IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR(M.P.
WRIT PETITION No. ......esecsees {2022
25842 —
PETITIONER : Sone Lal Singh, S/o Shri Jitendra Singh,
Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No.9,
Village Papura, Post Chandpur, Tehsil
teonther, District Rewa (M.P.).
VERSUS
RESPONDENT : 1. State of M.P.
Through the Secretary, Ministry of Home
Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal (M.P.).
Director General of Police,
State of Madhya Pradesh,
Bhopal (M.P.).
Superintendent of Police ,
District Rewa, Rewa (M.P.)
Collector, .
District Rewa, Rewa (M.P.)
Shri Anoop Singh,
S/o Shri Kamta Singh, R/o Papurah,
Tehsil Janeh, Rewa (M.P.).
Shri Adesh Singh S/o Padmaker Singh,
R/o Village Papurah, Tehsil Janesh,
Rewa (M.P.)
Shri Anil Singh S/o Shri Padmaker Singh,
R/o Village Papurah, Tehsil Janesh,
Rewa (M.P.).
6
8. Shri Padmaker Singh Patel S/o Shri
Ram Mohan Singh, R/o Village Papurah,
Tehsil Janesh, Rewa (M.P.).
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
1. Particulars of the Cause/order against which the petition is made:
(1) Date of Order: Nil
(2) Passed in the Case Numb: Nil
(3) Passed by: Nil
(4) Subject Matter in Brief :
That, the petitioner by way of the instant petition being the
son of the deceased seeking the direction to the respondent
authorities to complete the investigation in accordance to the
law based on the material as collected from the place of crime
against the respondents No. 5 to 8, againstwhom apart from the
contents of an FIR wherein the complainant recorded the
statement to the extent about their presence at the place of
crime as when he reached thereat and having seen him, all the
accused persons as arrayed from the respondent No. 5 to 8,
were left the place of crime and other material evidence as
collected by the prosecution such as the container having the
smell of Kerosene Oil , and the sleepers of the accused persons
at the scene of the crime and further the postmortem opinion of
: the doctor conducting the postmortem to the extent that the
-“\cause of death was on account of antimortum burn which
stablished from the fact in respect of the involvement of the
/, «private respondents as their presence at the scene of crime and
. the bolted out the door of the room whereat the deceased was
found to have seriously burnt on opening of the door. The wife of
the deceased submitted the detailed representation in respect of
not having been conducted the investigation and affirmative
attitude and behavior of the Police offices towards the accused
persons in order to cover their conduct in commission of the
alleged crime of the murder of the deceased and other aspects
with the request to the head of the district prosecution agency
i.e. Superintendent of Police to take an immediate action against
the respondents whose involvement prime facie found to have
been established in relation to the alleged crime and further
provide the protection to the witnesses of the prosecution in
order to adduce the evidence in connection to the alleged
commission of crime without having any fear and pressure of the
accused or their relatives. However the representation so
submitted by the wife of the deceased appeared to have been
put in between the files allowing the accused persons to move
around for the best reason known to the respondent authorities
and therefore the petitioner having no other remedy except to
knock the door of this Hon'ble Court invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under the provisions of Article
226/227 of the constitution of India, to secure the fair and
impartial investigation against the accused persons as per the
requirement of the fundamental right as guaranteed under the
Chapter-III of the constitution of India and therefore the instant
petition.
2. DECLARATION THAT NO PROCEEDING ON THE SAME
SUBJECT MATTER HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY INSTITUTED IN
. ANY COURT, AUTHORITY ,OR TRIBUNAL. IF INSTITUTED
ero, STATUS OF RESULT THEREOF ALONG WITH THE COPY OF
7 oa ORDER: It is declared that no other proceedings has been
‘\instituted before any court of law or any authority in relation to
‘fhe issues as raised in the instant petition.
{2.) DETAILS REMEDIES EXHAUSTED:
The petitioner before approaching to this Hon‘ble Court in the
writ jurisdiction filed the detailed representation through his
mother before the respondent No.3, having apprised about the
factual aspects pertaining to the casualness in the investigation
as setup against the private respondents and the prime facie
influence and the domineer of the accused persons for some
vested reasons. However the said representation appeared to
have been unheard and therefore the instant petition has been
filed.
4, DELAY, IF ANY,IN FILING THE PETITION AND
EXPLANATION THEREFOR AND (SAID EXACT PERIOD
WITHIN WHICH THE PETITION IS FILED AFTER ACCRUAL
OF CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFOR)
It is declared that the investigation still has been in the pipe line
in relation to establish prime facie involvement of the accused
persons in the instant alleged commission of crime and therefore
no delay has been occasioned approaching to this Hon’ble Court.
