VIJAY DEO JHA
Ranchi, Sept 6: The Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday observed that the Jharkhand police tried to protect persons accused of lynching Rupesh Pandey. Hence, the court has deemed it fit to hand over this case to the CBI for the sake of fair investigation and justice.
“Prima facie it appears that police are not investigating the matter independently and are being influenced at the behest of some persons. Incident was so alarming that the Human Right Commission and Commission for Children have also taken cognizance and they sent their representative to Hazaribagh district of that area,” the court order reads.
The court wondered that even if the charge sheet was not submitted within 90 days “the committee of higher officials of the police has not reviewed the matter that is questionable.”
The court has also made some serious observations over the growing menace of mob lynching. The court also cited the chain of post-poll violence in Bengal where workers of an opposition party were murdered and the court ordered a CBI probe for a fair investigation.
This order was passed by the single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi while hearing a criminal writ petition 110/22 filed by the mother of the deceased Urmila Devi.
The minor Rupesh Pandey was lynched to death on February 2 this year at Dulmaha village under Barhi police station of Hazaribagh district where he had gone to attend the immersion procession of Goddess Saraswati.
Police filed the charge sheet against only five persons
The court pointed out that the police filed a charge sheet against only five persons wherein there are 27 named accused persons. The state remained evasive in explaining to the court about the steps taken to complete the investigation at the earliest. Besides, the court also doubted the genuineness of the counter FIR filed by member of the opposite Muslim community. It was filed two days after Rupesh Pandey was lynched.
“In such a case which has taken place by way of mob lynching what step his senior police officers have taken to conclude the investigation at the earliest, has not been disclosed in the counter-affidavit. When the incident took place on February 6, 22 and the entire police administration , as well as the district administration, swung into action why the case for arson has been made by another community, has not been registered on the same day raising eyebrows on the police and on the complaint by another community another F.I.R. was registered on February 8,” the court observed.
State tried to justify the ongoing investigation in the right direction while it was not
The court stated that the family of the deceased met Chief Minister Hemant Soren and demanded a CBI enquiry. Referring to a counter-affidavit filed by the state government, the court said that the state tried to justify that investigation went on in the right direction.
“Paragraph 59 of the counter-affidavit, who has sworn the affidavit has stated therein that investigating agency to proceed in its own manner in the interrogation of the accused and that in course of investigation to be adopted in a particular case should be left to the discretion and wisdom of the investigating agency. The question remains that if such statement is being made on affidavit by the Investigating Officer before the Court which suggests that the Investigating Officer has to say that inquiry should be left to the discretion of the said I.O. which is negated by the Court in view judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidhartha Vashisht & Manu Sharma,” the court stated.
Stating that something is being hidden by the police, the court said that if the constitutional courts come to a conclusion that a particular case is required to be handed over to the specialized agency, it has got the power to do so.
The court conceded that CBI is overburdened and the court should not hand over the case to the CBI frequently. And it must be in the exercise of exceptional circumstances where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enforcing fundamental rights.
Court refers to the case of Bengal violence
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi in the order observed that West Bengal had an identical situation where there was a hue and cry when workers of a political party was murdered. There was a similar situation when the state police was not trusted by the family of victims.
It became a subject matter before the Supreme Court in the case of ‘State of West Bengal & Others Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others.’ SC held that “the political party and higher-ups of the State are involved to make the public at large in the investigation agency it is necessary to hand over the charge of the case to the specialized agency.
Mob lynching is the worst form of crime
The court has referred to the Supreme Court judgment in ‘Kodungallur Film Society and others Vs. Union of India & Others’ and Tehseen S. Poonawalla Vs. Union of India about remedial and punitive measures to be taken in the case of mob violence.
The court stated that mob violence and crime by self-appointed keepers of public morality terrorize common people without legal sanction and cause loss of life and destruction of property.
