The proceedings had been initiated against Shahdeo based on a FIR. Shahdeo had been booked under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement), 323 (voluntary causing hurt), 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal code (IPC) and 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It had also been alleged that Shahdeo had forcibly took away the car keys from his driver Mantu Kumar, locked the vehicle, and physically assaulted Kumar, causing injuries. 

Facts of the case:

In January, the complainant (driver) started working with Shahdeo. The complainant provided that even small mistakes Shahdeo used to abuse him with caste indicative words. In February, the complainant provided that during one drive, Shahdeo took the car keys and locked the car and in the car abused and assaulted the complainant. The complainant got scared and continuously apologised but Shahdeo kept assaulting him. Due to the impact of the assault, the watch worn by the complainant on his left wrist broke, causing a bleeding injury on Shahdeo’s hand. Shahdeo then wiped his blood on complainant’s clothes and threatened that he would take the complainant to police station and send him to jail.

Arguments raised:

Senior advocate Ajit Kumar, representing Shahdeo, argued that the impugned FIR was filed with malicious intent and that the incident took place inside a car, away from public view, which raised questions on the basis for the registration of the case under SC/ST Act.

On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar, counsel for the State, submitted that since the investigation is going on and the witnesses have supported the case, the court should not interfere at this stage as only F.I.R. is under challenge. The same argument was also raised by the counsel for the complainant.

Decision of the Court:

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that the material presented in the said case lacked elements essential to prove an offence committed under the SC/ST Act. The bench added there was no averment in the complaint to the effect that Shahdeo did not belong to the caste of the complainant. “The ingredient of SC/ST Act is absent,” the bench held. (Para 13)

It is crucial to note here that one of the controversial requirements for prosecution of offences under SC/ST Act is that the accused must not be a member of the SC/ST community and must be shown to have committed the offence with the knowledge about victim’s caste/ community.

The bench also remarked that the Magistrate sent the matter for investigation and institution of FIR under Section 156(3) of CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) without application of judicial mind.

“This is not a separate order for registration of said F.I.R. There is no doubt that the learned courts are overloaded with the court work. There is no harm of passing such order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and that is option available to the learned court. However, in exercising of said power under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., judicial mind is required to be applied which is lacking in the case in hand. There is no separate order under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,” Justice Dwivedi noted while quashing the criminal proceedings against Shahdeo. (Para 13)

The complete order can be read here:

Related:

Caste Census Survey Result: 63% OBCs, 19% SCs and 1.68% STs constitute Bihar’s total population

CJP moves NCSC against rising anti-Dalit incidents since July, provides detailed reports on 11 incidents

While Modi plays the OBC card, backward castes & Adivasis remain excluded from Central University

The Whys behind a caste-based census point to an urgent imperative

Another student, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, dies by suicide in IIT

The post Jharkhand HC: Case against BJP leader for abusing driver under SC/ST Act quashed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court presided by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi recently ordered that compensation be paid in a matter related to a case of alleged illegal detention. However, the court did not order any inquiry into allegations of custodial abuse, despite the fact that no First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the victim.

In its judgment dated March 24, 2022, the court awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- only for illegal detention, not making any decision about custodial death while relying upon the inquiry report made by a three-member Committee.

The matter pertains to the alleged illegal detention and custodial torture of one Pradeep Kumar, and upon his death, his widow Jaswa Devi filed a Criminal WritPetitionseeking directions from the court to register an FIR relating to custodial death. She also prayed for compensation of Rs. 20 Lakhs.

Facts of the case

On March 13, 2017 at around 1:00 P.M, Pradeep Chaudhary along with some villagers went to KalluChok to play Holi. Someone from the crowd put Abir (Gulal) on one of the constables of Satgawan Police Station, as a result of which the constable became furious and called other police personnel from the Satgawan Police Station.

As the villagers saw the Chowkidar getting furious, they all ran away, but unfortunately Pradeep Chaudhary got caught by the Police and was badly beaten up. He was then taken to the Police Station and was allegedly detained illegallyfor almost 16 hours. He was allegedly beaten brutally  and tortured by the police, as a result of which he died.However, no case was registered against Chaudhary nor was he a suspect in any case.

