Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of
Police, Delhi [1983] INSC 65 (6 May 1983)
PATHAK, R.S.
PATHAK, R.S.
BHAGWATI, P.N.
CITATION: 1983 AIR 826 1983 SCR (3) 109 1983
SCC (3) 344 1983 SCALE (1)611
CITATOR INFO :
E 1985 SC 195 (5,24)
ACT:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act II of
1974), Section 174-Police enquiry, investigation and report on receipt of
information that a person has committed suicide and inquest by the
Magistrate-Court's power to examine, before the commencement of a trial,
whether the police authorities conducted themselves as law and justice required
of them, as a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution- Probative value of
investigation by the Police, including recovery of material objects to connect
the crime, recording of statements of all important witnesses etc. etc.
explained, and suggestions for extension of Coroners'
Act, 1871 to all States made-Constitution of India, Article 32, Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 173(2),174 & 175.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner Bhagwant Singh a member of the
Indian Revenue Service applied to the Court for intervention and necessary
relief in the matter of the death of his married daughter Gurinder Kaur
alleging that due to several circumstances he was convinced that his daughter
was murdered in the house of her parents-in-law by burning her and that the
police investigation was improper and irregular and ineffective.
According to the petitioner: (i) that he and
his daughter were opposed to the evils of the dowry system and therefore, with
a stipulation that no dowry should be demanded at the time of the marriage he
gave his daughter to one Amarjit Singh, son of his colleague Kartar Singh
Sawhney and a friend for over thirty years; (ii) that after the marriage his
daughter came to be ill-treated by her mother- in-law hinting that gifts and
jewellery were expected from her parents and such oppressive tensions at home
resulted in the mis-carriage of a child, from which time onwards the
mother-in-law taunted her saying that unless she observed the family tradition
of presenting a necklace to her mother- in-law she would remain without a
child; (iii) that sometime later, the son-in-law got it conveyed to Bhagwant
Singh that he required Rs. 50,000 for financing his business which was not
acceded to; (iv) that on August 9, 1980 i.e. ten months after the marriage his
daughter was found dead of third degree burns from a kerosene fire in the bath
room and was admitted in the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital by her father-in- law
at 12.15 P.M.; (v) that the police did not get the statement of his daughter
recorded though she was able to speak; (vi) that the police added section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act to the charge on November 29, 1980 and only on May
15, 1981 a reference to section 306 IPC was included in the F.I.R.; and (vii)
that the police failed to examine material witnesses and recover material
objects and proceeded in a leisurely manner.
110 The Court admitted the writ petition and
called for full details from the Inspector General of Police about the
investigation of the case and the circumstances leading to the non-filing of
the report under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Disposing of the Writ Petition and directing
the C.B.I.
to complete the investigation within three
months, the Court
HELD: 1:1 Disappointing as it may seem to
those who have desired the institution of criminal action on the basis that a
crime has been committed, the material on record does not, however, justify an
order to that effect by the Supreme Court. The investigation of the case now
stands transferred to the C.B.I. at the instance of the petitioner. [123 E-F] 1:2.
It is not possible, in this case, nor indeed would it be right for the Court to
do so, to enter into the question whether Gurinder Kaur committed suicide or
was murdered. That is a matter which is properly involved in the trial of a
criminal charge by a court possessing jurisdiction. [114 G-H] 2:1. The police
did not display the promptitude and efficiency which the investigation of the
case required.
There is much that calls for comment. Though
the CD entry made on August 9, 1980 indicates the visit of a sub- inspector to
the place of occurrence and seizure of several things, the blanket with which
the fire is said to have been put out has not been seized. On the next day when
the experts from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory visited the place for
getting any chance prints, the mirror was not taken possession of, nor was the
report obtained for full five weeks. In cases such as this, it would have been
of the essence that on visiting the place of occurrence immediately on
information of the incident, the mirror should have been taken into possession
by the police and handed over forthwith to the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory experts for an urgent report in regard to the existence and
identification of the prints. Delay in such a matter is vital and can often
result in the loss of valuable clues.
