JUDGMENT
M.R. Calla, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Gujarat on 19th June 1997 is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.2.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Criminal Application No.101 of 1996 whereby a direction was given for payment of a sum of Rs.2 lacs to the original petitioner, i.e. Dharmishtaben Narendrasinh Rana, as a measure of interim compensation.
2. The facts of the present case depict a dismal story of the death of Shri Narendrasinh Rana who was working as an Assistant Intelligence Officer in the establishment of Intelligence of the Police Department. At the relevant time, he was posted as Assistant Intelligence Officer at Lunawada, District Panchmahals, at Godhra. An application dated 11th January/19th January 1996 addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court by one Dharmishtaben, i.e. wife of deceased Narendrasinh Rana was received by post with the prayer that for the facts, reasons and grounds stated in the application, a high level inquiry be ordered in the matter of death of her husband. On 24th January 1996, the Joint Registrar of this Court made a submission on the basis of this application dated 19th January 1996 received from Dharmishtaben recording therein that in her application, she had stated that on 1.11.1995 at 1 O’clock in the midnight, Mr.M.H.Joshi, PSI, Local Crime Branch, Godhra, Police Constable Dinesh and other members of the staff came and took her husband in a jeep; Mr.Joshi took her husband to CID office and after that, at 6.30 a.m., he was taken to Government Guest House at Lunawada. At 7.15 a.m., her husband had gone to urinals and Police Constable Dinesh also went with him; at that time Dinesh came to PSI Shri Joshi and told him that Head Constable Rana had shot down himself and hearing this, Mr.Joshi rushed to the spot and found the body of Head Constable Rana lying in between the door of the urinals. The PSI had taken the body outside and Police Constable Dinesh had taken the revolver. It was further stated in the application that there was something fishy about the death of her husband and she had a doubt that PSI Mr.Joshi and Police Constable Dinesh had murdered her husband and the Sub Divisional Police Officer Mr.Dave had helped them. On these allegations, a high level inquiry with regard to the aforesaid incident was sought. It appears that the then Acting Chief Justice, on the very same day, i.e. 24th January 1996 recorded ‘Yes’ to the part “A” of the aforesaid submission made by the Joint Registrar that the said application in question as sent by Dharmishtaben may be treated and registered as Special Criminal Application under Rule 31 of the High Court (Amended) Rules, 1995 and the same be placed before the Court for appropriate orders. Accordingly, the said application was registered as Special Criminal Application No.101 of 1996 with the tile of Dharmishtaben petitioner vs. 1) State of Gujarat, 2) Shri M.H. Joshi, PSI, LCB, Godhra, 3) Dave, SDPO, 4) Police Constable Dinesh, and 5) Ambalal Rana, landlord of the house of the CID office as respondents. The copy was served upon the Public Prosecutor. On 1.2.1996, notice returnable for 9th February 1996 was issued to respondents nos.2 to 5 with a direction to remain personally present before the Court and file their respective affidavits-in-reply with regard to the allegations made in the application. On 9.2.1996, the matter was adjourned on the request of the respondents nos.2 to 5 to 23rd February 1996, the matter was then made to stand over and on 16th March 1996, it was stated on behalf of the respondent no.1 State of Gujarat that DSP, Panchmahals, Godhra had directed the Addl. DSP of Panchmahals to inquire into the matter and the inquiry had already been made. Learned Public Prosecutor was, therefore, directed to furnish a report of such inquiry on record and also to produce the post mortem notes and other medical papers relating to the death of deceased Narendrasinh Rana and the matter was posted for 25th March 1996. On 25th March 1996, it was made to stand over to 8th April 1996 on the request of learned Govt. Counsel and on 8th April 1996, it was made to stand over to 10th April 1996 on the request of learned Govt. Counsel and again adjourned to 25th April 1996 on 10th April 1996. On 25th April 1996, while making the matter S.O. to 18th June 1996, learned Govt. Counsel was asked to see that on the next date, i.e. 18th June 1996, the Officer of CID (Crime) who is incharge of the investigation remains present before the Court with the investigation papers. Learned Govt. Counsel was also directed to request the Govt. as to whether the investigation be handed over to the top officers of CID (Crime). Thereafter the matter was made to stand over to different dates. It appears that in the meantime, an affidavit dated 11th March 1996 had been filed by Shri M.H.Joshi, PSI, Local Crime Branch, at Godhra, District Panchmahals and an affidavit dated 1st March 1996 had been filed by Shri Dave, Dy.SP, Lunawada, Panchmahals and an affidavit dated 11th March 1996 had also been filed by Shri Ambalal Rana residing at Lunawada. It further appears that Shri K.H.Bhaya had entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner and on 2nd July 1996, it was recorded that learned Counsel for the petitioner had insisted that the investigation be handed over to either Dist. Magistrate or the Addl. DGP, CID (Crime). It was also recorded that the investigation was in progress and the PI, CID (Crime), Godhra Shri R.M.Bhabhor had been conducting the investigation into the matter. The submission of Mr.M.R.Anand, learned Public Prosecutor was also recorded that the investigation