Petitioner, Jaswa Devi, widow of Pradeep Chaudhary, registered an FIR regarding the death of deceased in the Koderma Police Station on March 15, 2022, which was recorded by Inspector cum Officer in charge of Koderma Police Station. The FIR was registered in presence of family members and well-wishers of the Petitioner. Consequently, a Criminal Writ Petition was filed in the High Court of Jharkhand on July 17, 2017 which was taken up for its first hearing on January 19, 2018.

State’s submissions

As submitted by the Learned Counsel representing the State, the deceased, Pradeep Chaudhary died in hospital and not under Police Custody. He further brought the Court’s attention to the Order of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, which directed the Magistrate to hold an enquiry in the matter. He further referred to the joint enquiry report (three-member Committee report) filed after the Magistrate’s enquiry, in which it was proved that the deceased Pradeep Chaudhary was subjected to police torture, but shockingly it could not be proved, that he died because of police torture.

The Learned Counsel of the State also brought to the Court’s attention that a departmental enquiry has been initiated against one of the officers, as per which it was recommended that he be punished with a deduction of 5% from his pension for two years.

High Court Judgment

The Jharkhand High Court presided by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi on March 24, 2022 passed a Judgment in the Criminal Writ Petition Filed by JaswaDevi(Jaswa Devi V/s. State of Jharkhand &Ors.). The High Court observed that the deceased was wrongfully deprived of the right of personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India, by the police officer for around 16 hours from March 13 to March 14, 2017 and also held that the death of the deceased was not proven in the committee report as custodial death.

The High Court in its Judgment dated March 24, 2022 awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Petitioner which has to be paid in 4 weeks by the State of Jharkhand. The Court also said that the Petitioner by this Judgment is not precluded from pursuing the civil as well as criminal remedy, available to her in law in respect of wrongful confinement of the deceased.

The High Court Order may be read here:

Recent Custodial deaths

Among cases of recent custodial deaths is the shocking case of 22-year-old Altaf, in Uttar Pradesh’s Kasganjwho was found strangled in a police station toilet. Images of his dead body went viral and it was learnt that he had been detained in connection with the disappearance of a minor girl from a Hindu family. Following the incident, five policemen were suspended from the Kotwali Police Station in Kasganj. They had claimed that Altaf had hangedhimself with a drawstring from the hood of his jacket, using a water pipe in a toilet, however the pipe as was evident in the now viral images, was just a couple of feet from the ground.

In June last year, both P. Jeyaraj (58) and his son Bennix (38), were arrested for allegedly violating Covid-19 lockdown rules by keeping their store open past the allowed hours in Tamil Nadu. Two days later, they died due to alleged police brutality. The growing outrage across the country over their deaths put a massive spotlight on custodial deaths, reviving demands for police accountability.

In September, the Allahabad High Court transferred the probe of the custodial death of a 24-year-old man Krishna Yadav in Jaunpur to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). A Special Operations Group team of the police and the Station House Officer (SHO) of Baksa had in February gone to Yadav’s house and allegedly taken him away to the police station for detention in relation to a loot case. While the family accused the police of murder, the police said that Yadav was apprehended while he was driving a motorcycle, and he fell and got injured. He was sent to hospital for treatment but was declared dead.

Shahbuddin, Ziyauddin’s brother, alleged that on March 24 the latter left home to go to a relative’s place but, on the way, members of a police team picked him up and tortured him, causing his death. Ziyauddin was “beaten to death,” alleged Shahbuddin in his police complaint, accusing the police team of murder. Police had said that during questioning, Ziyauddin complained of feeling unwell and was admitted to the district hospital where he died.

“In the last two decades, 1,888 custodial deaths have been reported across India, with 893 cases registered against police personnel a mere 358 police officers and justice officials were formally accused. Just 26 policemen were convicted in this period, official records show,” reported Deutsche Welleon November 11, 2021.

In August 2021, the Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, while expressing concerns about human rights violations in police stations which are leading to custodial deaths said, “Lack of effective legal representation at the police stations is a huge detriment to arrested or detained persons.” 