Since Ramu the servant was reported to have
helped in forcing open the door of the bathroom, he was a material witness for
deposing whether the bathroom was latched from inside and had to be forced open
or was in fact latched from outside. It was only as late as January 25,1981,
according to entry CD 13 of that date, that Ramu was examined by the Station
House Officer. Strangely he was allowed to leave the town and go to his village
before he could be fully examined by the police. There is no evidence that the
police expressed any anxiety to put him through a thorough examination
immediately or shortly after the date of the occurrence or at least before Shri
Kartar Singh's family allowed Ramu to leave the town for his village. The fact
that the investigation by the Delhi Police does not inspire confidence is clear
from the memorandum dated May 12, 1981 issued by the Crime Branch to the Deputy
Commissioner of Police to the effect that the statement of several material
witnesses had not been recorded.
[118 B-H, 119 A-B, 120 B] 2:2 The
investigation by the police following the occurrence was desultory and
lackadaisical, and showed want of appreciation of the emergent need 111 to get
at the truth of the case. Whatever may be the reason, there is no doubt that
the investigation of the case suffered from casualness, lack of incisiveness
and unreasonable dilatoriness, and this is demonstrated most effectively by the
manner in which the case was passed from one police official to another, being
entrusted successively to sub-Inspectors and Inspectors each of whom already
had his hands full with the investigation of several other cases. There is the
admission that these police officers were not only preoccupied with numerous
other cases in their hands but they were officers who were also required to
look after the day to day work of the police station. It was only when on the
repeated and insistent petitions of Shri Bhagwant Singh the case passed into
the control of the Crime Branch that the investigation showed some signs of
speeding up. Secondly, the haphazard maintenance of a police case diary not
only does no credit to those responsible for maintaining it but defeats the
very purpose for which it is required to be maintained. It is of the utmost
importance that the entries in a police Case Diary should be made with
promptness, in sufficient detail, mentioning all significant facts, in careful
chronological order and with complete objectivity. [120 E-H, 121 A.B]
2.3 In a case such as this, the death of a
young wife must be attributed either to the commission of a crime or to the
fact that. mentally tortured by the suffocating circumstances surrounding her,
she committed suicide. Young woman of education, intelligence and character do
not set fire to themselves unless provoked and compelled to that desperate step
by the intolerance of their misery. Such cases evidence a deep-seated malady in
our social order. The greed for dowry, and indeed the dowry system as an institution,
calls for the severest condemnation lt is evident that legislative measures
such as the Dowry Prohibition Act have not met with the success for which they
were designed. Perhaps, legislation in itself cannot succeed in stamping out
such an evil, and the solution must ultimately be found in the conscience and
will or the social community and in its active expression through legal and
constitution methods. [121 C-E]
3. The Court suggested the following- (i)
Where the death in such cases is due to a crime, the perpetrators of the crime
not infrequently escape from the nemesis of the law because of inadequate
police investigation. It would be of considerable assistance if an
appropriately high priority was given to the expeditious investigation of such
cases, if a special magisterial machinery was created for the purpose of the
prompt investigation of such incidents, and efficient investigative techniques
and procedures were adopted taking into account the peculiar features of such
cases;
[121 F-G] (ii) A female police officer of
sufficient rank and status in the police force should be associated with the
investigation from its very inception. There are evident advantages in that. In
a case where a wife dies in suspicious circumstances in her husband's home its
invariably a matter of considerable difficult to ascertain the precise
circumstances in which the incident occurred. As the incident takes place in
the home of the husband the material witnesses are 112 usually the husband and
his parents or other relations of the husband staying with him. Whether it was
cooking at the kitchen stove which was responsible for the accident or,
according to the inmates of the house, there was an inexplicable urge to
suicide or whether indeed the young wife was the victim of a planned murder are
matters closely involving the intimate knowledge of a woman's daily existence.
