शिमला।बेशक मोदी सरकार में मंत्री जगत प्रकाश नडडा व शांता कुमार,अनुराग ठाकुर समेत बाकी सांसदों ने बीते रोज गृह मंत्री राजनाथ सिंह से कोटखाई में दसवीं की छात्रा के साथ हुए गैंगरेप व मर्डर कांड में सीबीआई जांच कराने की मांग की और लेकिन अभी तक सीबीआई ने एसआईटी का गठन नहीं किया हैं और नहीं जांच शुरू की हैं। सीबीआई प्रवक्ता आर के गौड़ ने कहा कि अभी एसआईटी का गठन नहीं हुआ हैं। एसआईटी के गठन के बाद ही सीबीआई की ओर से एफआईआर की जाएगी, अगर जरूरत हुई तो।
भाजपा सांसदों के अलावा प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट ने भी इस मामले में सीबीआई जांच के आदेश दे रखें हैं और मुख्यमंत्री वीरभद्र सिंह ने भी प्रधानमंत्री मोदी को चिटठी लिखी हैं। इसके अलावा सरकार ने इस मामले को सीबीआई को रेफर किया हुआ हैं। लेकिन अभी तक सीबीआई मामले को टेकओवर नहीं कर पाई हैं।उधर लोगों को ये डर हैं कि सीबीआई जितनी देर करेगी सबूतों को मिटाए जाने का उतना ही खतरा हैं। एक महत्वपूर्ण आरोपी का पुलिस कस्टडी में कत्ल पहले ही हो चुका हैं।जिसके बाद जनाक्रोश बुरी तरह भड़का हुआ हैं। कई गैर राजनीतिक संगठनों ने गुडिया न्याय मंच् का गठन कर जंग न्याय की जंग जारी रखने का एलान किया हैं।
सीबीआई से जुड़े सूत्र बताते हैं कि अगले 24 घंटों में इस मामले में सीबीआई एफआईआर दर्ज कर मामले को अपने अधीन कर लेगी। लेकिन आधिकारिक तौर पर अभी एसआईटी नहीं बनी हैं।जब तक नहीं बनती तब तक क्यासों के चलते जनाक्रोश बढ़ता जाएगा।
अदालत ने नेपाली सुरत का कत्ल करने वाले राजू के अलावा बाकी चार आरोपियों को 27 जुलाई तक न्यायिक हिरासत में भेज दिया हैं।
उधर, इस मामले में पकड़े गए आरोपी सुरत सिंह की पुलिस कस्टडी में हुए कत्ल के बाद उसकी बीवी की ओर से किए गए सनसनीखेज पूर्ण खुलासे को देखते हुए नवनियुक्त महिला एसपी सौम्या सांबशिवन ने उक्त महिला की सुरक्षा के लिए 16 पुलिस कर्मियों की टीम सुरक्षा में तैनात कर दी हैं। इनमें चार महिलाएं व चार पुलिस कर्मी हैं।इसके अलावा उक्त महिला का अदालत में सीआरपीसी की धारा 164 के तहत बयान भी रिकार्ड किया जा रहा हैं। इस महिला ने मीडिया से सनसनीखेज खुलासा किया था कि उसके पति का गैंगरेप व मर्डर से कोई लेना देना नहीं था। उसके पति ने उसे बताया था कि उनकी गरीबी खत्म होने वाली हैं ,बस उसे छह महीनों के लिए जेल में रहना होगा। 4 जुलाई को जिस दिन ये गैंगरेप व कत्ल हुआ उस दिन वो दोनों शाम तक खेतों में काम करते रहे थे। उब उसके पति का कत्ल हो गया हैं अब वो चुप नहीं रहेंगी। इस बयान के बाद उसकी सुरक्षा को लेकर शंकाएं जताई जा रही थी।
डीसी शिमला रोहन चंद ठाकुर और एसपी शिमला सौम्या साबंशिवन ने आज गुडि़या के परिजनों से उनके गांव में जाकर मुलाकात की ।अभी तक गुडिया के परिजनों से जिला प्रशासन की ओर से कोई मिलने नहीं गया था।
प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट ने 19 जुलाई को इस मामले में सीबीआई जांच के आदेश दिए थे व एसपी रैंक के अफसर के अधीन एसआईटी गठित करने के निर्देश दिए थे। लेकिन अभी तक एसआईटी का गठन नहीं हुआ हैं।
यहां पढ़े सीबीआई जांच को लेकर प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट का दिया आदेश-:
O R D E R
Shri Somesh Goel, Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh and Shri D.W. Negi,
Superintendent of Police, Shimla, are present in person.