hereafter shall be under the direct supervision of either the SP or DIG, CID (Crime) and the Govt. report of the investigation shall be submitted to the Court. It was also directed by the Court on this date, i.e. 2nd July 1996 that the investigation shall be completed and the report shall be submitted on or before 31st August 1996 and the investigation shall be under the direct supervision of DIG, CID (Crime). The matter was adjourned to 2nd September 1996 for submission of the report. It appears that a report dated 16th September 1996 under the signatures of one Shri Gurdial Singh, IG (Crime) was filed. On 15th October 1996, when the matter came up before the Court, time was granted for filing an affidavit on or before 22nd October 1996 and thereafter Shri H.R.Gehlot, DIG, CID (Crime) filed an affidavit dated 17th October 1996. On 22nd October 1996, the matter was made to stand over to 24th October 1996 and on 24th October 1996, it was stated before the Court and recorded in the proceedings that the investigation had been completed but the report had to be filed and a direction was given to file the reply as to what was the conclusion of the investigation and such report was directed to be filed within a week’s time and that the papers of the investigation were also to be kept ready. The matter was posted for 1st November 1996. It appears that thereafter the report dated 30th October 1996 was filed under the signatures of Shri H.R.Gehlot, Dy.Inspector General of Police, CID (Crime) and thereafter on 23rd December 1996, Rule returnable for 27th January 1997 was issued. On 27th January 1997, the Advocates for the parties sought time and the case was made to stand over to 17th February 1997 and the learned Single Judge decided the matter on 21st February 1997 partly allowing the petition. The operative part of the judgment as contained in para 23 is reproduced as under:
“23. In view of the aforesaid, this Special Criminal Application is partly allowed. While prayer with respect to the transfer of investigation is declined, it is directed that the petitioner shall be paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) as a measure of interim compensation within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the writ. This amount shall be deposited in the office of the Registrar of the High Court of Gujarat, at Ahmedabad. On depositing of this amount, the Registrar shall invest the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in any Scheduled Bank in the petitioner’s name initially for a period of three years, during which she would receive only the interest payable thereon. After three years, the further orders shall be obtained from this Court either for the reinvestment of the principal amount or for being paid to the petitioner. The Collector, Panchmahals, at Godhra will ensure the compliance of this order and report to the Registrar of this Court within a period of three months. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with costs quantified as Rs.5,000/- out of which, a sum of Rs.3,500/shall be paid to the learned counsel Mr.M.H. Bhaya.”
This is all about the proceedings and pleadings in the original Special Criminal Application.
3. This judgment and order dated 21st February 1997 has been challenged before us through the present Letters Patent Appeal. During the course of hearing of this Letters Patent Appeal, on behalf of the State of Gujarat, an affidavit dated 15th June 2000 has been filed. In this affidavit, while making reference to the affidavit dated 17th October 1996 filed by Shri H.R.Gehlot and his report dated 30th October 1996, it has been stated that:
(i) On 1.11.1995 at 9.00 hrs. PSI, Local Crime Branch, Shri Joshi lodged a complaint in Godhra Police Station against Narendrasinh Rana under Sec.309 of IPC (attempt to commit suicide) which was registered by Godhra Town Police Station at CR No.I-293/95.
(ii) That on 5.11.1995, a case against Hemant Barot, Ajay Bhatia and Kalu Govind Patel for offences under Sections 406, 240 and 114 IPC was registered at CR No.158/95.
(iii) On 3.11.1995, a case was registered against Dadu Barot, Hemant Dadu Barot, Maheshbhai Dadu Barot, for offences under Section 20 of the NDPS Act vide Lunawada P.S.C.R. No. II-97/95.
(iv) On 6.11.1995, a case was registered against Dadu Bhura Barot and Prakashkumar Pranlal Chaudhary vide Lunawada P.S.C.R. No.III-154/95 for the offence under Section 66(b) of the Prohibition Act.
(v) In para 5 of this affidavit dated 15th June 200, it has been stated that, with respect to Godhra Police Station CR No.I-293/95, the final investigation was carried out by Shri B.D.Patel, Dy.S.P. (Crime) and the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate, Godhra by the Investigating Officer, Shri B.D. Patel, CID (Crime), Baroda on 16/21.11.96 and by an order dated 12th May 1997, an abated Summary had been granted by the Hon’ble Court. A copy of this final report with order dated 12th May 1997 has been filed with this affidavit as Annexure.I.
(vi) With regard to Lunawada CR No. 158/95, it has been stated that the accused Ajay Kantilal Bhatia, Kalubhai Govindbhai Patel and Hemant Dadubhai Patel had been acquitted by judgment and order dated 28th April 1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lunawada.
(vii) With regard to Lunawada CR No.II-97/95, it has been stated that Dadu Bhura Barot, Mahesh Dadu Barot and Hemant Dadu Barot had been acquitted by the Sessions Court, Godhra, by an order dated 23rd January 1998.
(viii) With regard to Lunawada Police Station CR No.III-154/95, it has been stated that Dadu Bhura Barot and Prakashkumar Pranlal Chaudhary had been acquitted by judgment and order dated 22nd April 1997.