[121 H, 122 A-B] If the incident is the result of a crime by the husband or his
family, the problem of ascertaining the truth is burdened by the privacy in
which the incident occurred. In the circumstances where it is possible to
record the dying declaration of the victim, it would be more conducive to
securing the truth if the victim made the declaration in the presence of a
female police officer who can be expected to inspire confidence in the victim.
Psychological factors play their part, and their role cannot be ignored. A
young wife can be the subject of varying psychological pressures, and because
that is so the nuances of feminine psychology support the need for including a
female police officer as part of the investigating force; and [122 C-E] (iii)
The need to extend the application of the Coroners' Act, 1871 to other cities besides
those where it operates already. The application of the Coroners' Act will make
possible an immediate inquiry into the death of the victim, whether it has been
caused by accident, homicide, suicide or suddenly by means unknown. lt contains
provisions which are entirely salutary for the purpose of such inquiry, and an
inquiry under that enactment would be more meaningful and effective and
complete than one under ss. 174 and 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
procedure contemplated by the Coroners' Act, ensures that the inquiry into the
death is held by a person of independent standing and enjoying judicial powers,
with a status and jurisdiction commensurate with the necessities of such cases
and the assistance of an appropriate machinery. [122 F-H, 123 B-C]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 6607
of 1981.
Kapil Sibal (A.C.) for the Petitioner.
N.C. Talukdar and R.N. Poddar with him for
the Respondent.
Miss A. Subhashini for CBI.
Daniel Latiffi and N.K Agarwal with him for
the Intervener.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATHAK, J. The petitioner, Shri Bhagwant Singh, has applied to this Court for
relief in the matter of the death of his married daughter, Gurinder Kaur.
113 Shri Bhagwant Singh is a member of the
Indian Revenue Service. His daughter, Gurinder Kaur, was one of three children.
She was an intelligent and talented girl who secured a first division in the
Senior Cambridge Examination and had obtained a B. Sc. (Home Science) Degree
from Lady Irwin College. She was endowed with good looks and a pleasing
personality, and her education and deportment attracted notice. It is apparent
that the father was proud of his daughter.
Shri Bhagwant Singh and Shri Kartar Singh
Sawhney were colleagues in the office. They had been friends for over thirty
years. Shri Kartar Singh has a son, Amarjit Singh.
The family lived at J-7/93, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi. The son ran a motor parts shop at Kashmere Gate, Delhi. It appears
that the two colleagues decided on a marriage between Gurinder Kaur and Amarjit
Singh in view of the close association of the two families.
From the very beginning, it seems, Shri
Bhagwant Singh was opposed to the evils of the dowry system, and the sentiment
was also deeply entrenched in Gurinder Kaur for, it appears, she along with
other girls of her college signed a pledge in favour of the "anti-dowry
movement". According.
to Shri Bhagwant Singh, there was an express
stipulation between the respective parents that no dowry would be demanded in
the marriage. The marriage started off well and the young couple enjoyed a
harmonious relationship for the first few months. But very soon, it is alleged,
Gurinder Kaur became conscious of broad hints from her mother-in-law that gifts
in the shape of money and jewellery were expected from her parents. Shri
Bhagwant Singh, on being formed of this, decided to ignore it, firm in his
conviction that any insidious attempt to extract a dowry should not be
countenanced. It is alleged that from this point Gurinder Kaur became the
victim of constant ill-treatment by her mother-in-law. She was carrying a baby,
but amidst the oppressive tensions at home she suffered a miscarriage and was
admitted to a Nursing Home.
According to Shri Bhagwant Singh, his
daughter continued to be ill-treated and was often taunted that unless the
observed the family tradition of presenting a necklace to her mother-in-law she
would remain without child. It is said that the pressure on Gurinder Kaur
continued unabated, and it was not long before her husband got it conveyed to
Shri Bhagwant Singh that he required about 114 Rs. 50,000 for financing his
business. As Shri Bhagwant Singh remained firm in his resolve not to yield to
these pressures, it is alleged that the girl continued to be harassed and her
parents-in-law made it plain to her that they regretted the marriage. The
attitude and relations of her husband and his family towards her went from bad
to worse, and the regard which ordinarily a bride in the house can expect to
receive was replaced by a continuing scorn and contempt and ill-will. It must
be recalled that Gurinder Kaur was a girl of good family, of refined character
and well educated. Brought up in a home where the dowry system was regarded as
an evil to be opposed, it can be presumed that she rebelled strongly against
the attempts at extortion directed against her father. It is reasonable to
assume that the relations between the young husband and wife were vitiated by
bitter discord, and that she lived in the home in an atmosphere of open and
continuous hostility.