2 . In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi, is impleaded as party – respondent No.8.
3 . Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the newly added respondent No.8.
4 . In the post lunch session, when the matter was taken up, we were informed by the learned Advocate General that Malkhana of Police Station at Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., stands ransacked; some of the files kept in the Police Station burnt; five vehicles of the police department burnt; Fire Brigade is not allowed by the mob to enter the area; and three police personnel injured, who stand referred for medical treatment to the respective hospitals. Also , th ou g h there is huge public outcry, yet police is exercising restraint in maintaining the law and order situation. It is further submitted that i n vie w of p eculiar facts and circumstances, m a tte r wa r ra n ts investigation to be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI). It is further prayed that necessary orders in that regard be passed.
5 . Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned counsel, states that even though Director of CBI received communication dated 14.07.2017 (Annexure R – 1) on 15.07.2017, but however, since no orders under the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and more specifically Section 5 of the Act, stand issued by the appropriate authority , no further action is taken .
6 . At this stage, refuting the same, learned Advocate General, states that requisite formalities already stand completed, more so, under Section 5 of the Act, by the competent authority and matter already submitted to the authorities concerned.
7 . The fact of the matter being that today i.e. 19.07.2017, investigation as is so desired by the State, has not been initiated by the CBI , be it for whatever reason.
8 . Under these circumstances, we pose ourselves a question as to whether we should intervene , keeping in view the attending facts and circumstances, so far brought to our notice or n o t.
9 . A little background leading to the today ’s proceedings.
- On the basis of news report (Tribune) dated 09.07.2017; Amar Ujala dated 09.07.017 and Punjab Kesri dated 10.07.2017, this Court suo motu took cognizance . The news report pertains to an unfortunate incident where allegedly a 16 years old school child ( girl) was raped and murdered. On 4.7.2017, when the juvenile did not return home from school, her parents launched a search party and also informed the police. Unfortunately, two days thereafter her dead body was found in a jungle. Inter al ia, amongst others, the Civil Society has been clamou ring for justice.
- W hen the matter came up for hearing on 10.07.2017, on the assurance, so made out by the learned Advocate General, at that time, that fair investigation is in progress and none would be allowed to go scot- free, matter was si mp ly adjourned for 02.08.2017, by which date instructions were to be obtained.
- It is a matter of record that with the recovery of the dead body, FIR , in relation to the offence, came to be registered at the concerned Police Station on 6.7.2017 and on 12.7.2017 a Special Investigation Team wa s constituted b y th e S ta te .
During the course of investigation certain persons (five in number) were arrested .
- On 17.07.2017, by way of mention memo, a request was made to prepone the matter, keeping in vi ew the “seriousness and sensitive issue involved” and “ further subsequent developments ” , which had taken place. It was a simple Mention Memo, as significantly, no application for preponement of the case was filed. Howe ve r , the instant applica tio n was filed in the later part of the day . On 18.07.2017, when again a request was made for listing of the said application, on urgent basis, sa me d a y the matter was taken on board , when we passed the following or d e r :
Learned Advocate General, under instructions, emphasizes that direction of handing over the matter to the CBI be issued as the State has got no objection, in fact, the State has taken appropriate steps desiring the samein terms of communications dated 14.7.2017 (Annexure R-1) and 15.7.2017 (Annexure R -2)). Application for preponement is allowed.
Be listed on 19.7.2017, before the Bench which had passed the order dated 12.7.2017.”
- Since the application was silent with regard to the seriousness and sensitivity of the issue invol ved, as also subsequent developments, today, i .e . 1 9 .7 .2 0 1 7 , in the morning, this Court passed the following order: –
“Shri Somesh Goel, Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh and Shri D.W. Negi, Superintendent of Police, Shimla, are present in person.
- In the m orning, we were informed by the learned Advocate General that one of the co-accused/suspects has died in the police custody.
- We find the Central Bureau of Investigation, through its Director, is required to be impleaded as party-respondent No.7. Ordered accordingly. Registry is directed to make necessary corrections in the memo of parties.
- Mr. Anshul Bansal, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of newly added respondent No.7.
- We direct Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, to file their personal affidavits, stating the events, which led to the issuance of communication dated 14.7.2017 (Annexure R -1).
- At this stage, learned Advocate General states th at the affidavits shall be filed during the course of the day. Accordingly, we adjourn the matter for hearing in the post -lunch session.
Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned counsel is directed to obtain instructions as to what action stands taken pursuant to commu nications dated 14.7.2017 (Annexure R-1) and 15.7.2017 (Annexure R-2).
Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to forthwith supply complete paper book to Shri Anshul Bansal, learned counsel.”
- In the post lunch session, during the course of hearing, we have taken on record th e affidavit of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, so handed over in Court. L earned Advocate General, clarifies that averments made in the affidavit are adopted by the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh (respondent No.3).
- From the affidavit, at least one thing is clear that a Special Investigation Team (in short SIT) headed by not less than a person of the statu s of Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Shimla, was constituted on 12.07.2017 and certain arrests we r e made. The matter is still under investigation.
H owever, it also stands averred that during the course of such investigation, through social media, it came to be spread that the actual culprits being influential persons of the area are sought to be saved by the police and innocent p e r son s framed. Also, there have been violent protests at large number of places within and outside the State, in relation to which also, police has taken consequential action.
Cr u ci a lly, a ffidavit a lso states that in the intervening night of 18/19.07.2017, one of the accused (name concealed) died in the lockup of Police Station, Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P.
- It is in this backdrop, we again pose the following questions to ourselves – (i) as to whether we should dispose of the present petition without passing any further orders , for the reason that SIT already stood constituted by the State and t h a t the matter is under investigation ; ( ii) as to whether we should waitfor the authorities , as envisaged under the provisions of the Act to issue appropriate directions for the CBI to conduct investigation ; and (iii) as to whether pursuant to our having suo motu taken cognizance, proceed to issue appropriate directions, more so, as prayed for by the State .
- What is the extent of scope and power, which a constitutional Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can exercise, in referring the matter to the CBI, is now well settled.
आदेश में इसके बाद सुप्रीम कोर्ट समेत अदालतों के फैसलों का हवाला दिया गया हैं और आखिर में फैसलें में ये लिखा हैं-:
- Now, coming to the attending facts and circumstances, as brought to our notice, over a very unfortunate incident, there is an outrage, more so by that of Civil Society. Perhaps, as the public wants to believe, investigation may be tardy, lethargic, lopsided, motivated or malafide, but today we are none to comment thereupon. Ou tr a g e of Ci vil S ocie t y i s we l l f ou n d e d o r n o t, to d a y we ma y n ot a d ju d ica te , more so in the absence of material before us , b u t this Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that public property stands damaged. There is hug e out cry among the public of the manner in which the State SIT h as conducted the investigation. One more death has taken place in police custody. S e r iou sn e ss of the a ll e ga ti on s a n d en or mi ty of cr ime is a n oth e r f a cto r wh ich ca n n ot b e i g n or e d .
- Under these circumstances, we cannot resort to the first two options, which we had posed to ourselves. Definitely, in our considered view and i n view of all the aforesaid observations and backdrop, interference by this Court is required, more so when the State itself wants to have the matter investigated by an outside agency, i.e. Central Bureau of Investigation, a premier Investigating Agency of the country, on wh om the State itself has reposed faith and confidence.
- Therefore, deeming it as our duty, in exercise of our writ jurisdiction, we interfere and direct as under:
( i) We entrust the investigation of FIR No.97 of 2017, dated 6.7.2017, under Sections 302, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act; FIR No.101 of 2017, dated 19.7.2017, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, both registered at Police Station, Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, a s a lso role played by the officers/officials/ functionaries of the State, in connection thereto , to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
( ii ) D irect the Director CBI to forthwith constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of not less than three Officers, headed by the Superintendent of Police with two other Officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police a n d imme d ia te ly sta r t th e i n ve sti g a ti o n.
( iii ) Record pertaining to the investigation conducted thus far by the SIT, so constituted by the State be handed over to the SIT of the CBI.
( iv ) The State shall ensure that the entire evidence is preserved, protected and not tampered with . The Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, who is present in the Court, assures of such fact.
( v) The Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, assure s that all assistance shall be rendered to the SIT for conducting an expeditious, fair, impartial investigation. Infrastructure, in the shape of vehicles, accommodation, shall be made available.
( vi ) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh shall ensure that appropriate action is taken against the erring officials/officers/functionaries of the State, in accordance with law .
Within a period of two weeks from today, he shall independently examine the matter and take appropriate action.
( vii) Th e D ire ct or Ge ne r a l of P ol ice , H i ma ch a l P ra d e sh sha ll ensu r e ma in te na n ce of la w a n d or d e r .
( viii) Affidavit of the Chief Secretary and status report by the SIT be filed not later than two weeks.
( ix ) Liberty reserved to any person aggrieved or either of the parties to approach this Court.
( x) Response by the parties be filed within two weeks.
List on 2.8.2017.
( Sanjay Karol )
Acting Chief Justice
( Sandeep Sharma Judge
) July 19, 2017 (sd)