Custodial Death and Laws

Under Indian Penal Code there are indirect provisions for Custodial torture and wrongful detentions which are not sufficient to end the police brutality and the abuse of power attempted by them in numerous instances.

Constitution of India

Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Provision under Indian Penal Code

For custodial torture

Section 166: “Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person.—Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”

For wrongful detention

Section 340: “Wrongful confinement.—Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.”

Section 342: “Punishment for wrongful confinement.—Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

Provisions under Code of Criminal Procedure

Section 76: “Person arrested to be brought before Court without delay.—The police officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall (subject to the provisions of section 71 as to security) without unnecessary delay bring the person arrested before the Court before which he is required by law to produce such person: Provided that such delay shall not, in any case, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court”

International Conventions

Even though Indian laws are not upto the mark with respect to custodial torture and wrongful detention, International UN Conventions are made to control these kinds of illegal activities by Public Servants who are meant to protect the public from any wrongful activities taking place.

International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance – adopted on December 18, 1992.

Article 1

1. No one shall be subjected to enforced disappearance.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for enforced disappearance.

Article 2

For the purposes of this Convention, “enforced disappearance” is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – adopted on March 23, 1976

Article 9

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.

3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable tine or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.

4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – Adopted on December 10, 1984.

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Related:

Preventive Detention: Two judgements, two contrasting views, one judge
Why has India still not ratified UN Convention against torture?
Protecting and Promoting Minority Rights in India’s Criminal Justice System: Need for a Special Law

The post Jharkhand HC awards compensation for illegal detention, but not custodial death appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Jharkhand High Court has reminded the state of the paucity of oxygen beds in the country and asked why a 2017 order for creating a 500-bed facility with 5,000MT oxygen plant has not yet been complied with. The bench of Chief Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad was hearing a contempt case for non-compliance of the court’s order of 2017 which had directed construction of the 500 bed facility within one year.

In 2017 a Co-ordinate Division Bench of the High Court had passed an order directing the state to complete construction of a 500-bed facility at Sadar Hospital by December 2018 for access to health for the marginalised as well as Adivasi population. The Additional Chief Secretary, in-charge of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department was directed to monitor the same and the Finance Department was directed to release funds accordingly.

In March 2020, the court had asked the Chief Secretary to explain the delay and in September 2020 the court had sought an affidavit on whether the beds had been operational. The Chief Secretary stated that December 2020 was fixed as the deadline. After this contempt case was filed, the Chief Secretary was directed to take up the matter seriously considering the surge in the pandemic Covid-19 and non-availability of the oxygen beds. The government informed the court that it has taken action against the contractor who did not complete the work on time with respect to future tenders.

The counsel for the contractor submitted that a deadline for June 30 had now been set and submitted that sincere endeavour would be taken by the contractor to complete the remaining work, more particularly, pertaining to installation of a liquid oxygen plant of the capacity of 5,000 MT.

The state informed the court that 240 beds in the hospital were made operational supported through oxygen cylinders. “Across the country the people are dying due to paucity of oxygen,” the court remarked. The court was informed that 81% of the work was done after 142.47 crores was paid to the contractor, out of the decided amount of 179.21 crores, except for the oxygen plant installation. The court also took stock of the situation on ground by interacting with the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi by virtual mode who told the court that all infrastructure was put in place including the pipeline for oxygen but the plant was not installed.

“The question herein is that when the purpose of allotment of work making 500 beds in Sadar Hospital fully operational is to extend benefit to the poorer section of the society for which the Government has planned to install beds supported with oxygen to be supplied through oxygen plant but due to its non-completion the purpose of the project has not yet been achieved,” said the court.

The court further pointed out that if the oxygen plant is made operational, the oxygen cylinders currently in use can be used elsewhere, wherever need arises.

The court questioned the state that if such a situation has arisen where 17,000 cylinders were being requisitioned by the state then why has the work for installation of liquid oxygen plant has not yet been completed?

While the court remarked that the officer are in contempt of the court for non-compliance of the 2017 order, the court granted time to the contractor to give the details of the efforts taken and the earliest possible time to complete the work and asked the state to apprise the court whether HEC Plant Hospital can be used for creating oxygen supported beds.