On August 9, 1980, ten months after the
marriage, Gurinder Kaur, aged 22 years was found dead of third degree burns
from a kerosene fire in the bath room. According to the family of Kartar Singh,
all the members of the family had proceeded to the Gurudwara Bangla Sahib in
the early morning, and on their return the girl had prepared breakfast for the
eight members of the family. She and her husband ate breakfast later and, it is
said, the husband left for work about 10. 30 A.M. Within an hour thereafter,
the girl was found dead in the bathroom. The tragedy occasioned universal
distress, and on the versions put out by the newspapers agitated letters
condemning the dowry system and calling for urgent legislative and social
measures for reform poured into the press. The police authorities, it seems,
tend to believe that the case was one of suicide, but Shri Bhagwant Singh is
convinced that murder cannot be ruled out.
It is not possible in this case, nor indeed
would it be right for us to do so, to enter into the question whether Gurinder
Kaur committed suicide or was murdered. That is a matter which is properly
involved in the trial of a criminal charge by a court possessing jurisdiction.
We are concerned here only with an examination of the question whether, after
being informed of Gurinder Kaur's death, the police authorities conducted
themselves as law and justice required of them. A counter affidavit of October,
1981 of Shri P.S. Bhinder, Commissioner of Police, Delhi states that Gurinder
Kaur was admitted in the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on August 9, 1980 at 12.15
P.M. with "100% burn injury" by her father-in-law, 115 Shri Kartar
Singh Sawhney, and that on receiving information a Sub-Inspector of Police
visited the hospital and was told by the doctor on duty at 3. 10 P.M. that
Gurinder Kaur was unfit to make a statement. His enquiries led him to believe
that Gurinder Kaur had attempted to commit suicide. He registered the case as
F.I.R. No. 507 dated August 9, 1980 under s. 309 of the Indian Penal Code and
commenced investigation. At 8. IS P.M. On the same day Gurinder Kaur died. The
police investigation brought to light that Gurinder Kaur was found burning at
about 11 A.M. On August 9, 1980 in the bathroom of the first floor of the
house. The police say that the bath room was found bolted from inside, and it
was broken open by a servant, Ramu, with the assistance of Smt. Satinder Kaur,
the elder daughter-in-law.
After the fire was extinguished, Gurinder
Kaur was removed to the hospital. It is said that a tin can of S litters of
Kerosene oil, two match boxes and one looking-glass with the words "Do not
hold any one responsible Pinky" written on its surface with a soap cake
were found. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory experts summoned for the
purpose were of opinion that the writing on the mirror was that of Gurinder
Kaur. It was also said that the door of the bathroom could have been broken
open from outside.
When Shri Bhagwant Singh complained about the
manner in which the police investigation was proceeding and expressed his
suspicions in regard to the circumstances in which his daughter died, the
police added section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to the charge on November
29, 1980.
Subsequently, on May 15, 1981 reference to s.
306 of the Indian Penal Code was also included. The police continued their
investigation until August 29, 1981, and from the investigation they inferred
that it was a case of suicide.