4. On behalf of the respondent, i.e. original petitioner, Dharmishtaben, an application in the form of submissions dated 17th June 2000 has been filed through her Advocate Mr.Bhaya, in which several objections have been raised against the manner in which the investigation was conducted in the matter of CR No.I-293 of 1995 by Godhra Town Police Station, i.e. the case which was registered against deceased Narendrasinh Rana for attempt to commit suicide. The fairness of the investigation has been questioned and several deliberate lapses, lacunas and omissions in the investigation have been pointed out. In these submissions, it has also been stated that the compensation of Rs.2 lacs as has been granted is inadequate; she has no resources, she is not in a position to file suit and claim damages in the regular suit, she has become a widow at the young age of 25 yrs., she has two school going sons, she is not educated and is not in service, she is solely dependent upon the compensation amount to live with the children and to educate them who are studying in Vth and IIIrd Standards, that she is living with her in-laws who are old and do not have any property or means to support, that her husband was a Post-Graduate and only 29 yrs. old and he was the main supporter of the family. On these facts, a prayer has been made that the Court may consider further such compensation as it deems fit and proper. In para 17 of these submissions, it has been stated that in the title of the judgment, the name mentioned as ‘Narendrasinh Jhala’ is an inadvertent mistake and that same be rectified as ‘Narendrasinh Rana’. In para 18 of these submissions, it has been further mentioned that the investment of Rs.2 lacs in the Nationalised Bank as was ordered by the learned Single Judge for three years may continue for two years more with the permission to her to seek change in the orders if necessity so arises.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is a great predicament for this Court to say as to whether it is a case of suicide or a case of assasination. Whether it is a case of suicide or it is a case of assasination, the fact remains that the deceased, a young man of 29 years who was a post graduate and working as an Assistant Intelligence Officer has lost his life. His wife is widowed at the age of 25 years and his children have lost the father’s protection, care and love for ever. The family stands bereaved. The death on duty while he was in the company of the officers who lifted him from his house, whether it is as a result of suicide or as a result of custodial murder as alleged by the original petitioner, the consequences and sufferings of the family remain the same. A dismal or unfortunate event or a happening leaves an indelible imprint and consequences whether intended or unintended, suffering is the same regardless of the intentions of the person or authority responsible for precipitating such consequences. Although the police has given an abated Summary report and has reported that it was a case of suicide and the same has also been accepted by the Court, the following facts cannot be lost sight of:
(a) Shri Narendrasinh Rana was working as an Assistant Intelligence Officer, CID (Intelligence), at Lunawada and while working as such, he had made a report dated 9th October 1995 to the Addl. Director General of Police, CID (Intelligence), Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, in the matter of suspicious activities of Hemant Dadubhai Barot of Lunawada, stating therein that he had learnt that said Hemantkumar Dadubhai Barot, son of Dadubhai Barot, resident of Lunawada was staying at Bombay for last four to five years and in the last week, he had performed ‘Holi Yagna’ at his farm at village Sonali, Taluka Lunawada, during Navaratri. After the performance of the said ‘Holi Yagna’, there was a talk in public about the suspicious activities of Dadubhai Barot, that he was indulged in the business activities of Charas, Ganja and Opium and that he was getting the currency notes printed at Shreenathji in Rajasthan. That he comes to Lunawada once within two to three months after long periods and that he had amassed excessive wealth. In this report, he had also stated that the efforts were on to collect information about his activities through informants and secret methods and that the further report will be submitted in this connection after collecting further facts and evidence and that the watch is continued on his activities.
(b) The report dated 30th October 1996 made by Shri H.R.Gehlot, Dy. Inspector General of Police, CID (Crime) shows that the office of the CID (IB) was situated in the house of one Ambalal Dalsukhlal Rana of Lunawada. Said Ambalal Rana was alleged to have been cheated by criminals Hemant Dadu Barot, Dadu Bhura Barot, Mahesh Dadu Barot etc. by telling that they will double the money whatever amount he will pay them and Ambalal Rana gave them Rs.50,000/- which they did not return and thereby cheated him.
(c) Ambalal Rana reported this fact to the Intelligence Officer Shri Bhagora and Asstt. Intelligence Officer Shri Narendrasinh Bhikhusing Rana of CID IB whose office is situated in the house of Ambalal Rana.
(d) On the request of Shri Ambalal Rana, the Asstt. Intelligence Officer Shri Narendrasinh Rana, with a view to help him, to get his money back from the cheaters, guided him to approach ASP, Dahod Shri Manoj Agrawal.
(e) Ambalal Rana contacted Shri Manoj Agrawal and gave him the information about the cheating incident and also about the criminal activities of the above mentioned criminals.
(f) Shri Manoj Agrawal, in turn, informed the DSP, Godhra Shri Anil Pratham and a drive was organised by DSP Shri Anil Pratham and ASP Shri Manoj Agrawal. This drive was kept confidential and on the night of 31st October 1995 and 1.11.1995, many officers of the District, namely, ASP Dahod, Shri Manoj Agrawal, SDPO Lunawada Shri Dave, PSI Task Force, PSI LCB Shri Joshi etc. were called at Lunawada with vehicles and their men.
(g) All the above criminals were brought to Lunawada Guest House. PSI LCB Shri Joshi went to Ambalal Rana’s house and asked him to accompany him and both of them went to the house of Shri Narendrasinh Rana.
(h) Shri Narendrasinh Rana informed them that PSI Shri Bhagora had gone to Bhopal on Bandobast duty. They all, therefore, went to Lunawada Guest House. On the way, AIO Shri Rana deposited Shri Bhagora’s revolver in IB office and then proceeded to the Guest House.
