Custodial Death: Punjab & Haryana High Courts Directs CBI Probe Into Death Of Young Girl In Police Custody, Says SIT Ignored Vital Questions

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed CBI to probe into the custodial death of a girl who allegedly died due to torture in Punjab Police custody in 2017.

The plea was filed by the deceased's fiancee who alleged that he along with deceased Ramandeep Kaur was taken in the Police Custody to investigate a case pertaining to fraud. Kaur allegedly died during interrogational torture.

Thereafter, he moved High Court in 2017 and the Court directed the DGP Punjab to constitute SIT to probe the matter.

The Court noted that the petitioner changed his stance before the SIT and claimed that police forcibly made them cremate Ramandeep Kaur without waiting for her parents and relatives. Whereas before Magistrate he stated that Ramandeep had no surviving legal heirs except he himself with whom she was in relation. However, the same cannot be the ground to deny fair investigation, it opined.

"It is a case of death in police custody. State cannot be allowed to hide behind the plea of shifting stand of petitioner. It cannot be a ground to deny fair investigation. Despite having been constituted under the orders passed by this Court, SIT ignored vital questions which are necessary for fair investigation of this case," Justice Pankaj Jain said.

The Court was hearing the plea of Mukul Garg seeking direction to CBI to re-investigate the custodial death of his partner Ramandeep Kaur in FIR registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-A. 465, 468, 471 of the IPC,  Ludhiana.

The couple was allegedly illegally picked up by the Police to interrogate regarding a case pertaining to fraud and during the interrogational torture Kaur passed away.

It was contended by the petitioner that there are unexplained injuries on the wrists of the deceased which prima facie point this to be a case of homicidal death and not a suicide. He contended further  that the manner in which the inquiry has been botched up, is evident from the fact that the knife is stated to have been found from the undergarments of the deceased and handed over to ASI Sukhdev Singh but the same does not find any mention in the report conducted by the SIT.

State Counsel did not deny that Ramandeep Kaur died in the police custody. He however submitted that during the investigation it has been revealed that it is a case of suicide and not homicide. He contended that the stand taken by the petitioner is improvement over his initial version.

It was further asserted that the petitioner having not come to the Court with clean hands, the prayer made in the present petition needs to be rejected on this ground alone.

After hearing both the sides and perusing the SIT report, the Court said that the issue that has caught its attention w.r.t. the "hesitation cut marks on both the wrists of the deceased and further recovery of knife from the undergarments of the deceased which was handed over to ASI Sukhdev Singh, but was conspicuously misplaced by him."

SIT report itself records that the lady constables on duty had no satisfactory reply as to how and from where the knife came in possession of Ramandeep Kaur who was in police custody, the Court questioned.

Justice Jain further highlighted that, "all the police officials have feigned ignorance w.r.t. the cut marks on the wrists of the deceased. It has come on record that on the wrist of right hand of the deceased there were 2 hesitation cuts of around 2 inches and on the wrist of left hand of the deceased there was 01 incised wound, which was 1 X 0.25 cm. These cuts on the wrist must have bled. It is surprising that none of the police personnel on duty noticed blood and cuts on wrist of the deceased."

Adding that report suggests that SIT fumbled somewhere, the Court said that the "Report of SIT is discrepant on the vital link w.r.t. the deceased coming in possession of knife and the knife disappearing from the whole investigation after having been handed over by the Doctors who conducted post-mortem", the police official.

Consequently, the Court opined "as the true facts need to be unearthed through a committed, resolved and a competent investigating agency to retain public confidence" and directed CBI to investigate "as early as possible preferably within a period of 3 months."

Advocates Pratham Sethi, Pranshul Dhull and Kanishk Sarup, Advocate for the petitioner.

Rajeev Anand, Advocate for respondent No.1-CBI.

Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 86

Click here to read/download the order