It seems that thereafter the investigation
was entrusted by the Minister of State for Home Affairs in the Government of
India to the Central Bureau of Investigation, and the file was sent to its
Director on September 10, 1981. For that reason, it is said, no question arose
of filing any report under s. 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Shri Bhagwant Singh has vigorously contended
that the investigating agency in this case did not carry out its statutory
duties in a bonafide manner and deliberately withheld the filing of a police
report and resorted to delaying the progress of the investigation in order to
ensure that no proceedings were taken against the accused in the case. He disputes
the version of the police that the doctor 116 on duty at the hospital had said
that Gurinder Kaur was unfit to make a statement and that it was not possible
for the police to obtain her statement before her death. He has referred to the
statement of Shri Kartar Singh Sawhney, the father-in-law of the girl, made to
the police on November 13, 1980, in which he had disclosed that Shri Bhagwant
Singh had come to the hospital and he found that his daughter was talking
occasionally, and that during the period from 2.30 P.M. to 8.30 P.M. Shri
Bhagwant Singh, his wife, his niece, who was a doctor, and his elder brother
Balwant Singh, as well as the latter's wife and two sons, had been talking to
the girl. In his affidavit Shri Bhagwant Singh also alludes to the statement of
Smt. Satinder Kaur recorded by the police on August 9, 1980 where she stated
that at the time of the tragedy she rushed upstairs and fainted and that when.
she regained consciousness many people including her father-in-law,
mother-in-law and brother-in-law, Raman Deep Singh who lived on the second
floor were present. It is pointed out that if this statement is true, then it
is not possible to accept the version put forward by the family of Shri Kartar
Singh that the servant, Ramu, with the assistance of Smt. Satinder Kaur had to
break open the door of the bathroom because it was bolted from inside. It is
also pointed out that the servant Ramu and Smt. Satinder Kaur were alleged to
be on the ground floor when the burning took place in the both room on the
first floor of the house where the mother-in-law, Gurbachan Kaur was present.
Gurbachan Kaur, according to her statement,
was ironing clothes at that movement on the first floor, a few yards away from
the bathroom and would have been the first person to have witnessed the tragedy
and yet, it is questioned, there is no reason why she should not have been the
first to assist the servant Ramu in breaking open the door if indeed the door
had to be broken open. It is also alleged that the police never attempted to
take into possession the cake of soap in the bathroom with which the deceased
is supposed to have written on the looking glass, nor did they take possession
of the blanket, which according to the statement of Shri Kartar Singh Sawhney,
was employed to extinguish the fire. Several suspicious circumstances have been
set forth by Shri Bhagwant Singh in his affidavit, and the opinion of the
C.F.S.L. experts has been assailed on the ground that it was delivered on an
examination of the mirror after more than a month. He has also attempted to
rebut the assertion of the police that he did not join in the investigation
from the outset and that he had originally said that he did not suspect any
foul play. On the contrary, he has dwelt at some length on the 117 continuous
attempts made by him to ensure an effective investigation into the cause of his
daughter's death, approaching in this behalf the highest authorities in the
land.
When this case came before this Court, an
order was made directing the filing of a detailed affidavit by the Commissioner
of Police setting forth full particulars of the various steps taken by the
police in connection with the investigation. A further counter affidavit was
filed by Shri P. S. Bhinder, Commissioner of Police. It is stated in the
counter affidavit that the investigating officer remained busy with the
investigation of other cases and with matters concerning the maintenance of law
and order. and that this particular case was with Sub-Inspector Amrit Lal, who
had 12 cases in hand, from August 9, 1980 to August 11, 1980. and thereafter
was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Sri Ram, who had 29 cases in hand, from August
12, 1980, to November 13,1980, and subsequently to Inspector Charan Das, who
had only one case in hand, from November 13, 1980 to May 28, 1981. It is stated
that these police officers "could not investigate this case all the
time" because besides the other cases in hand, they had also to look after
the day-to-day work of the Police Station. It is said also that during the
period when the case was under investigation with Inspector Charan Das, the
file remained under submission to the Crime Bench of Delhi for scrutiny with a
view to guide the local police on further investigation. Finally, the case
passed into the hands of Inspector R. P. Kochhar of the Crime Branch, who had
four cases in hand, and he dealt with this case from May 28, 1981 to September
9, 1981. It is pointed out that Inspector Kochhar was at that time entrusted
also with the investigation of a number of cases involving a notorious dacoit
as well as two sensational murders. It is reiterated in the counter affidavit
that the statement of Gurinder Kaur could not be recorded by the police as the
doctor on duty had declared her unfit to make a statement. It is admitted that
the blanket with which the fire was extinguished was not taken into possession
by the police, but it is asserted that the soap cake was taken on August 9,
1980. It is also asserted that on August, 10, 1980 Sub-Inspector Amrit Lal brought
a team of C.F.S.L. experts to the place of occurrence and a photograph of the
mirror was taken. It is alleged that although every effort was made to record
the statement of Shri Bhagwant Singh, he declined to make any statement. It was
only on April 21, 1981 that he did so. It is conceded that reference to section
306 of the Indian Penal Code was added only on May 15, 1981, the omission 118
to do so earlier being explained as a mistake. The delay occasioned A in the
investigation is ascribed by the Commissioner of Police to the fact that Shri
Bhagwant Singh permitted his statement to be recorded only as late as April 21,
1981.