5. FACTS OF THE CASE
5.1 That, petitioner is citizen of India having the fundamental rights
| enshrined under the Chapter-III of the constitution of India and
accordingly to enforce the said rights the power inherited with
the High Court has been invoked in accordance to the provisions
of Article 226/227 of the constitution of India for settlement of
the grievance which is backed up by the constitutional mandate
as provided under Article-21 of the constitution of India, wherein
it has been guaranteed that the every citizen of this country is
entitle to have conducted the fair and impartial investigation in
relation to the crime as done against the family member of the
petitioner.
,hat, the marg intimation 0/2022, was registered on the report
prone Bhupendra Singh Patel, in respect of the death of Jitendra
co, Sarpanch of the said Village. The prosecution agency registered
wn : . the marg in accordanceto the provisions of Section 173 of CRPC,
and thereafter recorded Panchayatnama of the death body of the
deceased which was sent to the hospital for conducting the
postmortem wherein the doctors conducting the postmortem of
9
the body of the deceased reported the cause of death as on
account of antimortum burn and on the basis of which the prim
facie having an element of the commission of the murder, a FIR
was registered against the respondent No. 5 to 8, under the
Crime No. 0/2022, in relation to the alleged commission of an
Offence U/s 302 Read with Section 34, of IPC, and thereafter the
matter was taken into an investigation. A’copy of the Marg
Intimation, copy of the FIR and postmortem report of the
deceased are annexed here with as (ANNEXURE-P/1, P/2 &
P/3).
5.3 That, the statement of the complainant namely Bhupendra Singh
Patel was recorded wherein he revealed the fact that the
deceased who was in relationship of an uncle was found to have
been locked from outside of the door and at the place of
incidence the respondent No. 5 to 8, were found present at the
scene of crime. The deceased on opening of the door was found
to have seriously burnt on account of the fire which appear to
have been flashed on the part of private respondents and the
said complainant alleged against the said respondents to have
committed an offence of murder of the said Jitendra Kumar
Patel.
5.4 That, the prosecution agency appeared to have been under some
influence of the accused persons as since the date of the
registration of the FIR none of the accused persons have been
taken into custody and as per the information they have not
been produced even before the competent court in order to take
the remand of those accused persons and rather the prosecution
agency has been putting a pressure upon the relatives of the
deceased to change the statement having given the threat from
various angles. It is further relevant to mention here that the
wife of the deceased submitted the detailed representation
raising the voice to take an immediate action against the
respondents No. 5 to 8, whose involvement was prime facie
found in commission of the alleged crime as the complainant
10
found all these accused persons at the scene of the crime and
their presence at the said place of incident makes an inference
to commit the said crime as the room wherein the body of the
deceased was found, to have been locked from outside and the
accused persons after having seen the complainant namely
Bupendra Patel ran away from the scene of crime and therefore
the presumption can be drawn that the murder of the deceased
was done by all these accused persons having put a fire upon
him after putting the some substance useful to spread the fire.
The wife of the deceased in her representation also mention the
fact that the complainant who got registered the FIR against the
respondent No. 5 to 8, and one labour namely Anil Basore, were
called at the Police Station Janeh on 2™ August 2022, in order to
record the statement in connection to the commission of an
offence and thereafter by the evening they were taken to the
Police Station Suhagi, whereat by the concerned Police Officers,
they were allegedly beaten and on account of which the
complainant sustained the injury on the sensitive organs
therefore he had to go to the Hospital for the treatment and the
entire act of the Police Officers, could have been verified from
the CCTV Cameraas installed in the Police Station, however by
this time the same recording even it would have been done,
would have been deleted. The petitioner’s sister submitted the
detailed representation to the Superintendent of Police for taking
the immediate action against all those accused persons and to
provide the protection to the witnesses of the prosecution.
_\ However the respondent authorities have been sitting over to it
\
ed r the best reasons known to them and on account of which the
5.5 That, in accordance to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Lalita Kumari, it is the duty of the Police
officers i.e. respondents to investigate the matter after the
registration of the FIR in order to verify the fact of an allegation
whether the cognizable offence has been committed on the part
of the persons named in the FIR. However the respondent
authorities appeared to have been given cover to the accused
persons for the alleged commission of the crime as none of the
accused persons till date have been arrested by the prosecution
and further as per the information, none of the accused persons
have even been produced before the competent Magistrate in
order to seek the remand of the said accused persons in order to
proceed for the investigation as required in the matter in hand,
whereas sufficient evidence at the initial stage of the
investigation have been produced to make out the case for their
involvement in the commission of the crime, such as the
Photographs at the time of the commission of an offence and the
opinion of the doctor, and further the presence of the accused as
per the contents of the FIR so registered one Mr. Bhupendra
Patel who was the first person who reach at the scene of crime
who had seen the presence of all accused persons named in the
FIR. Copies of the relevant photographs which speaks about the
truthness of the prosecution, are placed on record as
(ANNEXURE-P/5). The petitioner having no other remedy
except to knocked the door of this Hon’ble Court invoking the
inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226/227
of the constitution of India, filing the instant petition for issuance
~of the necessary writ directing to the respondent authorities to
eed
™
,
‘broceed with the proper investigation based on the material on
‘
and further to take an action against the accused persons
d as respondent No. 5 to 8., inter alia on the following
For that, in accordance to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court it is an FIR which is to be taken as the First Information
received from the aggrieved persons and thereafter it is the duty
of the police officer after registration of the FIR to proceed with
the investigation without having any influence of the accused or
their relatives for any reasons as the victims approaches to the
concerned police officers with this believe and hopé that the
person involved in the commission of crime would be punished in
accordanceto the provisions of law.
