JUDGMENT
J.D. Jain, J.
(1) Proceedings were started by Court on a news item that one Bharat Bhushan who had been arrested by the police had died in police custody. The petition was brought by amices curiae. The Advocate mentioned that it transpired after enquiry that Bharat Bhushan was arrested by the police on 28th November, 1984 and was taken to Police Post Chittaranjan Park. It was alleged that he was badly beaten up and when members of his family went to enquire about him they were shoved away and money was demanded from them. It was also mentioned that other persons also were kept in the police custody and release was made after taking bribe. It was also alleged that pressure was applied on the members of the family to give similar bribe for the release of Bharat Bhushan.
(2) Notice was issued and an affidavit was filed by Bhupinder Kumar Rishi, SHO. The stand taken was that in the morning of 9th December. 1984 at 4.00 a.m. S.I., Prem Sineh Patwal. Respondent No. 7 was on patrol duty when he spotted Bharat Bhushan coming from the side of Tara Apartments, who Äwas said to be carrying some articles with him including tape recorder and others. Bharat Bhushan was said to have been taken into police custody and taken to Police Post Chittaranjan Park. It is also stated that Bharat Bhushan complained of pain in his stomach. He was taken to the clinic of Dr. H.C. Goel where the doctor gave him an injection and kept him under observation till 9.30 a.m. From the clinic Bharat Bhushan was said to have been brought to the Police Post Chittaranjan Park, when the latter said that he should bellowed to take rest. Thereafter, according to the S.H.O.at 11 a.m. Bharat Bhushan complained of pain in chest and headache, and was brought to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital where doctors examined him and found it to be a case of suspected poisoning. The police registered a case Fir No. 1493 dated 9-12-1984 under Section 309 I.PC. at 3.05 p.m. Bharat Bhushan was not fit to make a statement and he died in the A I.I.M.S. Hospital on the next day and the information was received by the police at 2.10 p.m. An inquest was held by S.D.M.. New Delhi, who has noted that at 10.45 a.m. Head Constable Ramesh Chand had started asking questions from Bharat Bhushan and at 11.15 a.m. Bharat Bhushan having complained of pain he was taken to the A.I.I.M.S. Hospital. It was denied that Bharat Bhushan was beaten up by the police. In the report substance of evidence of Dr. H.C. Goel is given who has stated that the condition of Bharat Bhushan was pretty bad when he was brought to his clinic at 5.30 a.m. on 9-12-1984 and therefore, he asked the police to take the patient to hospital with better facilities. Dr.Goel has stated that the police were, however, reluctant to take Bharat Bhushan to the hospital. Bharat Bhushan was taken to the hospital only at 11 a.m. when his condition was serious. He has stated that according to him Bharat Bhushan had not consumed any poison and that he was suffering from pulmonary oedema. The fact that Bharat Bhushan died in police custody is not disputed. However, defense of the police is that he had taken poison. As is clear, police took the very unusual resort of registering a case under Section 309 Indian Penal Code on a person who was to die within a few hours thereafter. The story of poison is imaginary and a myth because Dr. Goel had stated to the S.D.M. that in his opinion Bharat Bhushan had not consumed any poison. We do not understand on ‘what basis such an, utterly baseless Fir could have been recorded. Even the post mortem report, of which evidence was taken before us of Dr. Vats of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, has stated that the viscera of the deceased was sent to the C.F.S.L., who on examination gave negative report for common poison. Ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased. Dr. Vats has further stated that Bharat Bhushan was suffering from non cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, which means that there was pulmonary oedema which was not due to any heart ailment. Evidently some exposure given to Bharat Bhushan when he was in police custody must have been responsible for it.
