Ramanathan vs State

Shivappa, J.—The grievance of the Petitioner is that the officers entrusted with a statutory duty to investigate the crimes, since showed disturbing degree of indifference to his complaints dated 24.3.1993 and 12.8.1993, he is seeking for a direction for just investigation in accordance

with law.

The case of the Petitioner is that on 24.3.1993, which was a Government holiday due to "Telugu New Year's Day", the officials of the Revenue

Department with the assistance of a Constable went in a Jeep at about 1:00 P.M. to the house of the Petitioner, which was built in the year 1980,

on Voikkal Poramboke, in an extent of 3 cents in S. No. 591/597 bearing No. 54, Sevilimedu Village and started dismantling and removing the

roof. The wife of the Petitioner protested for such an act. The Officials, namely, the Tahsildar, Kancheepuram (Periasamy), Deputy Tahsildar

(Arunachalam), Revenue Inspector, Village Administrative Officer and Thalaiyari accompanied by a Police Constable threatened her to go out of the house. The Deputy Tahsildar caught hold of the deceased and pulled her down on the ground and they abused her in filthy language. When the

Officials started removing the roof, the wife of the Petitioner threatened that if the act of dismantling is continued, she will set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene. The Officials retorted by saying that she could do anything but nobody could do any harm to them. So saying, the Tahsildar,

Deputy Tahsildar directed the Thalaiyari and others to continue the process of dismantling the house. Being shocked by the swift action, she suddenly stood up and entered into the house, poured kerosene on her body and set fire to herself. The Officials did not take any step to extinguish the fire. Even her son Srinivasan was not allowed to enter the house to save his mother.

The gist of the complaint in a nutshell can be recapitulated in a narrow campus. According to the Petitioner, complaint prima facie revealed that

accused persons intimidated and goaded the deceased with dire consequences and provoked, incited, urged, encouraged to commit suicide.

A person is said to "instigate" another to an act, when one actively suggests or stimulates other to the act by means of language, direct or

indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word "instigate" means goad, urge forward

to provoke, incite, encourage to do an act. Abetment can be in any one of the three ways set out in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The act of abetment has to be judged in the conspectus of the entire averments made in the complaint, status of the parties, situation in which the deceased was placed. Thus it is alleged, the Officials above mentioned have committed the offence under Sections 306 , 507, 107 read with Section 34 of

Indian Penal Code.

At this stage, it has to be remembered that there are civil suits pending in respect of the same house, for declaration and injunction in O.S. No.

203 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Judge, Kancheepuram, against the Respondents herein and also another suit in O.S. No. 1093 of 1992 for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the other Revenue Officials from interfering with the possession of the deceased. In I.A. No. 1327

of 1992 in that suit, one Rajendran has admitted that he was working as a Cook in the Collector's Bungalow and it is alleged that the said

Rajendran was seeking for allotment of the place occupied by the Petitioner and he is a Srilankan repatriate, with the help of the officials tried to disposes the Petitioner and his family members. It is also alleged that oh 24.3.1993 at 1:00 P.M. the Revenue Officials while dismantling the house of the deceased said in Tamil thus:

Then the deceased started shouting thus:

The Petitioner gave a complaint on 24.3.1993 to the first Respondent and an endorsement was made on 25.3.1993 and it was treated as Petition

No. 49 of 1993 and the copy of the complaints were sent to the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director General of Police, Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police and Superintendent of Police, who is the second Respondent herein. The news about the self immolation was published in all the newspapers revolted against the biased and arbitrary act of dismantling the house of the deceased without authority of law at the instance of Revenue Officials. Inspite of the publications, complaints, no action was taken or initiated by the Respondents 1

and 2 against the Revenue Officials and the said Rajendran. Not even a First Information Report was registered against the officials. Then the

Petitioner filed Criminal Original Petition No. 12484 of 1993 in October 1993, with a similar prayer alleging that the Respondents have failed in their statutory duty and no action was taken on the complaints. The petition was admitted on 3.11.1993 and adjournment was taken on

17.11.1993, 25.11.1993, 1.12.1993 and ultimately the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that he was not able to get instruction, then notice was issued to the first Respondent to appear on 8.12.1993 at 10:30 A.M. Again it was posted to 17.12.1993. The first Respondent did not appear on 17.12.1993 and further notice was given to the first Respondent to appear personally on 3.1.1994 and it was later adjourned to

7.1.1994, 17.1.1994, 24.1.1994. On 24.1.1994, the first Respondent was not present but the Sub Inspector was present. Since the reason for the absence was not convincing, the Court directed the first Respondent to file better affidavit and the matter was adjourned. On 4.2.1994, the first

Respondent tendered an unconditional apology. On 9.3.1994 the Additional Public Prosecutor represented that many witnesses had been examined and some more witnesses are yet to be examined to complete the investigation. This Court by an order dated 9.3.1994, keeping in view the gravity of the offence, directed the first Respondent to examine the other witnesses, namely, the Revenue Officials, who were engaged in eviction and granted three weeks, time to produce the Case Diary. The Case Diary was produced. It is alleged in the counter dated 6.1.1995 that they are expecting the Chemical Analysis report to file a final report and to close the case stating that no offence is made out. In view of this

statement, the Petitioner contended that the investigation so far conducted is not only biased but also not bona fide, the attitude and conduct shown by the first Respondent in the progress of investigation and the conduct of the police officials before this Hon'ble Court reveal that both the

Respondents are hand in glove with the Revenue Officials and others in order to protect the officials of the respective departments from the

Clutches of law, have wrongly recorded the statement of the witnesses and the statement of Srinivasan, son of Petitioner, contrary to the averments made in the complaint and the non-registration of the complaint for such a long period, all put together shows the lapse on their part and thus the complaint has to be investigated by an independent agency, namely, the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Since the Case diary was in Tamil, I directed the Registrar to give me the gist and the stage of the case as per the Case Diary, in English. It is

submitted by the Registrar that,

Though there are some lapses in examining the witnesses, who are residing in that locality, relating to Crime No. 303/93 by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Kancheepuram, the abovesaid gaps were filled up by examining the neighbours by the Inspector of Police after registering the First

Information Report in Crime No. 877/93 u/s 306 of Indian Penal Code subsequent to the order passed by this Hon'ble High Court in Criminal

Original Petition No. 5056/93. It is respectfully submitted that the investigation in the Crime No. 877/93 u/s 306 of Indian Penal Code has not yet been completed by the Investigating Officer.