We think it can be fairly stated that the
police did not display the promptitude and efficiency which the investigation
of the case required. There is much that calls for comment. It appears from the
entries in the police Case Diary that a Sub-Inspector visited the place of
occurrence on August 9, 1980 and seized a number of articles. But it is
conceded that he did not take into custody the blanket with which the fire is
said to have been put out. On the next day, experts from the Central Forensic
Science Laboratory visited the place and appear to. have made an examination
for chance prints. They also photographed the mirror. And yet, it was not until
over five weeks later that the police were able to obtain a report from them.
Curiously, although the minor was removed from the scene of occurrence and was
examined for chance prints, no "identifiable prints" could be developed.
In cases such as this, it would have been of the essence that on visiting the
place of occurrence immediately on information of the incident, the mirror
should have been taken into possession by the police and handed over forthwith
to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory experts for an urgent report in
regard to the existence and identification of the prints. Delay in such a
matter is vital and can often result in the loss of valuable clues. It is of
little consolation that, according to the entry G. D. No. 7 dated September 23,
1980 the Deputy Commissioner of Police wrote a reminder to the Director,
Central Forensic Science Laboratory for an urgent examination of the writing.
An important question was whether the
bathroom door was latched from inside and had to be forced open, or was in fact
latched from outside. According to the family of Shri Kartar Singh, the door
was forced open with the help of the servant Ramu. The entry C. D. No. 1 dated
August 9, 1980 in the Case Diary does not indicate that Ramu's statement was
recorded by the police on that day, although it shows that the statements of
other persons were recorded. There is a suggestion by the learned counsel for
the State that Ramu's statement was also recorded on that very day, but that is
not shown by the Case Diary extracts filed before us. It is only as late as
January 25, 1981, according to the entry C. D. No. 13 of that date that the
servant was examined by the Station House officer. Ramu 119 was a material
witness, and yet strangely, as it appears from the entries in the police Case
Diary, he was allowed to leave the town and go to his village before he could
be fully examined by the police. There is no evidence that the police expressed
any anxiety to put him through a thorough examination immediately or shortly
after the date of the occurrence or at least before Shri Kartar Singh's family
allowed Ramu to leave the town for his village.
Much has been made by the police of the
reluctance of Shri Bhagwant Singh to make a statement to them. As a responsible
officer of sufficiently senior status in the Government of India it would have
been natural to expect that he would have come forward from the very first to
have his statement recorded and to cooperate with the police, especially in
view of the fact that he would have been particularly anxious to have the truth
determined into the death of his own daughter. It is indeed difficult to
believe that he did not cooperate with the police in the investigation or
declined to give his statement until April 21, 1981. But if he did so, it could
only be because of want of confidence in the manner in which the police
investigation was being conducted.
The most vital evidence would have been the
statement of Gurinder Kaur herself, and yet even on that point there is a
conflict of testimony on the question whether she was fit to make a statement
at 3.10 p.m. when the Sub-Inspector approached the doctor for the purpose. On
the other hand, according to the statement made by her father-in-law, Shri
Kartar Singh, himself to the police on November 13, 1980, when her father Shri
Bhagwant Singh came to the hospital and entered the room, the girl was talking
occasionally, and during the period 2.30.p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Shri Bhagwant Singh,
his wife, his niece who was a. doctor and other members of his family had been
talking to the girl.