(i) The verification of the information continued till morning and it was decided by the DSP and ADP that the further inquiry would be done at Godhra and hence all the police officers were directed to reach Godhra Police Head Quarters with the anti social elements in separate vehicles and PSI Shri Joshi was directed to take informant Ambalal Rana and AIO Shri Narendrasinh Rana in Shri Manoj Agrawal’s jeep to LCB office at Godhra.
(j) While leaving Lunawada, AIO Shri Narendrasinh Rana asked the Sub Divisional Police Officer Shri Dave and PSI LCB Shri Joshi that why he was being taken to Godhra and that he had to deposit the revolver of Shri Bhagora which he had earlier kept in IB office to Lunawada Police Station.
(k) Thereupon, SDPO, Shri Dave and PSI Shri Joshi informed Shri Narendrasinh Rana that as per DSP’s order, he along with Ambalal Rana were to be taken to Godhra for further verification of the information.
(l) Shri Joshi and Dave also stated that Ambalal Rana was the informant and therefore, they should not worry about going to Godhra.
(m) At about 7.15 a.m., they reached the office of DSP, Godhra. PSI Shri Joshi went towards Control Room to bring the keys of LCB office, while Shri Narendrasinh Rana, informant Ambalal Rana and Police Constable Dinesh got down of the jeep.
(n) At that time, Shri Narendrasinh Rana informed that he had some stomach pain and he had to go to bath room for call of nature.
(o) Shri Narendrasinh Rana went to the constructed latrine and Ambalal Rana and Police Constable Dinesh went for urination in the open near the latrine and after few seconds, Ambalal Rana and Police Constable Dinesh heard the sound of firing and they saw that Shri Narendrasinh Rana had fallen in the gate of the latrine and he was profusely bleeding.
(p) Ambalal Rana had informed Police Constable Dinesh that Shri Narendrasinh Rana had fired.
(q) Police Constable Dinesh informed PSI Shri Joshi who then came down to the latrine and at that time, none else was present there and it was given out that Shri Narendrasinh Rana had shot himself from his VIP service revolver to his right parietal region.
(r) Shri Joshi, Police Constable Dinesh and Ambalal Rana went near Narendrasinh Rana and they found that Shri Narendrasinh Rana was trying to pick up the revolver again which was lying near him and PSI Shri Joshi directed Police Constable Dinesh to take the revolver from there and keep in the Local Crime Branch Office.
(s) They immediately took Shri Narendrasinh Rana to Godhra Civil Hospital for treatment whereat the preliminary treatment was given to Shri Narendrasinh Rana by the Medical Officer, Godhra, Dr. Mohib Akbarali Maksoor.
(t) As per the statement of Dr.Mohib Maksoor, Shri Narendrasinh Rana was conscious when he was brought to the Civil Hospital, Godhra and it has been reported that, on inquiry by Dr.Maksoor to Shri Narendrasinh Rana as to how he got the injury, Shri Narendrasinh Rana informed Dr.Maksoor that he had shot himself as has been mentioned in the case papers of Shri Narendrasinh Rana’s treatment that, “gun shot wound injury by himself”. It is also written that the ‘patient was conscious’.
(u) Shri Narendrasinh Rana was then referred to SSG Hospital, Vadodara, for further treatment. Shri Narendrasinh Rana was unconscious in SSG Hospital and hence, the dying declaration could not be taken there till 2nd November 1995 when he died.
(v) On 1.11.95, at 9.00 hrs. PSI, LCB Shri Joshi had lodged a complaint in Godhra Police Station against Shri Narendrasinh Rana under Section 309 of IPC and on that basis the case was registered at Godhra Town Police Station vide CR No.I-293/95 at 9.00 hrs.
(w) The investigation was first taken up by PI, Godhra Town Shri H.G.Damor under the supervision of SDPO, Godhra and Addl. DSP, Godhra and the investigation continued with Shri Damor upto 29th November 1995.
(x) Shri Damor was transferred out of Godhra Town Police Station and posted as CPI, Lunawada and therefore, the investigation was handed over to PI Shri Bhatt with whom the investigation continued upto 25th March 1996 and thereafter the investigation was handed over to Shri B.D.Patel, Dy.SP, CID (Crime), on 27th September 1996.
(y) After the investigation was taken over by Shri B.D.Patel, Dy.SP, CID (Crime) on 27th Sept.1996, the case was being supervised by Shri H.R.Gehlot. However, the report dated 30th Oct.1996 made by Shri Gehlot does not show that any effective investigation was made to find out as to what could be the possible reasons for Shri Narendrasinh Rana to resort to the extreme fatal step of ending his life by committing suicide although the witness Shri Pravinsinh Rana working as Police Constable in Kagdapith Police Station of Ahmedabad City at the relevant time had stated that his brother was an educated person and would not commit suicide and requested for a deep inquiry into the death of his brother. Further the witness Shri D.S.Bhagora, PSI, IB had expressed that Shri Narendrasinh Rana might have committed suicide because he was taken to Godhra against his wish. Taking Shri Rana to Godhra against his wish cannot be considered as any reason for him to commit suicide.