“We make it clear that if anybody is coming in the way of compliance of the Court’s order, such person will also be liable to be proceeded under Contempt of Courts Act For deliberately creating obstruction in compliance of the order passed by this Court and in such circumstances, an appropriate proceeding will also be initiated against the person concerned,” the court stated.

The matter will next be heard on May 5.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Show cause why contempt action should not be taken for failing to supply oxygen to Delhi: HC slams Centre

Vaccine policy detrimental to right to health; SC asks Centre to revise

Covid-19: Delhi HC seeks info on government’s preparations to tackle fresh surge

The post Jharkhand HC question state on 4-year delay in construction of 500-bed facility, warns of contempt appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) President, Lalu Prasad Yadav has been granted bail in the Dumka treasury case where he was convicted for withdrawing Rs. 3.13 crore from the treasury in Dumka city in Jharkhand, formerly in Bihar. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal with Advocate Adit S Pujari represented Yadav.

As per an IE report, the High Court had rejected Lalu’s bail plea in the Dumka treasury case in February this year and had said that he has to serve two more months in jail to complete half of the tenure of his total sentence. After reapplying for bail, he was granted relief today.

Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh of the Jharkhand High Court directed him to neither leave the country without permission nor change his address and mobile number during the bail period, according to a LiveLaw report.

Central Bureau of Investigation’s counsel and assistant solicitor general Rajiv Sinha told The HT, “The bench of justice Aparesh Kumar Singh granted bail to Prasad on the condition that he would furnish two sureties of Rs.1 lakh each and Rs.10 lakh fine amount before the court below.”

As per media reports, Yadav had already secured bail in the Chaibasa Treasury Scam case and the Deogarh Treasury Scam case last year. The Chaibasa treasury scam case involved fraudulent withdrawals amounting to Rs 33.67 crore from the Chaibasa treasury, whereas the Deogarh scam involved embezzlement of Rs. 84.5 lakh in the 1990’s.

Yadav has been serving his sentence since December 2017 and was airlifted to AIIMS in the National Capital in January this year, after his health condition deteriorated while undergoing treatment at a hospital in Ranchi.

The veteran politician, as per a Bar and Bench report, was sentenced to a total imprisonment of fourteen years after being convicted in the fodder scam for offences of conspiracy, cheating, forgery, falsification of accounts under the Indian Penal Code and relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

He was convicted in cases pertaining to the fodder scam- two related to the Chaibasa Treasury, one related to the Deogarh Treasury and another related to the Dumka Treasury. The trial in the Doranda Treasury case is still ongoing.

Related:

Fodder scam: Lalu Prasad Yadav gets bail in Chaibasa Treasury case
Bihar elections: No ticket for ‘dabang’ Ex-DGP ‘Robinhood’ Pandeyji

The post Jharkhand HC grants bail to Lalu Prasad Yadav in fodder scam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Jharkhand High Court has expressed its dissatisfaction towards the inadequate medical facilities in Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi. It took note of the shortage of CT scan machines amid rising Covid infections and said, “non-availability of CT scan machines in an institute like RIMS is a matter of serious concern.”

Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad sought the Principal Secretary’s, (Health and Family Welfare Department) response to apprise the Court about purchasing sufficient CT scan machines. It also asked the Deputy Commissioner and Ranchi Municipal Corporation to inform the Court about the various means by which the electric crematorium constructed near Subarnarekha River can be made operational.

Observing that the State is heading towards a ‘health emergency’, the court said, “This Court vide order dated 12.04.2021 has shown its concern about the issue like non-availability of CT scan machine in RIMS. It is the sole premier institute in the State of Jharkhand and as such, in the Pandemic Covid-19, non-availability of CT scan machine in an institute like RIMS is a matter of serious concern. Due to the surge in Corona pandemic, the State is heading towards a health emergency. Sick people have been compelled to move in anticipation that the officials’ machinery will cater their needs but all in vain as there is shortage of testing facilities, beds and medical infrastructure to deal with the situation.”