According to the statement of Dr. Rajinder
Pal Kaur, niece of Shri Bhagwant Singh, Gurinder Kaur was in possession of her
senses at the time and when Dr. Kaur suggested to one of the police officers,
who was present, to record to statement of the girl, he declined to do so. It
is regrettable that there is a conflict on the question whether the girl was
fit to make a statement to the police, and we are constrained to point out that
the conflict centres on a vital part of the case.
There are other features of the case,
including the question of the transfer of a Television set to the family of
Shri Kartar Singh as a palliative by the uncle of the unfortunate girl, but. we
find it 120 unnecessary to enter into them. It is enough to point out that A
the investigation by the police does not inspire confidence. It was, in fact,
considered materially inadequate by the Crime Branch itself. For on May 12,
1981, a memorandum was addressed by the Crime Branch to the Deputy Commissioner
of Police, Delhi pointing out that the file showed that statements of material
persons had not been recorded. We may also advert to the fact that although the
girl was taken to the hospital in a taxi, the police do not appear to have
attached any importance to recording the statement of the taxi driver. There is
also an affidavit of one Shri Jagjit Singh before us from which it appears that
he was among the first to reach the house when the incident occurred and that
it was he who suggested that the girl, who was lying burnt half inside the
bathroom and half outside in the verandah, should be taken forthwith to the
hospital, and he states that it was he who wag instrumental in sending for the
taxi. Shri Jagjit Singh was an important witness, and although he was in the
neighbourhood, no attempt was made to record his statement expeditiously.
Two inferences follow irresistibly from the
material before us. One is that the investigation by the police following the
occurrence was desultory and lackadaisical, and showed want of appreciation of
the emergent need to get at the truth of the case. There is a powerful
suggestion made by learned counsel for Shri Bhagwant Singh that the police were
anxious not to embarrass Shri Kartar Singh and his family and may indeed, as it
were, have looked the other way instead of vigorously pursuing the
investigation.
Whatever may be the reason, there is no doubt
that the investigation of the case suffered from casualness lack of
incisiveness and unreasonable dilatoriness, and this is demonstrated most
effectively by the manner in which the case was passed from one police official
to another, being entrusted successively to Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors each
of whom already had his hands full with the investigation of several other
cases. There is the admission that these police officers were preoccupied with
numerous other cases in their hands and they were officers who were also
required to look after the day to day work of the police station. It was only
when on the repeated and insistent petitions of Shri Bhagwant Singh the case
passed into the control of the Crime Branch that the investigation showed some
signs of being speeded up.
The other inference which disturbs us is that
the entries in the police Case Diary (set forth in the annexure to the counter
affidavit 121 on the record) do not appear to have been entered with the
scrupulous completeness and efficiency which the law requires of such a A
document. The haphazard maintenance of a document of that status not only does
no credit to those responsible for maintaining it but defeats the very purpose
for which it is required to be maintained. We think it to be of the utmost
importance that the entries in a police Case Diary should be made with promptness,
in sufficient detail, mentioning all significant facts in careful chronological
order and with complete objectivity.
We believe it would be appropriate to make a
few further observations at this stage. It is impossible to escape the
conclusion that, in a case such as this, the death of a young wife must be
attributed either to the commission of a crime or to the fact that, mentally
tortured by the suffocating circumstances surrounding her, she committed
suicide. Young women of education, intelligence and character do not set fire
to themselves to welcome the embrace of death unless provoked and compelled to
that desperate step by the intolerance of their misery. It is pertinent to note
that such cases evidence a deep-seated malady in our social order. The greed
for dowry, and indeed the dowry system as an institution, calls for the
severest condemnation. It is evident that legislative measures such as the
Dowry Prohibition Act have not met with the success for which they were
designed. Perhaps, legislation in itself cannot succeed in stamping out such an
evil, and the solution must ultimately be found in the conscience and will of
the social community and in its active expression through legal and
constitutional methods.