(z) The report made by Shri Genlot does not refer anywhere as to at what point of time Shri Narendrasinh Rana was shifted to SSG Hospital, Vadodara after preliminary treatment at Civil Hospital, Godhra on 1.11.1995 and at what point of time Shri Narendrasinh Rana was reported to be unconscious, the statement made by Dr.M.A.Maksoor shows that the patient was conscious at the time when he was taken before him for preliminary treatment, no reasons have been indicated as to why the dying declaration of Shri Narendrasinh Rana was not recorded while he was conscious. It also makes no reference to post mortem papers and as to why the revolver which is alleged to have been used by Shri Narendrasinh Rana was not sent to F.S.L. andfor Ballistic expert’s report and the bullet was not subjected to cross-match the revolver with which Shri Narendrasinh Rana is alleged to have shot himself. The explanation of Shri M.H.Joshi, PSI, LCB, Godhra and Dinesh Jayrambhai, Police Constable, has not been sought as to why the care was not taken, while picking up the revolver, that the finger prints thereon of Shri Narendrasinh Rana who used the revolver to shoot himself remain intact.
6. This report dated 30th October 1996 made by Shri Gehlot is based on the statements of Ambalal Dalsukhlal Rana, PSI Shri Bhagora, Shri M.H.Joshi, PSI, LCB, Godhra, Shri Dinesh Jairambhai, Police Constable, Shri Pravinsing Rana (brother of deceased Shri Narendrasinh Rana), Shri I.K. Ravalji, PSI, Lunawada Police Station, Shri D.B.Solanki, PSI, Task Force, Shri H.G.Damor, PI, Godhra Town Police Station, Dr.M.A. Maksoor, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Godhra, Shri S.K. Dave, Dy.SP, Lunawada, Shri Manoj Agrawal, ADP, Dahod, and thereafter DSP Vadodara Rural and Shri Anil Pratham, DSP, Godhra, now Dy.Commissioner of Police, Vadodara City.
7. Shri H.R.Gehlot has opined in the end of his report that it was a case of suicide and not of any other kind. His opinion that it was a case of suicide is based on the statement of Dr.M.A. Maksoor, Civil Hospital, Godhra and that as per the statement of Dr.Maksoor, the patient, i.e. Shri Narendrasinh Rana had told him that he had shot himself.
8. Strangely enough, and to our great shock and surprise, we find that in this detailed report and the investigation as has been done, no effort whatsoever has been made to find out or indicate or even infer as to what could be those compelling circumstances so as to force a young man of 29 years of age, well placed in the services of the Government, so as to commit suicide. What was or what could be the possible reason for deceased Shri Narendrasinh Rana to shoot himself has not at all been indicated in the entire report. So far as the statement of Dr.Maksoor is concerned, the same was recorded on 23rd June 1996. May be that in the medical case papers, on 1.11.95 at 7.20 a.m. said Doctor Maksoor had mentioned it as a history of, “gun shot wound injury by himself” and that he had been brought by Shri M.H.Joshi, PSI, LCB, one fails to understand as to why the dying declaration of this patient Shri Narendrasinh Rana was not recorded till the time of his death on 2nd November 1995, or till the time he was conscious before Dr.M.A.Maksoor at Civil Hospital, Godhra on 1.11.1995 itself when all highly ranking officers were also there at Godhra.
Dt:10.11.2000.
9. Apart from the fact that there has been no investigation on the question as to for what compelling reason Shri Narendrasinh Rana could have resorted to commit suicide, we find that apparently there was no plausible reason for him to commit suicide and the circumstances preceding and attendant to the date in point of time of the so called death of Shri Narendrasinh Rana indicate that there was no circumstances whatsoever so as to lead Shri Narendrasinh Rana to commit suicide. It further appears that Shri Narendrasinh Rana had landed himself in trouble only after he had made a report on 9.10.95 to the Addl. Director General of Police, C.I.D. (Intelligence), Gujarat State, Ahmedabad with regard to the suspicious activities of Hemant Dadubhai Barot of Lunawada because he had also mentioned in this report that efforts were on to collect information about the activities of Hemant Dadubhai Barot of Lunavada through informants and secret methods and that further report will be made in this connection after collecting further facts and evidence and that the watch is continuing uninterrupted. We also fail to understand as to what could be the purpose to take Shri Naremdrasing Rana to Godhra. He was an employee of the intelligence department and there was no basis for subjecting him to any investigation. It also does not appear to be possible in the facts of the case that there was any revolver available with Shri Narendrasinh Rana from which he could fire himself and if at all Shri Narendrasinh Rana had fired himself and if at all he was trying to pick up the revolver again, why the Police Constable Dinesh was directed by the P.S.I. Shri Joshi to pick up the revolver without taking care to see that the finger prints of Shri Rana on such revolver remain intact. At that point of time, had the care been taken by P.S.I. Joshi, who directed the Police Constable to take the revolver, so as to pick it up with any cloth, the presence of the finger print of Shri Narendrasinh Rana could have indicated that he had fired himself. Such available evidence was not allowed to come on record by getting the revolver picked up by the Constable without requisite care and as a consequence the question of comparing the finger print of Shri Narendrasinh Rana with the finger print available on the revolver was made impossible. It is also clear in the facts of this case that there was sufficient time between the point of time Shri Narendrasinh Rana is said to have shot himself and the time when Shri Narendrasinh Rana is said to have died. It is rather strange that during the whole period of two days the dying declaration was not recorded. The remark of Dr. Mohib Maksoor was that the patient was conscious. If that be so and if the Doctor could record in the case papers that it was a case of gun shot wound injury by himself, it remains no more compatible to understand as to why his