The court has previously highlighted the importance of adequate medical facilities amid surging numbers in Jharkhand. On April 8, the court had said, “The State authorities must keep in mind that Corona pandemic is at surge and the CT Scan Machine is a primary diagnostic apparatus/ equipment which is required for proper investigation as to whether Corona infection has reached the lungs or not. It goes without saying that whenever Corona comes down the lungs, the situation becomes grave and the life of a patient becomes at stake.”

State’s response

The Secretary (Health Department) had already informed the court that a proposal has been placed before the Cabinet Coordination Committee for post facto approval of purchase of CT scan machines. On this issue, the court has now directed the Secretary to update it on the said purchase by the next date of hearing.

“The matter is at the advance stage before the Coordination Committee for taking post-facto approval of the Committee and he is expecting an early decision on this, so that the purchase of CT scan machine will be expedited on priority basis,” recorded the order.

The Ranchi Municipal Corporation had earlier submitted before the court that the electronic crematorium is overburdened and hence not in a working condition. The electric crematorium at Ghagra Ghat (near Subarnarekha river) has never been handed over to the RMC by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority, as per the State’s response. The High Court has now sought a solution from the government to make the crematorium functional by way of an affidavit.  

According to The Telegraph, Jharkhand has recorded its highest ever single day fatalities (59) and 3,843 fresh positive cases in the past 24 hours. The total active cases in the state stand at 23,045 and going by the speed of infections, the state government is anticipating a further spike of at least 12,000 by the end of this month.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Gujarat HC directs State to be honest about Covid data
Bombay HC takes suo motu cognisance of Covid surge in prisons
SC judges to work from home after half the court’s staff tests Covid positive
Dalit trailblazer, Vira Sathidar succumbs to Covid-19

The post State is heading towards a health emergency: Jharkhand HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Appalled at the callous attitude of MGM Hospital, Jamshedpur, the Jharkhand High Court took suo motu cognisance of an e-mail sent by an Advocate, complaining about the negligent attitude adopted by the Hospital in treating a burn patient.

The email complained about “the negligent attitude adopted by the MGM Hospital, Jamshedpur as it is alleged that she was left half-naked and without any proper medical facilities.”

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad noted that the email had a “disturbing revelation that a lady, who is a resident of Jamshedpur, was perhaps subjected to torture and was put on fire as a result of which she got more than 90% burn injury. Some unknown person brought her to the door of the management of MGM Hospital and then he disappeared.”

When the matter was taken up on February 18, the court was informed that the woman succumbed to her injuries. Mr. Anup Agarwal, the Advocate who sent the email, had further apprised the court that the victim was not even kept in the burn ward but was simply kept on a bed. He also displayed some photographs of the lady and in one photograph, the court observed that she was sitting on the floor besides the bed.

Agarwal argued that since she was not immediately shifted to the burn unit, she died. The Additional Advocate General submitted before the court that the woman was kept in the Emergency ward since the burn ward of MGM hospital had the capacity of 20 beds and at the time of the incident, it already had 24 patients.

To this, the Bench reportedly said, “The aforesaid sort of explanation, apart from being amazing, requires to be rejected at the outset. It also shows that the MGM authorities do not have any element of compassion. They are not able to take a decision as to who should be treated first in certain circumstances and they are utilizing dilly-dallying tactics in the treatment. However, this is our prima facie observation as we are not at all satisfied with the information given by the MGM Hospital to the learned Addl. Advocate General”.

The High Court also remarked that this untoward and unfortunate incident has given rise to several questions regarding the attitude of the management of the Hospital, the facilities which are to be provided either by the State or by any competent authority to such Hospitals. The Bench added, “… it also shows lack of training to the concerned doctors and staff in dealing with the situation as in no case a lady with 90% burn injury can be kept like that which is revealed from the photographs sent by Mr. Agarwal”.

The Bench said that the State needs to answer an important question pertaining to informing the Police about a 90% burn injury and whether “immediately” the police lodged the First Information Report.

The court directed the Member Secretary, JHALSA (Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority) to make an enquiry in this matter and submit a report to it within a period of one week. It also asked the State to file a counter affidavit answering the issues.