(3) Here is a strange case in which even on the showing of the police itself a person is arrested in the morning hours at 4 a.m. on 9th December, 1984; he complains of pain and is taken to a private Doctor, which in itself a strange thing, on persistently being told of pain only he is taken to the hospital. Police is so indifferent to the safety of Bharat Bhushan; that is not all, it takes the strange course of filing a Fir for suspected poisoning for which there is no foundation either in the statement of Dr. Goel who first examined Bharat Bhushan or in the post mortem report. Both of them gave no semblance of suggestion of suspected poisoning. Possibly because the incident had got press publicity, it was not possible for the police to conveniently get rid of the body and post mortem was done and that is why the story of suspected poisoning has been put earlier which because of later circumstances has not been established. The application had mentioned that Bharat Bhushan had been arrested on 28th November, 1984 and kept in police custody for a number of days. The police has, of course, denied and stated that while on normal patrol duty Bharat Bhushan was seen coming from the side of Tara Apartments with a number of articles and that is why it arrested him. Apparently suggesting that what he was carrying were theft articles, and that the police was doing its public duty.
(4) We wanted to know as to what happened to the so called theft theory and that is why we directed on the last date of hearing that an affidavit be filed indicating what property was recovered from Bharat Bhushan and how it had been disposed of. Today, an affidavit has been filed by Bhupinder Kumar Rishi, S.H.O. of P. S., R. K. Puram and the properties said to have been recovered from Bharat Bhushan are as under 1. One cycle make Hero jet No Ho 22583. 2. One tape recorder make National Panasonic. 3. One Prestige quartz wall watch. 4. One camera make III-SII-2 No. 061702. 5. One hair dryer make Kourettes 800 Watt made in Honk-Kong. 6. One two-in-one-make Murphy 5502 made in India. 7. One Transistor 2 band make Philips Jawan model RD-1432289-90. 8. One camera make guard made in Germany. 9. One two-in-one make bose continental Ic Model RD”547-D. 10. One projector make 18-5 Bolex Raillared Made in Switzerland. 11. One woolen cream colour shawl.
(5) A reference to them will show that they are no ordinary small items because they include cameras,, two-in-one transistors and even a projector. It seems to us rather unusual that if these were stolen goods, which as well might have been, no report in the Police Station would have been made. The affidavit says that in spite of the “Hue and Cry Notice”, no one has come forth to collect these goods. We are amazed that there would be any such persons from whom the goods might have been stolen and no report would have been lodged with any of the Police Stations, especially when the :goods are apparently expensive.
(6) We had wanted some of the relations of the deceased to come forth and give an affidavit to the effect that Bharat Bhushan had been arrested on 28th November, 1984, as has been suggested in the petition. The counsel bad taken a stand that he has not been able to file any such affidavit. He says that the difficulty is that relations of the deceased had been threatened by the police and were afraid that if they come out with their version, they may involve themselves and be at the receiving end from the police. He tried all the relations and they arc reluctant to come forth and give an affidavit. It appears to us that from these facts, we cannot take it to be a straight forward story and close the case on the basis of the mere affidavit given by the police. What makes it more suspicious is that such expensive articles are said to be lying in the Police Malkhana and no one has come forward to claim it, which appears to be an impossible situation. It also calls for an examination by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, as to how articles allegedly of theft are dealt with by the police. We are not sure that there is any regular auditing of various aspects’ or is it a convenient way of disposing of goods which are stolen by auctioning them at ridiculously low prices to chosen ones. Ah this needs to be looked into by the Delhi Administration and the Commissioner of Police and that is why a copy of our order be sent both to the Lt, Governor and the Commissioner of Police for necessary action.
(7) As a result, we are not satisfied that we can really conclude the matter by mere denial which has been made. A man has died in police custody under suspicions circumstances. The explanation given by the police, prima facie, is not sound. We also find that the S.D.M. has not applied his mind as to how such costly items have not been connected to any person. The inquest report, in our view, is far from satisfactory and we cannot close the case based on it. Death of a citizen in the present case has been under mysterious circumstances. The deceased was not having any criminal background nor was he having any medical history. We find that the allegedly stolen goods have not been connected with any person. The mere ipsi dixit that the goods were recovered from the deceased cannot inspire us with implicit confidence. This is a case which needs to be examined further. We, therefore, feel that the matter should be referred to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, who will depute a responsible officer to look into the various matters in depth so that responsibility could be properly fixed.
(8) We hope the Director, C.B.I, will be able to give a. report. within two months.