Expressing deep anguish over what it described as an insensitive and routine investigation into the suspicious death of a thirteen-year-old girl, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh directed that the case be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation, observing that continued delay and casual handling would only result in loss of crucial evidence and denial of justice to the grieving father. The order was passed by Justice Rahul Bharti while hearing a writ petition filed by Mukhtyar Ali, a resident of Village Jandyal in Jammu, whose minor daughter was found hanging from a tree near their residence in August of the previous year, and the petitioner alleged that despite the gravity of the incident the police had failed to meaningfully investigate the cause of death and had not shared any concrete findings with the family. The father in his petition suspected that his daughter might have been subjected to rape and murder and sought transfer of the investigation to the Crime Branch, asserting repeated failures by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu and the Station House Officer of Police Station Gharota to ascertain the truth behind the incident. The High Court noted the seriousness of the matter and on the very first date of hearing had directed the SSP, Jammu to file a status report, warning that personal appearance would be required if the report was not forthcoming, given the suspicious circumstances of a minor girl’s death. The first status report filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Akhnoor, failed to impress the Court. Justice Bharti observed with concern that the report opened with a suggestion that the petition deserved dismissal, as if the police officer was dictating terms to the Court. The report disclosed the identity of the minor victim and shifted the burden onto the petitioner to demonstrate how the police inquiry was flawed, without providing details of what concrete investigative steps had actually been taken. The Court took particular umbrage at the fact that such a sensitive case had been entrusted to a probationary Sub-Inspector, remarking that this reflected a mindset of treating the death of a young girl as a routine matter rather than one demanding senior supervision and urgency. The High Court further criticized that there was no reference in the status report to any Executive Magistrate being approached to get directions for conducting inquest proceedings or any involvement of an Executive Magistrate from the outset concerning the proceedings under the relevant penal provisions, indicating a lack of procedural rigor in the initial stages of inquiry.
The High Court’s order noted that despite the passage of two months, the status report was a ritualistic two-page document offering no substantive factual inputs, with Justice Bharti remarking that if the petitioner had not approached the Court, neither the petitioner nor the Court would have been apprised by the SDPO, Akhnoor, about the state of the inquiry, given that the same perfunctory manner of reporting was being employed. A second status report filed later pursuant to Court directions was found to be virtually identical to the first, further frustrating the Court and underscoring the lack of meaningful progress in the investigation. The High Court also reviewed the medical and forensic findings arising out of the post-mortem conducted on the minor girl, which had recorded antemortem ligature marks around the neck and indicated that death was due to asphyxia caused by antemortem hanging, with forensic reports ruling out poisoning and sexual assault; however, the Court was not persuaded that these findings could substitute for a thorough and independent investigation into the circumstances leading to the girl’s death. Even the constitution of a Special Investigation Team by the SSP, Jammu did not inspire confidence with the Court, as it comprised the very officers whose functioning had already come under judicial criticism, thereby calling into question whether the current team was suited to conduct an impartial and effective inquiry.
In concluding that continued investigation by the district police would only lead to adulterated versions of events and loss of evidence, Justice Rahul Bharti held that the facts and circumstances warranted intervention by an authority outside the district police, and that the case deserved investigation by none other than the Central Bureau of Investigation. The High Court accordingly directed the CBI to step in, summoning both the in-charge of the Special Investigation Team and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Akhnoor, as well as the Superintendent of Police, CBI Jammu, to appear before the Court along with the entire inquiry record for further proceedings. The Court’s order underscored the imperative that where a minor’s death is shrouded in suspicion and the local investigative process appears to have been perfunctory and deficient, elevated scrutiny and investigative expertise are necessary to ensure that justice is not denied and that crucial evidence is preserved rather than lost due to delay or inadequate procedure. The matter has been listed for further hearing, indicating that the High Court will continue to oversee the progress of the investigation now vested in the CBI, reflecting the judiciary’s concern over the quality of the initial probe and its resolve to ensure that the investigation moves forward under a more robust and competent investigative agency.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.