:
THE HON'BLE MR. J'U.sfr1c_5_«:""A 'Sj4Ié. CiAPANNA"A
WRIT PETITION pxogssés cit; £605': 5,31
,-GE-ID ABOUT 65 EEARSE, HINDU'{j> A
RJAT ARAMER1..v1L'1;AGE~I1m_b »P0.s'1" '
VIRAJ PET TALU K.' S0I.JTH"';KODl&£3U DIST
KARNATAKA2 * ' -
SHE! P DEVAIAH $;«oimTE' PM :h.1UTH£{PPA_ »
PETITIONER
(BY SR1 M A HiJMAYUN'8sVS§i1'? A'Ré£J "i=AT1L. ADVS)
» 1U-NI0N:'t'A)F'--!f~lBIA BY MiNi"'"l"'R'Y OF' EFF' ms
" "*30V'?'.e_'OF1NT?If\j..
~_80_L!TH .r3;Qct;;NEw DELHI
'30
THE D.iR'EGToR "E"ERAL, PA'
CENTRAL RESER' Pcnuciz "-'* ROE
AA MAHAVEER NAGAR
DELHI 110 ms
DODE DIST
JAMMU AND KASHE'-i'a}R 182 204 ..F.-SPQNLENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARFIQLES 2'fE5I:'1'lN"'D--_T ~
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TQ"'DIRE"CT 'THE.
R2 TO HOLD AN ENQUIRY FOR FINDING. OUT THE I "
FDR THE. DEATH OF' THE DECEASED' ' 9.11 30983027
DRIVER PD. CI-IENGAPPA 148 BATl'PcLION,C.RPF, WHO EVMS
FJSTHAWAR A_RE.1.A,JAMMU ANDVKASHNIIRAND »_ ', .
THIS PETITION QOMINGIO.N"'FOR PRELIMINAIWIIHVEARIING * I
IN 'E' GRQUPTHIS DAY, THE COUF«.'1.'"MADE 'I'~HE"i?f-_)LLC§WING:
writ of _§:=.;;vI§iIr.I:1e4.;:».fx3r;€as-siit ta' h'*}a:I arc.
enquiry of the death of the
dccea&Icd __ III;IIIer, P.D.Chenga_ppa, 148
Batta]irIt.,_ ICRPIRI Kisthawar A1133, Jammu and
Kaefilmix myandamua is also sought to direct
" 17eé'_;Ic.>1:i'~tI§:+n"t°a"_2 to furnish the report after cnqu:mn' ' g
I N... v<:)_i:v£' P. D.Che11gappa.
"I
I I have heard Sri Humayun, 1¢':"T1r:t': cminael
for the petitioner and Smt.Rosa Paramci, Icarncti
I appearing for respondents 1 to 3.
I
52
d
H
111′ rzr:fi”s.i’*:1″r is hm’:-.»r’-‘=V . %.:~:1r.’é..g 12.1’ 1.31 I: of
3. The case put forth by the petitioner? :-is’ *
petitioner him” self is a retired’ Seam a1;_1_ha’J’iiig’ “tea: K ‘
Indian Navy under No.67292.
petitioner was employed a:a”C_3P[_I)Ii1ieIr iv.-tth evN¢;sjg13Q9.§32o2 *
with Central Armed Reserve tifine of the
ixoeoxtiing ta L
and ailectioiiaie Viigeiiiwaa haie and healthy,
new said to have received a
commiimeafien along with the dead body
of eon by a constable of CRPF. The
‘i V’ – was éaent by ‘f1;-aabcputy Commandant (Adm) GG, CRPF
2 whereunder the petitioner was infonzned
:11; the petitioner had shot himself -on 29.11.2004
t “‘fi'”‘i: 22053 h”urs. The Ptiedifi ‘-Jifieer Ea ales ==…….-=-*1
E5’-
.ha§’e issued ‘the death cefiificate oonfixmiilg fhe The
petitioner being unable to believe that his son had shot 7
‘ himself had addressed a letter dated 24.01.2005 to the third
l
J%
a
fl
respondent mqtlesfing him to hold an enquiry V.
the death of his son. The thin! reapandcni H15 havaj
replied on 21.02.2005 stating tligt. :1:ia* l&étt_§:r l1s;:£é. f”hs=ii3r1:A
forwarded to the Deputy v’G*:,ner§;1 *
(Qpt:;,_1,:ions) CRPF, D_od_a, and «. and
Additianal 919., Go}, (J&.K) for taking
4. T3′: ‘@’i,\:’3’\r’3:’4I’V}.1′?€’ a+.l;e..’pct;i,i.i:i11_.r is tl;-,[t no proper
.._…….a …..-1
enqunyry has been cpnutncxca 111 um» lcgmu -4
1Weaso11″assigne:d_ “bjr=._fi1§ :es:pondents that it is a Crf
suicide is. wit_}1out. b.~»;sis– ‘ a11d therefore, the petitioner has
ifor nan wfipprapfiate c11qu1ry’ in this regard, since
it is a likely case of encounter and them is
5. The re-;s=.1,3.r.-..a:1..n..s_= h_w::v¢::r, seek to ‘ustifiI their
faction 011 thé gfi:n'”id Lu t Lu’ 5011 sf ‘.11:-. 3*.’-2.1.11-.3. E L.