dying declaration could not be recorded at that point of time itself when he was conscious. He was referred to S.S.G. Hospital, Vadodara for further treatment and even if it is taken that he was unconscious in S.S.G. Hospital and,therefore, his dying declaration could not be recorded on that date i.e. on 2.11.95, it remains to be explained as to for what reason his dying declaration was not recorded on 1.11.95 itself i.e. immediately after it was found that he had shot himself. P.S.I. Shri Joshi of LCB lodged the complaint under Section 309 of I.P.C. at 9.00 hours on 1.11.95 and he has no where stated that from which point of time he was unconscious. Had the dying declaration of Shri Narendrasinh Rana been recorded, the factual position would have become known as to how and in what circumstances he died.Thus the real evidence, which was very much available and which could throw light on the question of death of Shri Narendrasinh Rana by suicide or otherwise, was either made to vanish or was not allowed to be brought on record and it appears that in order to thwart and defeat the steps which Shri Narendrasinh Rana could have taken against the criminals, a built up story was given and it is very clear in the facts and circumstances of this case that the investigation, as has been made, has been an investigation of very poor quality – deliberate or otherwise and the report made by Shri Gehlot only appears to be a camouflage over the issue of the death and we do feel that it cannot be said to be a simple case of suicide as has been taken. On the contrary it appears that some interested persons including the Officers, who were with Shri Narendrasinh Rana and who had taken him to Godhra wanted to shield the criminals because Shri Narendrasinh Rana made a report and could have proceeded further to book more criminals and therefore a fact-situation was concocted and engineered so as to prevent Shri Narendrasinh Rana from discharging his duties to defeat the activities of criminals and in order to achieve such an ill designed motive, they went to the extent of bringing an end to the life of Shri Narendrasinh Rana and virtually a case, not simply of culpable death but a custodial murder, has been projected as a case of suicide and thereby the latent object has been served. It is also pertinent to mention that against Hemant, Dadu Barot and Ors. after the death of Shri Narendrasinh Rana (2.11.1995) three cases were registered on 5.11.1995, 3.11.1995 and 6.11.1995 and in all these three cases they have been acquitted on 28.4.1999, 23.1.1998 and 22.4.1997. While we find it difficult to endorse the view taken by the learned single Judge that no malafide could be attached to the investigating agency on the part of CID Crime, in view of the facts noticed by us from the record as stated in para 5(a) to 5(z) and the reasons as discussed by us hereinabove, it is also difficult to believe and agree with the conclusion arrived at by Shri H.R.Gehlot, Dy.I.G. Police, CID (Crimes). There is no material or even remote circumstance even to infer as to why Shri Narandrasinh Rana would commit suicide whereas there is enough material and circumstance to show that Shri Rana had died in highly suspicious circumstances and the facts and circumstances preceding and attendant to his death swings the needle of suspicion towards a case of custodial and planned murder to prevent the truth to come out against the criminals against whom he had reported and had said that efforts were on to collect information about their activities through informants and secret methods and that further report will be submitted and that the watch is confirmed. In the facts and circumstances of this case particularly the manner in which the evidence which could have been easily available has not been allowed to come on record even in the case of the death of an officer of the deptt. not only leaves an unhappy impression about the poor quality of investigation – is rather suggestive of deliberate lapses and omissions on the part of the officers and employees of the deptt. who have dealt with case immediately after the incident and we can’t give a clean chit to them and the possibility of their involvement in connivance with the criminals who could be exposed can’t be ruled out.
10. In our considered opinion, the following questions remain unanswered:
(i) Deceased Shri Narendrasinh Rana was an Assistant Intelligence Officer in the Intelligence Branch posted at Lunawada. What was the real need to awake him in the midnight intervening 31st Oct.1995 and 1st Nov.1995 and lift him from his house by Shri M.H.Joshi, PSI, Local Crime Branch, Godhra and Police Constable Dinesh Jayrambhai and take him to Lunawada guest house and thereafter to Godhra?
(ii) When deceased Shri Narendrasinh Rana had already deposited the revolver of Shri D.S.Bhagora, PSI, IB, Lunawada in the office of the IB while on way to Lunawada guest house, where from Shri Narendrasinh Rana got the other revolver to shoot himself? On what basis it has been assumed that Shri Narendrasinh Rana had stealthly carried his service revolver with him and the same was used by him to shoot himself?
(iii) What could be the compelling reasons for Shri Narendrasinh Rana to commit suicide. Merely because he was taken to Godhra against his wish, could hardly be a ground for him to commit suicide and as to whether the story of suicide is believable by any norms of common prudence and the natural human conduct of the person in the facts and circumstances of this case?
(iv) Why the care was not taken by Shri M.H.Joshi, PSI, LCB, Godhra and Constable Shri Dineshbhai Jayrambhai while picking up the service revolver by which Shri Narendrasinh Rana is alleged to have shot himself, so that the finger prints of Shri Rana do not vanish and remain intact, if at all it is believed that Shri Rana having shot himself was again trying to pick up the revolver which was lying there?
(v) When deceased Shri Narendrasinh Rana was admittedly conscious at the time when he was before Dr.M.A.Maksoor for preliminary treatment, why no steps were taken for recording his dying declaration which could have disclosed the reasons from him to commit suicide, it at all it was a case of suicide?