The Bench also directed the Hospital Management and the State Authorities to fully cooperate with the Member Secretary, JHALSA during the inquiry and the entire expenditure would have to be incurred by the State Authority.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Dalit Activist Succumbs to Burn Injuries, Widespread Protests: Gujarat

Where are the Hospital Beds?

Two pregnant women die after being denied proper medical care

The post Jharkhand HC takes suo motu cognisance of burn victim’s death appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Ananda Sen of the Jharkhand High Court lambasted the Jharkhand Police for not investigating with utmost responsibility the heinous incident of a 15-year-old girl’s gruesome murder. The Court has directed M V Rao, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, to immediately constitute a SIT to investigate this case of Shankar Paswan v The State of Jharkhand and Ors. Mr. Arvind Kumar represented the Petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General argued for the State.

Brief background of the case

According to an FIR filed on March 31, 2020 filed by one Shankar Paswan, the accused had poured kerosene oil on the girl, a resident of Giridih, and set her on fire. Her father said that the family had caught hold of the accused when he was trying to escape by removing the tiles of the roof of the house, but his relatives came to his rescue. Justice Ananda Sen noted that although there was no delay in lodging an FIR, the investigation lacked consistency and expressed his surprise at the “very casual manner” in which the Investigating Officer decided to proceed with the case.

“The way the investigation proceeded is absolutely unsatisfactory. No seriousness is shown by the Investigating Officer nor even by the supervising authority in this case. The urgency is absolutely lacking. This court cannot keep its eyes shut and ignore this type of lackluster and shoddy investigation. Seriousness and urgency ought to have been shown by the investigating authorities. They have miserably failed as there is no substantial progress in the investigation even after lapse of six months”, he commented sternly.

The Single-judge Bench countered the honour killing narrative presented by the Investigating authorities by saying that, “This court is not going into all these aspects. The fact remains that a young girl of 15 years was brutally burnt to death, be it by the accused named in the FIR or anyone else. Even if the theory of the State is accepted that this can be a case of honour killing then also the same is more heinous. This heinous incident needs immediate and proper investigation to bring to light the correct fact and to book the real accused persons.”

The Court also pulled up the State Police for a more than 14-day delay in collecting forensic evidence. The order notes that, “It is worthwhile to mention here that Doctor opined that the vaginal swab should be sent to FSL, Ranchi for examination. The next date of activity of the Investigating Officer is 5th May 2020, which is more than 14 days. On that day he obtains permission from the court to send the swab to the FSL. On next day, i.e. 6th May 2020, the I.O. obtains a letter from the hospital to send the swab to the laboratory. Surprisingly rather shockingly the swab was sent to the laboratory only on 20th May 2020 i.e. after 14 days. In the entire case diary, there is no explanation about the delay caused. This is how an investigation is going on of a most heinous crime.”

On being informed that the accused is still roaming scot free, the Court remarked that, “Surprisingly enough I don’t find anything to suggest that the police have ever made an attempt to arrest the named accused persons.”

Taking cognisance of the heinousness of the crime and irresponsibility of the State Police, the Court directed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to be set up with senior officers leading the investigation. The Single-judge Bench ordered that, “Since from the case diary I find that the investigation has not been done in a proper manner and no urgency or seriousness is shown by the present investigator, I think this is a fit case where a SPECIAL INVESTIGATING TEAM (SIT) be constituted.” This team was given the discretion to make justified arrests and prevent witnesses from getting hostile, as directed by the Court.

A similar case of alleged gang rape and murder conspired on September 14, 2020 with a young Dalit girl in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh. This led to the Allahabad High Court taking Suo Moto cognisance of the atrocity on October 1, 2020 to ascertain the facts of the case and alleged botched up investigation by the Uttar Pradesh Police.   

The order may be read here:

Related:

Do the dead have rights in India?

Hathras rape case of caste supremacist atrocity

It has shocked our conscience: Allahabad HC takes cognisance of Hathras incident

The post Jharkhand HC pulls up police for shoddy investigation in Giridih rape and murder case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay observed that slack investigation by the state agencies has been eroding the people’s faith in the system

 

The post Jharkhand HC orders CBI probe in Bakoria fake encounter appeared first on SabrangIndia.