Ietumed to the barracks after performing his i.
It is contended on behalf of the 1fe.spondenis”Viiis”.eo.:¢I
police personnel have also heard the oiffliiei ii
the gun in the barracks and 1iiaive..i1nIne!iiatelyi’ the
em: and me- .:.a_ft_n the son of__the,_pet_itioner.was shifted to
i”‘e “o~–~;m:. wheae he em .!.i..}..§11.a.;’. 2320 hours. It
t}ie”v:=a-is};-g:-;.de11.t-_ t.__t the
Xv.-.+. .
is further contended
son of sees €’1ii1–;kf’ii’;” and was
known __tobe. such, the tendency of
K he “ruled out. ‘ It is further
contencied” has theieafter ordered
of has examined ‘the co-police
” spoken with Iegmtl to the gun shot
bee}. 1139;” by them at 2205 hrs and as such,
since V_ii1e_s’eifi Witnesses befere the CoI.I_rt of Enquiry had
1
AA stated, it was a case of s”i”-ide, th=- “eenclusicn was
i’ accordingly and since an enquiry has already been
held, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be
granted in this petition.
J
J?
6. The lespondents also eon.te11d that *
enquiry held by the respo11dents,»~~theA ‘is
independently investigated into
the case, since the same is adegise, ofsuieide, ‘ the –. ‘
mspendent. melt: to justify fl1ei1f__emio=;;,
7. On the rival eqntentisils, I-“~herJfev the writ
“=-mt… as :.41s;the aiiditiufia1″pspe1s_which were furnished
t’ this ‘Casi: hfftl’-.e’iee1fb;eh. ii: the respondents.
8.. At. the Qi1tse_t;«g:1ieee~i:’ the aspects Whhh ‘”e'”iires m
be 1V1_oVtieed4″‘isV’t11aVt-_ ¢n%24~;ed1o.o7 when this matter had been
‘V V’ _ mum t}1e:*«iea111ed Single Judge of this Court, the
had noticed the documents that were
and had directed the respondents to f” .311
the imslhsfic and finger print repofls of the weapons since the
9. The learned counsel for the mapondenie. ~
available a eommunicafion dated.__
indicates that the Police Oificem heye it .
DIGP, GC, CRPF’, Banta1ab,ente1a; t11e”finger_ .h;arfi nei–,i*
been lifted hem the weapon, ei11iee:ees{e1nl.e’t!1e1E petsone had
else muehel LN t.n.re-.1_;n;t”he1L1e%.j_itt eeieed by the police.
the finger print .ii1e}’fe’ – ere—1 umzu “Ether 13”
the 1eapond.ente:fer in a matter of this
natme, s_i11ee”the.Veententi9_n of the respondents is that it is a
case oflauicide “the petitioner disputes the same,
theiinger en” the could have been conclusive to
* ‘ei1onrE~’At;’1at..’the ufeeno11 had been held by the deceased
same is not available at this juncture, the’
.- .—.–_..– w-I___t:1 have to be looked into to
5?.
tr
ED
‘1
8 .
. ,. .
1′
M
:3
III’
‘%
3.
E-
D
3
E
5
:.
B
1
H
-E
fl
L _’I_.’l
V v.eufl5icient or any other enquiry requires to “he 11 m in :1 .-
matter of this nature.
2′ %—–
10. In this baokglound, the leaxtnod
petitioner would contend that the”‘
respondents cannot be conclusive ltibl’
31.. -_…._;*.al (Ii. J._,:,111oics in Vthotloouiiiortta the * L’
i’*”‘”‘-ndonts. flaemselveg. it. ig.tho”voo31tonti-:1–of learned
ooun.-sci for the pofifio-‘tor th- “H-j. déaiih {::r*..itI-sate ‘.-.rh.’..,tl1 ii:
issued by the C”‘._oo;posi.’i£’ _GRi?F,.”1fioumm’o idafiimu}
which is fiotifioner as weii as the _.
mspondcpts tor death as 2329 hour-.7:
on tbfifimfllhid conditions at; well as the
injurieotizltiioatedttittlzioi”certificate would indicate that it
iso; sltotovoiiiid the left side of the cheat, while the
polioomonquily would indicate that it is multiple
-.’:’-.i1n;.:=-.1uy, while: the post oortcm report in
tho jiage would T’f’i” t’ at: “o1j1″5«’, tho oninion would _
V _ atato ‘that it is multiple injuries.
