investigating officer but they refused to take their statement and discouraged them to proceed further. In the penultimate paragraph of the said letter dated 08.02.2021, the following statement has been inserted:

There are several new scratch marks on the west wall of Dipankar's room which is clearly of human nails. Moreover, on 28.10.2020, when I along with my husband, elder son and other were in Bishalgarh Police Station, I/O Raju Bhowmik asked to bring our granddaughter. My brother, Samir Bhowmik (my brother-in-law) went home and brought my granddaughter. Being asked by the Police Personnel, in the presence of me and my husband, my granddaughter replied that, "one, Suman uncle held my father". S.I. Raju Bhowmik (I/O) instantly shouted at my granddaughter and asked her why she was lying to police. Then my granddaughter started crying and did not reply any other questions in front of the police I along with others who arrived in our house on the 27.10.2020, also saw clear injury marks on the neck of my son before sending him to the hospital. Injury marks were two black spot on the end on the right and left side of the neck similar to marks of fingers. We tried to inquire about the Post Mortem Report and Investigation of the murder of my son, but, the Police never responded and S.I Raju Bhowmik (I/O) always misbehaved and hooted us."

[6] Mr. R. Datta, learned PP has pointed out to this court that the said letter has been sent after the police completed the inquiry into the UD Case and filed the report to the competent authority for acceptance. Before 08.02.2021, none of these allegations surfaced nor even the petitioner did place such information to the police. It is after about more than two months, the petitioner came with that story. The petitioner herself has submitted that immediately after the incident, the information was lodged on 28.10.2020 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). Even in the case diary, there is entry in respect of receipt of the said information by the police.

[7] Ms. R. Guha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that certain aspects are highly suspicious, such as, how the daughter-in-law of the petitioner alone could bring down the dead body of her husband [the petitioner's son] and laid him on the bed. The other aspect of the matter as pointed out by Ms. R. Guha, learned counsel that the statement of the granddaughter of the petitioner as made in front of the local persons and to the police was completely ignored during the inquiry. The granddaughter of the petitioner had made such statement in front of the local people who arrived at the place of occurrence. The police was informed by lodging the complaint on 28.10.2020 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). Ms. Guha, learned counsel has quite emphatically submitted that there are some attending circumstances which generate doubt, even in a prudent mind and thus, there exists reasons to suppose that son of the petitioner was 'murdered'.

[8] In the reply, Mr. Datta, learned PP has submitted that all the allegations have been examined independently and the reply has been prepared. Doubt that has been raised with force that it was not physically possible for Anamika Sharma, the daughter-in-law of the petitioner to bring down her husband alone from hanging is the bubble. Hence, the allegations are absolutely false. Inference that has been sought to be drawn has been denied by the respondents. In Para 9 of the reply filed by the respondents, it has been categorically stated that the averments made in Para 8 of the writ petition are false. The answering respondents have strongly denied and disputed the same. During inquiry, it has surfaced that daughter of the deceased [the granddaughter of the petitioner] was examined and her statement was recorded by the investigating officer, SI Raju Bhowmik at Gokul Nagar in their dwelling house, in presence of the informant but no where she has stated, to the investigating officer, the fact as narrated in the said paragraph by the petitioner.

[9] That apart, in reply to Para 16 of the writ petition, it has been categorically asserted that the averments made in Para 16 are baseless and as such, the answering respondents have strongly denied and disputed the same. It is fact that the petitioner had addressed a letter on 08.02.2021 and that was received by the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Sepahijala District on 09.02.2021 vide their receipt No.490 dated 09.02.2021.

[10] In the affidavit, the respondents, on the basis of the post- mortem examination report, have clearly asserted that the cause of death was suicidal. In the reply, it has been also asserted that the investigating officer has performed his duty properly, maintaining honesty and integrity. There is no negligence on the part of the investigating officer.

[11] After the reply was filed by the respondents, the petitioner filed the rejoinder to question the averments appearing in the reply. In the said rejoinder, the petitioner has stated that her son was 'murdered' by his wife namely Anamika Sharma (Bhowmik), but Bisharlgarh Police Station had refused to accept her complaint. Her daughter-in-law who is so feeble could not bring down her son from hanging. It is hardly believable that she did bring down his body from the hanging.

[12] Mr. Datta, learned PP has in terms of our order produced the prosecution report as filed under Section 174 of the CrPC with all its enclosure. The post-mortem examination report, Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory's Report and the case diary, have been scrutinized by this court. On completing the inquiry, the police has observed that death of Dipankar Bhowmik, son of the petitioner is attributable to Asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. For further examination, viscera was preserved and sent to the Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. The forensic science laboratory's report was received by the investigating officer on 15.01.2021. No poison was found and it has been clearly stated in the forensic science laboratory's report as signed by the Deputy Director, Chemistry that the exhibits (Viscera) was found negative for presence of common organocholoro, organo phosphorous, carbamates or pyrethroids group of pesticides, benzodiazepine, group of drug and ethyl alcohol. After receipt of the said SFSL report, the post-mortem report was finalized and a clear opinion has been recorded as cause of death. Asphyxia caused by hanging has been ascertained as cause of death. In the column of the post mortem examination report, the doctor has stated that on the exterior, that is, on the dermatitis of the deceased, there was no ante mortem injury of any sort. Even on dissection. No injury was found inside the body.

[13] According to the post mortem doctor, no other injury was found over the body of the deceased (Dipankar Bhowmik), except the ligature mark. The police submitted the final report of the case of unnatural death on 30.01.2021 to the Magistrate under Section 174 of the CrPC. Since the entire report has been produced by Mr. Datta, learned PP, this court had the benefit of making proper scrutiny of all the materials which were gathered during the investigation-inquiry.

[14] It is also apparent that the petitioner also did not inform the police anything suspicious till she wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) on 08.02.2021. In the meanwhile, the police had completed the inquiry/investigation relating to unnatural death of the petitioner's son and there was no suspicious materials for further investigation in the matter.

[15] On scrutiny, this court also did not find any suspicious materials with the said report. Even in the post-mortem examination report, even though the petitioner has stated of scratch mark around the neck of her deceased son, no such ante-mortem injury was found during the post mortem examination. This court has no difficulty in accepting the police report but, since by the letter dated 10.02.2021, that is, after the inquiry/investigation was over, some new materials have been placed before the police by the petitioner and those were not earlier taken into cognizance for not bringing to the knowledge of the police. Those be investigated into. The statement of the petitioner was duly recorded. But she did not reveal those information to the police. In the reply, the respondents have discarded those allegations. Those allegations are also based on assumption. There is no evidentiary material to support those materials.

[16] Be that as it may, for the greater interest of justice this court would direct the Superintendent of Police, Sepaihijala District to carry out an investigation about the allegations as made in this writ petition. Since Mr. Datta, learned PP has submitted that he would send a copy of the writ petition along with the order of this court to the Superintendent of Police, this court will not direct the petitioner to submit a copy of the writ petition for purpose of the said inquiry. It is needless to say that if in the inquiry any incriminating materials surface, the police would take action as per law. But it is worthwhile to note that this court is not inclined to accept the allegations as made against the police, because those are not substantiated by any material.

Subject to the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. The original report under Section 174 CrPC as produced before this court is returned to Mr. R. Datta, learned PP appearing for the respondents.

A copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the parties.