In this fact situation the question is: Whether the complaint of the Petitioner requires investigation by an independent agency, namely, the Central

Bureau of Investigation?

When an unnatural death occurs or prima facie case of the commission of a cognizable offence is brought to the notice of the police authorities, it

is their duty to conduct investigation, ascertain the actual cause of death and giving an impression that just action has been taken without inordinate delay or serious lapses. Although the Petitioner has been running from pillar to post seeking for an honest investigation of his serious grievance,

wherein the police and Revenue Officials of the State of Tamil Nadu are accused, the Police must be still more vigilant. The circumstances show that the State Police acted leisurely and in an irresponsible manner. The complaint was lodged on 24.3.1993 and it was not registered for eight

months. Though list of witnesses were given, they were not examined in the manner required and there is a wrong recording of the statement of the son of the deceased. After direction by this Court, some of the witnesses were examined to suit the convenience. The learned Public Prosecutor was unable to show the order of eviction passed under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 3 of 1905. Under the said Act, before an order of

eviction, a notice has to be given providing an opportunity of being heard to the unauthorised occupants u/s 7 of the Act. This was not strictly followed and there was no order evicting the deceased from the premises in question. In the absence of an order, forcible eviction was unwarranted and even a rank trespasser is entitled to be heard before dispossession. Having exceeded their powers and acted arbitrarily and high-

handed manner that too without an order of eviction, an impression has been created in the mind of the Petitioner that investigation in the hands of the local police will not be fair and the local police may shield the officials of the State Police and the Revenue Department. The lapse in investigation seem to lend credence to the grievance of the Petitioner.

In a situation where prima facie, the police have not acted in a forthright manner in investigating the case registered on the complaint and

wherever effort had been made to protect and shield the guilty officers, Courts have directed investigation by an independent agency (Ref.

Kashmeri Devi Vs. Delhi Administration and Another, The Supreme Court further held that when the investigation was already completed ordinarily it should not be reopened but in order to do justice between the parties and to instill confidence in the public mind, directed investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. (Ref. Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India (1992 (Crl.) MLJ 508.). In another case, in order to uphold human values and to protect the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, directions issued that C.B.I, should investigate and register cases and prosecute the officers however high or low. (Ref. Khedat Mazdoor Chetna Sangath v. State of M.P. (1994 SCC (Crl.) 1643) . Whenever investigation by the State Police is lacking credibility, investigation by independent agency is always desirable and in such situation C.B.I. was directed to investigate. (Ref. R.S. Sodhi Vs. State of U.P. and others,

When the complaint prima facie reveal that the officials intimidated and goaded the deceased and threatened her that she will have to face dire

consequences and immediately thereafter she committed suicide, whether it could be said that the provocation incited the deceased to commit suicide and instigated her to do that act or actually suggested or stimulated the act by means of any language direct or indirect. When Officers omitted to prevent an act, which in normal circumstances, they are bound to do and exhibit both indifference and insensitiveness, there could be no worse act or lapse on their part. The accused, whether abetted the offence u/s 306 of Indian Penal Code or acted with common intention, has to be judged in the conspectus of the entire averments made in the complaint.

The non-registration of the case for eight months and wrong recording of the statement of Srinivasan and the inaction by the Police Authorities

in spite of several complaints, give rise to three irresistible inferences, namely,

(1) Police was desultory and lackadaisical;

(2) Lack of appreciation and the emergent need to get at the truth in spite of representation, Newspaper publication, Court's order, etc., and

(3) Investigation not bona fide and aimed to shield Officers.

The next question that remains to be answered is: What should be the nature of the order? Whether they are liable, guilty or not of the offences

alleged is a matter to be established after collecting material during investigation and trial.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that if the Court feels that proper investigation has not been done by the State Police, the

investigation may be entrusted to the State C.B.C.I.D. I decline to accede to his request. I have reflected in the earlier paragraphs how the

Petitioner approached all the officers and Ministers for just investigation. His request was not responded in the manner required. The time and energy that may be consumed in the event of reference either to C.B.C.I.D. or C.B.I. makes no difference. After all justice is deep rooted in

confidence, a litigant should not go with a feeling that his cause is not considered justly. Normally, investigation should not be taken from the hands of the State police machinery, which is a statutory agency, but, due to certain lapses in conducting investigation, all that this Court could do, in the interests of instilling confidence in the machinery, meant for maintaining law and order, is to order investigation by the C.B.I. I think it is imperative in the public interests to do so.

In the circumstances set out above, I make the following Order:

(a) The Central Bureau of Investigation is directed to take over the investigation of the case from the State Police;

(b) To investigate the complaint of the Petitioner, dated 24.3.1993 and 12.8.1993; and

(c) The State of Tamil Nadu through its Chief Secretary is further directed to provide all assistance to the Central Bureau of Investigation in this

respect.

Petition is allowed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.