(vi) Why the revolver which was used by Shri Narendrasinh Rana was not sent to the F.S.L. and for Ballistic expert’s report so as to cross-match the bullet to prove that such bullet was fired from the service revolver of Shri Narendrasinh Rana?
(vii) What was the post mortem report and as to whether any investigation was made with regard to the bullet which may have been found out from his body? Where is that bullet and what has happened to it ultimately?
(ix) Why the investigation was delayed for a period of five months by the local police?
(x) Whether in the context of the letter dated 9th Oct.1995 written by Shri Narendrasinh Rana against the criminals and anti social elements in the area, is it not a case of a strategy engineered to put an end to the endeavour which Shri Narendrasinh Rana could have pursued to expose the criminals and the whole story with regard to his committing suicide has been coined by the local police officers in connivance with the criminals active in that area and Shri Ambalal Rana whose complaint has been used for taking Shri Narendrasinh Rana from his house in the midnight and who accompanied the police to his house and was throughout present?
(xi) Whether there has been a fair and proper investigation by the local police as well as the CID Crime branch? If at all there are serious lapses and lacunas in the investigation and the investigation suffers from criminal omissions and culpable negligence, who are the officers responsible for the same?
We, therefore, find that it is a fit case for issuing direction to reopen the whole case notwithstanding the acceptance of the abated summary report about the suicide by the Court and we further find that the investigation in this case must be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the appellant State of Gujarat also deserves to be directed to hold a regular disciplinary inquiry against the local police officers and the officers of the CID (Crime), for the serious lapses and lacunas in the investigation, criminal omissions and culpable negligence in this case and take action against them under the relevant rules.
11. So far as the grant of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as interim compensation is concerned, we find that no interference whatsoever is required with such direction in the facts and circumstances of this case and the direction in this regard, as has been given by the learned single Judge, is also found to be in order. At the time when the Division Bench passed the order on 24.6.97 in the Criminal Misc. Application No.2519/97 for stay in the Appeal while recording the statement of the parties it was observed that,
‘the order passed by the learned single Judge has already been complied with.’
It was also recorded that
“even otherwise also, we are of the view that the order is perfectly just and equitable and no stay can be granted.”
and accordingly the Application, which had been moved for stay by the Government, was rejected on 24.6.97 itself.
12. In the case of Inder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (1995) 3 SCC 702, having noticed the indolent attitude of high ranking police officers inasmuch as SSP taking no action on the complaint for two months and DIG sitting on it for eight months and only Crime Branch chargesheeting the accused persons but matter at no stage brought to the notice of DGP, the Supreme Court depricated the conduct of the Punjab Police as a whole, the prosecution was directed to be completed expeditiously, disciplinary proceedings were directed to be initiated against the erring officials including the SSP and DIG concerned and the State as a tkoen of its failure to enforce law and order and to protect its citizens was made to bear consequence of paying compensation with the further direction that the amount could later on be recovered from the persons found to be guilty. In para 10 of this judgment, the Supreme Court has noticed that in recent times it had come across far too many instances where the police have acted not to uphold the law and protect the citizen but in aid of a private cause and to oppress the citizen and it is a trend that bodes ill for the country and it must be promptly checked.
13. The case of Charanjit Kaur v. Union of India and ors., reported in AIR 1994 SC 1491 depicts the identical circumstances. It was a case in which a Military Officer while in service died in mysterious circumstances. The case was handled with culpable negligence and cynical indifference. The Supreme Court found it to be a matter requiring investigation at highest level and the Chief of the Army staff was directed to look personally into the matter. The responsibility was prima facie found to be traceable to act of criminal omissions or commissions on the part of the concerned authorities and the wife of the deceased was found to be entitled to suitable compensation as well as Special Family Pension and the Children Allowance under the relevant rules from the date of the death of her husband and compensation of Rs.6 lakhs was awarded to his wife.
14. Thus, so far as the Appeal is concerned, we do not find any merits in this Appeal filed by the State of Gujarat and the same deserves to be dismissed.
15. However, in the facts of the present case, it is not the end of the matter because the learned counsel for the respondent i.e. widow of deceased Shri Narendrasinh Rana has submitted that the amount of compensation is much less than adequate and further reliefs be given to the widow of deceased Shri Narendrasinh Rana looking to the fact that she has no other means to live and thrive on and apart from the parents of the deceased Shri Narendrasinh Rana she has to support two minor children and their education has to be taken care of. This request was opposed by the learned Adl.P.P. by stating that in this State Appeal no further relief could be granted to the respondent. Mr. Bhaya has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhangir v. Madan Mohan, reported in AIR 1988 SC 54. In this case, while dealing with the powers of the Appellate Court the Supreme Court observed that Order 41 Rules 22 and 23 are not mutually exclusive. If objection under Rule 22 against co-respondent cannot be urged, Rule 33 could take over and come to the rescue of the objector. The sweep of the power under Rule 33 is wide enough to determine any question not only between the appellant and the respondent, but also between respondent and co-respondents and further that the Appellate Court could pass any decree or order which ought to have been passed in the circumstances of the case. The Appellate Court could also pass such other decree or order as the case may require. The words “as the case may require” used in Rule 33 of Order 41 are in wider terms to enable the Appellate Court to pass any order or decree to meet the ends of justice subject to the constraint that the parties are there before the Appellate Court and the question raised may properly arise out of the judgment under consideration. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled in this case of Dhangir v. Madan Mohan (Supra) that if these two requirements are there, the Appellate Court could consider any objection against any part of the judgment or decree of the lower court and it may be urged by any party to the Appeal.
