RAJ KUMAR
Ranchi, Aug.4: The Jharkhand High Court has punched a hole in the police investigation in the Dhanbad judge Uttam Anand’s death case. It expressed its dissatisfaction over the questions of the investigating officer put to the doctor of the medical college who conducted the post mortem examination and the delay in registration of the FIR.
The order of the division bench comprising Chief Justice Dr Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad of the high court after hearing of the PIL in the matter on August 3 suggests this.
The court observed that how come an investigating officer fed a particular question to the doctor to get a particular answer.
“The copy of the post-mortem report has been produced and the doctor who has conducted the post mortem has opined that injury was “caused by hard and blunt substance and death due to head injury.” We have perused the questionnaires framed by the investigating officer namely Mr Vinay Kumar dated 31.07.2021 addressed to Dr Kumar Shubhendu, Assistant Professor, Department of FMT, SNMMC, Dhanbad, asking questions from the concerned doctors. The first question is “please explain whether the injuries in the head are possible by fall on the road surface or not?” We have interacted with the investigating officer in the presence of the Director-General of Police and head of the Special Investigating Team and asked as to when the investigating agency is investigating the occurrence in order to find out the reason for death then how and under what circumstances such question is being asked by the investigating officer from the concerned doctor that too when the CCTV footage clarifies the entire scene of occurrence,” the order reads.
“The post mortem report clearly discloses that fatal injury has been caused by a hard and blunt substance. Therefore, it is for the investigating agency to find out the weapon of crime. Feeding a particular question to the doctor to get a particular answer is not at all appreciated. However, neither the investigating officer nor the head of the special investigating team could give a proper reply,” the court observed.
The court expressing its concern over the delay in registration of the FIR said it is intriguing when the CCTV footage of the incident became viral within 2 to 4 hours the FIR was registered when the wife of the judicial officer lodged a complaint.
“It is intriguing when the CCTV footage of the incidence became viral within 2 to 4 hours from the time of occurrence and the injured judicial officer was taken to a private hospital at about 5.30 am then why the FIR was instituted so belatedly at 12.45pm after a complaint was lodged by the wife of the Judicial Officer? The CCTV must be regularly being monitored by police. The doctors of the hospital must also have informed the police then why the police became active only after the complaint was lodged by the wife of the judicial officer became questionable,” the court observed.
On July 28, judge Uttam Anand died after an auto-rickshaw hit him coming from the backside when he was on a morning walk outside Magistrate Colony near Randhir Verma Chowk.
The CCTV footage collected from the spot suggests that the driver of the vehicle intentionally hit the judge who was walking on the extreme left of the deserted road at the time of the incident. The CCTV footage shows that the vehicle changed lanes and hit the judge going extreme left.
The legal fraternity took strong exception to the incident and suspected it a case of an attack on the judicial system. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court took serious note of the matter. The High Court started monitoring the case. Sensing the gravity of the situation, the state police constituted an SIT.
Police swung into action and arrested the driver of the auto-rickshaw and seized his vehicle. The driver admitted the crime saying he was drunk. However, the SIT is busy collecting evidence to ascertain the genuineness of the claim.