11. While on the very some documents, the learned
“icounsel for the respondents would indicate though the –5
than is mdioateql in the oi.’11_.1′ Llooumonts as 2205 hours and ‘:
L
‘F.
the time in the death certificate as 2320 hotjfe, “eh ‘
cannot be treated as a diserepanc._*;~ “hin1193.i_:;_the V’
point at which the incident took plaeel” .« Vthe
time at which the death the -‘twithwh
-_.ga1-_ to t__- gun shot injuries, ihe”lea1ned«e«oun$ie1 for the
the bufletsi %s}2;;»ts A’ have been indicateci.
Howeyenjv on this aspect of
the 1 death certificme indicates a gun
shot. as well as the post. Inortem
Iephlt hldieateet m’u11§ip1c”t injuries cannot be disputed.
V’ ” 1 background, a perusal of the report of the
“C.e1i1t would indicate that one of the witnesses
hes etatehcléh that he had heard one sound of burst thing. but
2 V. x dues not indicate the number of bullets that he heard except
f_h._t it ‘Ji.T,..’-S burst firing. Be that as it. may. What.
u.-quires to he “otriwd as that as. already eueezvw, the Luger
r.
3′ ‘-
though have been exjplained by the leanjéd ~
appearing for the respective partieoinw the to
discrepancies as well as to justi.t’y:”the:’_’_As£nmt to
considered is that the pefifionefio before = L
oI._1:. :3. gievoncn that his eon..__fiad not ‘tiaqt obmmitmd :
-su1″1i:’.e but them is 10:11 pm}! ‘I the ma.._.r., _;n-_.
according to thfifléfififxiiéi’,fi’3i’i”‘J.’i1f._}i1if’;i’gi’1″,’;’i”Ii’s”.:fi fififionefs
son havn1g.be::n I enoe-t:nteif’cann”””‘ oi:-be ruled out.
.13;* ” tziew such I an allegation
e_n_,1n__L_.n t.h_Lat.i11 a matter of
u ‘3 n*tufe, even th’ to he held should be by L.
appitjopfiate authotfity. and ahouid pmvicie so”r:e to the
‘ and a mere enquity held alone cannot be
and state that the petitioner cannot make
oot a ‘fig-tievnnce. In the instant case, the of the
V *pet;_itiotier is that there is foul play in the manner in which
‘ “‘..vtI1e”deatl1 has been announced. The fact that the petitioner
~”ta working in the 148 Battalion is not disputed. Themtbns, I
K” ”
£145 2-.lleg.=.=…’.,n t.=.ro1..d. 1.9;! L. t_.,_. JISDQEL -in the same
ll
battalion and a cover up is alleged in the ‘
Tl1erefoIe,tn find out as to at it
suicide or a death due to encotlnter
the enquiry should be in a to innit. but .
justiee s___I,I_L s_l_e to be ‘in the nistgnfcase, the
—- «A we ‘s by ~{,*.-.esmt.v:-.;;=,’:.~¢..;-=«=.d=.ji:*; 552* 143 .39. an n
members of ui i’as'”‘smnt
int theliteiy same Battalion.
Therefine,vV Iiiade by the petitioner
Faun conducted by the very same
Battalientntould ‘eiinfidenee either in the petitioner
11oije11y.persez1A since the same cannot be treated
man indefiiendent enquiry.
l keeping all these aspects in view,
th(lll11glfl~:aii’lcnq1IiI’y has been held by the respondents, the
2 » seine Veannot be treated as sufficient in a matter of this
“na.n;’ei -11-‘: mm hi t- eenrse weuld be for the second
…_!’I
held, the documents relied theieon and also the detain. s fi
the Police Department with regard to the ‘
held by the Police Department and~~theA
shall analyse the said documents in *i2oIi’eet;
and thereafter, come to a eoi1_;’fl1;:sio11A’:3I:1e .wa_§?v irtllexy L
and intixnate the same V__t.o the petifione; so .£t1a.t_f11e_?g1ievanc>e
cf the “fi*:;tLener m.u1dCh-e7 11333.: saw»
..u ‘_ an vu.-i.
I.I.l.I:II..l.Ll.”i”‘u
;5. .ha§;h_,e1ng se, a dneeueg: 13 Issues]. 1:9 the xwnd
Ieapo:;idenfe”to5»i1o1é’aeezjquixy the man’ ner si’t–u
and tfiezeefter, ipetitioner in this legani.
J’I’_l bms