16. Even in the decision of State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 222, on which strong reliance has been placed by the learned A.P.P., the Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Sec.107(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Code has held that these provisions can be invoked to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed, though the party in whose favour the power is sought to be exercised, has not filed any appeal or cross-objections. It is clearly made out that the Appellate Court has powers to pass such order, which ought to have been passed even if the respondent has not filed any cross-objection or even if it has not filed any substantive Appeal. It is, therefore, open for the respondent in the Appeal to ask for more reliefs and in an appropriate case the appellate Court may grant further reliefs to the respondent regardless of the fact as to whether respondent has filed any substantive appeal or cross objection or not. In the facts of this case, the submissions dt.17.6.2000 filed on behalf of the respondent are virtually in the nature of cross objections. In the instant case, we also find that this matter was entertained and proceeded as a public interest litigation and the appeal before us is an appeal against an order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India wherein an appropriate writ, order or direction can be issued to render substantial justice between the parties and the arm of the Court is long enough to reach the injustice and strong enough to put an end to injustice, we find it a fit case for giving further relief to the respondent while dismissing the State appeal.
17. The fact that there is no direct lis between the respondent widow and the State and whereas it was only a case of interim compensation to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-as granted by the learned single Judge, it is always open to pass further appropriate orders in this regard, more particularly when the fact situation was available even at that time that the widow had no means to thrive on and to support the parents of the deceased as also two minor school going children studying in Vth and IIIrd Standards. Therefore, we find that it is a case in which the amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/granted by the learned Single Judge really falls short of adequate relief and the respondent deserves to be granted more reliefs for the continuous maintenance of the family and also for the education of the children.
18. The say of the appellant in the memo of appeal that the respondent had been paid the amount of PF, Gratuity, Government Insurance, Linked Insurance, Bonus, TA etc. and thus in all, an amount of Rs.1,77,281/- had been paid to the widow of the deceased and in addition the Family Pension at the rate of Rs.432/- per month is being paid is only a poor apology rather no answer to the case of respondent. All these benefits were earned benefits of her deceased husband under the rules and in no way she could be deprived of these benefits and it cannot be said that in paying these dues the Govt. has obliged the respondent in any manner. Her unconsolable cry in the dismal facts of this case and the mysterious circumstances in which her husband has died while on duty, without any blend of misplaced sympathy but the norms laid down and settled by the judicial opinion require this Court to issue further directions in favour of the respondent while dismissing the appeal and accordingly we direct that:
(A) If at all the respondent – widow is willing to accept suitable employment, the Government may provide suitable employment to her as she still has a long way to go and support her family;
(B) In case the respondent – widow is not inclined or not in a position to take up any employment, the State Government may provide suitable and adequate piece of land to her for agriculture, at the place of her living nearby the village;
(C) The appellant shall also take up the responsibility of giving free education to the two minor children upto XIIth Standard and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) for each of the two children for their higher education. The amount as ordered above, i.e. Rs.2,00,000/in all, shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court. The Registry shall invest the same, i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of each of the children of the respondent in any Scheduled Bank and the interest thereon shall also be paid to the respondent till the two children attain the age of majority and thereafter it would be open for them to withdraw the said amount.
(D) The Criminal Case C.R.No.I-293 of 1995 registered at Godhra Police Station on 1.11.1995 under Sec.309 of IPC in which the abated summary report was given by the police and accepted by the Court on 12.5.1997 shall be reopened and the entire record of the investigation and the acceptance of the abated summary report and the papers of the Special Criminal Application and the Letters Patent Appeal as also a copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the CBI is directed to investigate the entire case including the questions posed under Para 10 of this judgment and take further steps in accordance with law as a result of this investigation. It will also be open for the respondent to supply the copies of any record or related papers to the CBI The CBI may complete the investigation as early as possible but in no case later than a period of six months from the date the records and copy of this order etc. are received by it. The appellant shall take steps to send all these records and papers etc. to the CBI immediately but in no case later than one month from the receipt of the certified copy of this order by the respondent or the Court. The Registry is directed to supply a certified copy of this order to the office of the Govt. Pleader immediately.
(E) Immediately after the result of the investigation by the CBI is made available, the appellant State of Gujarat shall proceed to hold a regular inquiry against the officers of Local police as well as CID (Crime Branch) who were concerned and associated with the investigation of this case for serious lapses, lacunas, criminal omissions and cuplable negligence in the investigation, if any, found by the CBI and take suitable action against them under the relevant rules.
(F) It will be open for the appellant State of Gujarat to later on recover the financial loss sustained by the State from those officers who are found to be accountable and guilty.
(G) The deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest lying in the respondent’s name shall be renewed for further period of two years from the date on which the three years’ period as ordered by the learned Single was over and the respondent shall be entitled to receive the interest thereon and will also be at liberty to apply for modification, if necessity so arises.
19. The Appeal is dismissed with the further directions, as above. The respondent shall be entitled to cost of Rs.5000/-.