Anis Khan Death: Calcutta High Court Says SIT's Prima Facie Findings Against Police Officials, Raiding Party Are 'Plausible'
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday held that the prima facie findings of the State government-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the death of student activist Anis Khan are plausible and thus refused to transfer investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).Anish Khan was found dead at his home in Amta block in Howrah district in the early hours of...
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday held that the prima facie findings of the State government-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the death of student activist Anis Khan are plausible and thus refused to transfer investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Anish Khan was found dead at his home in Amta block in Howrah district in the early hours of Saturday, February 19, 2022, under mysterious circumstances. Alleging that four persons had come to their house donning police and civic volunteer uniforms, Khan's father has claimed that his son was pushed off the third floor of their house in Amta and thus demanded for a CBI investigation into the death.
The Court had earlier taken suo moto cognisance of the case after terming the incident as 'grave and shocking'. It had turned down a prayer for a CBI probe and had allowed the State government-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) to continue with its probe but under the supervision of a Howrah district judge. The Court had also ordered for a second post mortem to be conducted by the SIT under the supervision of the Howrah district judge.
Justice Rajasekhar Mantha noted that the SIT had implicated certain police personnel in its investigation report and had further found the conduct of the raiding party to be faulty. Upholding such prima facie findings, the Court observed,
"The evidence, according to the SIT, points to acts and omissions of a set of persons including police personnel. Lapses on the part of the raiding party and the raid itself have been found faulty by the SIT. The prima facie findings against such persons are plausible, and the same is subject to the trial and findings of the Sessions Court."
The Court further observed that the SIT had analysed the statements of all persons who had been interrogated, the result of the polygraph test, the forensic evidence, the call records and had also reconstructed the scene of the crime.
It was further noted that pursuant to an analysis of the two post-mortem reports, the evidence of the medical personnel, the sketch map of the scene of crime and re- enactment thereof, the result of the polygraph test, criminal charges have been prescribed by the SIT against the following persons:
i. Section 120 (b) r/w 342/452 IPC:
1. SI Debabrata Chakroborty, the then O/C of Amta PS
2. CVF Sourav Kanrar
3. ASI Nirmal Das
4. HG Kashinath Bera
5. CVF Pritam Bhattacharjee
ii. Section 120(b) substantive offence:
1. SI Debabrata Chakroborty, the then O/C of Amta PS
2. CVF Sourav Kanrar
iii. Section 452 IPC (substantive offence):
1. ASI Nirmal Das
2. HG Kashinath Bera
3. CVF Pritam Bhattacharjee
iv. Section 304(A) IPC:
1. ASI Nirmal Das
2. HG Kashinath Bera
3. CVF Pritam Bhattacharjee
v. Section 341 IPC:
1. ASI Nirmal Das
2. HG Kashinath Bera
3. CVF Pritam Bhattacharjee
Justice Mantha further refused to transfer the investigation to the CBI, opining that the SIT in its investigation report has itself implicated some police officials and thus the apprehension that the accused police officers would be shielded by SIT is unfounded.
"In the instant case, the SIT itself has implicated some police officials in its investigation report, finding fault with the manner and conduct of raid. The petitioner's apprehension that the accused police officers would be shielded by the police, is therefore devoid of merit. In the facts of the case, merely because some police officers are involved there is no need for apprehending of impropriety in the investigation or the trial as the SIT is comprised of very highly ranked police personnel. Any other omission or mistake in future can be addressed under the provisions of the Cr.PC", the Court ruled.
The Court also noted that the father of the deceased had not made any statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC alleging any conspiracy behind the death or murder of his son. Reliance was also placed on the evidence eon record which showed that there was absolutely no scuffle whatsoever, indicating any injury other than the mechanical injury due to impact of the body on a blunt hard surface. Thus, it was held that there is no fault with the SIT for not having considered the conspiracy angle in its probe.
Recording the submission of the Advocate General that the conclusion of the SIT that the deceased died after falling from the 2nd floor of his residence is the most plausible conclusion, the Court opined,
"Therefore, according to the Ld. Advocate General, the conclusion of the SIT that the deceased Anis Khan died after falling from the 2nd floor, is the most plausible conclusion. This Court does not wish to detail any other of the arguments and counter-arguments made by the petitioner and the State, since it would prejudice the prosecution and/or the defense in course of the trial."
The Court also observed that there is no relationship between the deceased's participation in protests against the State government and his death and accordingly underscored,
"The reference to protests against land grabbing of Aliah University are equally vague. There is a long time-gap between the incidents in question and the death of the victim. The causal connection between the said incidents and the death of the victim appears to be rather remote."
Justice Mantha further averred that it is expected that the charge-sheet is put up for committal and the trial is commenced and concluded expeditiously, but not later than six months from the date of committal.
Background
Senior counsel Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya appearing for the deceased's father had earlier objected to the report submitted by the SIT of the West Bengal police on the ground that it does not disclose how and on whose permission the raid took place at the home of Anis Khan at Amta in Howrah district. The senior counsel had further objected to the findings of the SIT by submitting that it was 'ridiculous' to suggest that the death of Anis Khan was non-homicidal as has been stated in the report.
On the other hand, Advocate General S.N Mookherjee appearing for the State government had apprised the Court that the post-mortem examination report indicates that Khan's death was accidental and not homicidal as alleged by his father. He had further submitted that there was no motive for murder as the accused persons - a home guard and a civic volunteer - did not know Anis Khan, and that he fell through an open window of the second floor of his home at Amta in Howrah district on February 19.
The two, who had allegedly gone to the second floor looking for Khan, were arrested by a special investigation team formed by the state government and charged under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC.
The SIT had earlier submitted an 82-page report to the Court, as had been directed by it earlier, indicating steps taken in its investigation into the unnatural death of Khan.
West Bengal Police had constituted a three-member SIT to probe into the death of Khan. The team is led by the Additional Director General of Police of CID Gyanwant Singh.
Case Title: Salem Khan v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 251
Click Here To Read/Download Order