Besides this, what is important to point out
is that where the death in such cases is due to a crime, the perpetrators of
the crime not infrequently escape from the nemesis of the law because of
inadequate police investigation. It would be of considerable assistance if an
appropriately high priority was given to the expeditious investigation of such
cases, if a special magisterial machinery was created for the purpose of the
prompt investigation of such incidents, and efficient investigative techniques
and procedures were adopted into taking account the peculiar features of such
cases. Among other suggestions, we would recommend that a female police officer
of sufficient rank and status in the police force should be associated with the
investigation from its very inception.
There are evident advantages in that. In a
case where a wife dies in suspicious circumstances in her husband's home it is
invariably a matter of 122 considerable difficult to ascertain the precise
circumstances in which the incident occurred. As the incident takes place in
the home of the husband, the material witnesses are usually the husband and his
parents or other relations of the husband staying with him. Whether it was
cooking at the kitchen stove which was responsible for the accident or,
according to the inmates of the house, there was an inexplicable urge to
suicide or whether indeed the young wife was the victim of a planned murder are
matters closely involving the intimate knowledge of a woman's daily existence.
If the incident is the result of a crime by
the husband or his family, the problem of ascertaining the truth is burdened by
the privacy in which the incident occurred. In circumstances where it is
possible to record the dying declaration of the victim, it would, in our
opinion, be more conducive to securing the truth if the victim made the
declaration in the presence of a female police officer who can be expected to
inspire confidence in the victim.
Psychological factors play their part, and
their role cannot be ignored. A young wife can be the subject of varying
psychological pressures, and because that is so the nuances of feminine
psychology support the need for including a female police officer as part of
the investigating force.
While making these observations we may
emphasise that we intend no aspersion on the rectitude or efficiency of the
male members of the police involved in the investigation of such cases.
Another suggestion which has found favour
with us is the need to extend the application of the Coroners' Act, 1871 to
other cities besides those where it operates already. The application of the Coroners'
Act will make possible an immediate inquiry into the death of the victim,
whether it has been caused by accident, homicide, suicide or suddenly by means
unknown. It contains provisions which are entirely salutary for the purpose of
such inquiry, and we have little doubt that an inquiry under that enactment
would be more meaningful and effective and complete in the kind of case before
us. We are aware that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains, in
sections 174 and 175, provision for a police inquiry pursuant to an information
that a person has committed suicide or has been killed by another or by an
animal or by machinery or by an accident or has died under circumstances
raising reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence.
In such a case the police officer makes an investigation and submits a report
to the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and thereafter the
123 District Magistrate of Sub-Divisional Magistrate or other Executive Magistrate
empowered in that behalf is required to hold an inquest. The police officer
making an investigation is entitled to summon two or more persons for the
purpose of the investigation and any other person who appears to be acquainted
with the facts of the case to attend and answer truly all questions other than
questions the answer to which would have a tendency to incriminate him. We
think that in the category of cases we have in mind the more appropriate and
effective procedure would be that contemplated by the Coroners' Act, which
ensures that the inquiry into the death is held by a person of independent
standing and enjoying judicial powers, with a status and jurisdiction
commensurate with the necessities of such cases and the assistance of an
appropriate machinery.
We have referred to some of the important
features of the case. We have done so not for the purpose of determining
whether the girl was murdered or had committed suicide, but solely with the
object of drawing attention to the manner in which the investigation of the
case was conducted.
Disappointing as it may seem to those who
have desired the institution of criminal action on the basis that a crime has
been committed, we do not think that on the material before us we can go that
far. The investigation of the case was transferred from the police
administration of Delhi to the Central Bureau of Investigation at the instance,
we understand, of the petitioner. We hope and trust that this investigation has
been completed. It not, we would request the Central Bureau of Investigation to
complete the investigation within three months from the today and take such
action as may be warranted by the result of the investigation.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
S.R.
Back
