NRHM Accused Doctor’s Death: Allahabad HC Accepts CBI's Closure Report, Sets Aside Magistrate's Order Summoning 7 Accused To Face Murder Trial

The Bench of Allahabad High Court recently upheld the CBI inquiry report which found that the death of Dy CMO Dr. Y.S Sachin inside the Lucknow jail in June 2011 was suicidal and not homicidal.

With this, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also quashed the summoning order of the magistrate against 7 retired/serving government officers to face the trial in connection with the murder of Dr. Y.S. Sachan and for causing the disappearance of evidence.

The Court observed that the CBI had conducted a detailed scientific, meticulous, and fair investigation for reaching to the conclusion that it was not a case of homicide, but suicide, and hence, there was no occasion for the Magistrate to discard the reports submitted by the CBI and summon the 7 applicants to face a murder trial.

"...without there being any overwhelming evidence and material to discard the closure reports filed by the CBI under Section 173 (2) CrPC, summoning the petitioners, who are retired/serving government officers to face trial for such a serious offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, is preposterous and to some extent outrageous," the Court observed.

The case in brief

Essentially, on 02.04.2011 an FIR was lodged against Dr. YS Sachan and two others at Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC for misappropriation, cheating, and forgery, etc of National Rural Health Mission (NHRM) funds during the Financial Year 2010-2011.

On 05.04.2011, Dr. Sachan was summoned to the Crime Branch, Hazratganj, Lucknow. He was arrested on the same day and sent to District Jail, Lucknow on 06.04.2011. Later on, another FIR was filed against him for misappropriation, cheating, etc of NHRM funds by him during the financial year 2009-2010.

On account of high blood pressure and diabetes, Dr. Sachan was taken to District Jail Hospital and on 22.06.2011 his dead body was found on the 1st Floor of an unused toilet of Jail Hospital, Lucknow.

On 23.06.2011, his wife, Dr. Malti Sachan, sent a complaint to the Police Station of Gosainganj, Lucknow alleging the murder of her husband on 22.06.2011 in Jail Hospital, Lucknow. On the basis of the complaint sent by Dr. Malti Sachan, an FIR dated 26.06.2011 was lodged against the unknown person(s) under Sections 120-B and 302 IPC.

It was submitted that her husband was sent to prison pursuant to a well-designed criminal conspiracy hatched by the responsible officers of the State Government on the allegations of the bungling of Crores of rupees in the Family Welfare Department. Initially, there were allegations of financial irregularities against him but later on, he was also linked to the murders of Dr. V.K. Arya and Dr. B.P. Singh, both were the then CMOs (Family Welfare), Lucknow.

The Allahabad High Court, on a PIL, directed the CBI to investigate the cause of his death. After analysis of the evidence, CBI was of the opinion that the deceased had committed suicide and hence, a closure report was filed by the CBI concluding that Dr. Sachan had committed suicide, and it was not a case of homicidal death.

The complainant's wife of the deceased was not satisfied and again filed a protest petition for summoning the seven accused (petitioners before the HC) for the trial of the murder of his husband.

The CBI opposed the protest petition, however, the Magistrate rejected the second final report and treated the protest petition as a complaint case. The Magistrate summoned all the accused petitioners to face trial under Section 302 read with Section 120-B, IPC. The said order was challenged in the instant plea by the seven accused officers.

It was their case that they are Ex-serving government servants and no prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was taken. The absence of sanction, as mandated under Section 197 CrPC, would otherwise vitiate the impugned order.

The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Magistrate, while issuing the summoning order, has failed to record reasons for summoning the petitioners under Sections 302 read with Section 120-B IPC.

Further, the court explained that the Magistrate, “while taking cognizance on the basis of the complaint, has to be more cautious and careful than taking cognizance on police report as in the latter scenario, the Magistrate had an advantage of police report,which would be filed after collecting evidence and material by the investigating agency.” The court said that the complainant is obsessed with the new theory of gaps in the investigation by the CBI.

It was also opined by the court that in order to reject the conclusion of the CBI there must have been overwhelming material and evidence to reject the findings and nothing, in this case, was found before the Magistrate to discard the report.

Consequently, the court concluded that “in absence of an order of sanction for prosecution of the petitioners for the offence in question, the order of cognizance is bad in law and is liable to be set-aside." The impugned order was, therefore, set-aside.

Case title - Subesh Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrett. Lucknow And Others along with connected matters

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 95

Click Here To Read/Download Order