Reprimanding the Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigating the alleged murder of Dhanbad judge Uttam Anand, the Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday, 4 August, stated that Jharkhand Police was 'feeding questions' to get 'a particular answer', which was 'not appreciated'.
The court while hearing the suo motu case observed that the autopsy report stated that the death was 'caused by hard and blunt substance due to head injury', and inquired why the police were asking if such injuries were possible due to a fall, Indian Express reported.
The Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan were quoted as saying, “We have perused the questionnaire framed by the Investigating Officer namely Mr Vinay Kumar… to Dr Kumar Shubhendu, Assistant Professor… SNMMC, Dhanbad: ‘Please explain whether the injuries in the head are possible by fall on road surface or not?'"
"When the Investigating Agency is investigating the occurrence in order to find out the reason of death, then how and under what circumstances is such a question being asked by the Investigating Officer from the concerned doctor, that too when the CCTV footage clarifies the entire scene of occurrence?”Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan.
Background
The Jharkhand government on 31 July, recommended a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the death of ADJ Anand.
The judge was killed on 28 July in what was initially thought to have been an accident in Jharkhand's Dhanbad. The deceased, who was hit by a tempo, while jogging near the Randhir Verma Chowk in the city, is now suspected to have been murdered.
On 30 July, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana had taken suo motu cognisance of the death of the Jharkhand judge, and asked the state chief secretary and the police chief to submit a report on the progress of the investigation within one week.
What the Court Said
While stating that the court did not receive any satisfactory answers from the police, the Bench said, “The postmortem report clearly discloses that the fatal injury has been caused by a hard and blunt substance. Thereafter, it is for the Investigating Agency to find out the weapon of crime. Feeding a particular question to the doctor to get a particular answer is not at all appreciated.”
The court mentioned that 'apprehending a pawn' would not serve any purpose, and that it was essential to unearth the 'conspiracy' to catch the 'mastermind'.
Moreover, the court emphasised, “Time would be of essence in this investigation. Delay as well as any flaw in the investigation may eventually affect the trial adversely.”
The court also questioned why there was a delay in the registration of an FIR.
Noting that while the CCTV footage of the incident became 'viral within 2 to 4 hours from the time of occurrence' and Judge Anand was taken to hospital around 5.30 am, the FIR was lodged 'belatedly at 12.45 pm', after his wife filed a complaint.
Further, the Bench added, “The CCTV must be regularly monitored by police. The doctors of the hospital must also have informed police.”
(With inputs from The Indian Express)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)