6.2 For that, it is the settled law laid down by Hon’ble Court in the
series of judgments to the extent that even the evidence of one
eye witness is sufficient to accord the conviction of the accused
persons involved in the alleged commission of crime as in the
present case Bhupendra Patel who being the complainant
mentioned in the FIR to the extent that all accused persons i.e.
respondent No. 5 to 8 were found present at the scene of crime
and they having seen the complainant ran away from the place
of crime. The statements so recorded of the Bhupendra Patel is
to be treated like statement of the eye witness who first rushed
to the place of crime and narrated the actual story to the
prosecution agency. However based on the said statement the
respondent officer ought to have investigated the matter after
having taken into custody the accused persons and should have
sought the remand of those in order to complete the
investigation whereas as per the feedback available to the
petitioner the accused persons have not been arrested despite
their statement have been recorded in the concerned Police
Station.
eM ha
a re
at
yy For that, the presumptions can be drawn in accordance to the
‘7 \\
wephovisions of the Evidence Act in relation prime facie
yy Shue 3 Qi
involvement of the accused persons in the alleged commission of
_.crime as their presence at the scene of crime at the dawn of the
; morning makes inference that it is the accused persons who
committed the murder of Jitendra Patel and the further presence
of the malicious intention on account of the previous enmity with
the complainant party and therefore the involvement of the
accused person cannot be ruled out for the alleged commission
of the crime.
6.4 For that, the materials such as the Kerosene oil container and
the vehicles belonging to accused persons as found to be present
after perusing the Photographs as placed on record in the
present petition and further the presence of the accused persons
at the scene of crime give sufficient reasons for the prosecution
to arrest all those accused persons named as respondent No. 5
to 8, but for the best reasons known to the respondent
authorities those accused persons have not been arrested till
now and even they have not been produced before the
competent court in order to seek for the police remand as per
the requirement of the provisions of the CRPC.
6.5 For that, the representation has been submitted by the wife of
the deceased to the Superintendent of Police having apprised the
factual aspects pertaining to the alleged commission of crime
and further the conduct of the police officers engaged for the
investigation for the alleged commission of and offence and
further taking an attempt to influence to the witnesses of the
prosecution including the complainant. However the
representation so filed has not been given an effect as per the
requirement of the law.
6.6 For that, the unfair investigation as appeared from the conduct
of the investigating officer in the alleged commission of an
offence amounts to the violation of the provision of the
we nstitution of India, as the preamble of the constitution of India
vit gt assures the justice to be accorded to the individual
‘concerned and the representation so filed on the part of the wife
. offthe deceased makes inference that the investigating officer
: has not been putting the proper investigation against the
accused person i.e. respondent No. 5 to 8.
“
7. RELIEF(S)SOUGHT:
In view of the facts mentioned above, the petitioners pay for the
following relief’s:
(i) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing to the respondent
authorities to proceed with the investigation in accordance
to the law based on the material on record against the
accused No. 5 to 8, whose prime facie involvement has
been found in alleged commission of crime as registered
under the provisions of 302, read with Section-34 of IPC.
(ii) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ in the
nature of mandamus directing to the respondent NO.3 to
take cognizance of the contents of the representation as
placed on record in the instant petition filed by the wife of
the deceased and in furtherance of the same directs to the
investigating officer involved in the present case to take an
stern action against the accused persons and further to
ensure to not influence either to the complainant or to
other witnesses in connection to the alleged commission of
crime.
(iii) Any other direction/order may be passed in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
INTERIM ORDER/RELIEF, PRAYED FOR:
Not at this stage. However the petitioner reservesits right tofile
an application seeking for some interim measures as and when
he situation arises taking to the process of the on going
yetition.
9.JoOcuMENTS RELIED ON BUT IN POSSESSION OF THE
PETITIONER
: “
. -
of
ae
The petitioner place reliance upon the document annexed with
the instant petition. However if other documents comes to the
notice of the petitioner which may be necessary for the
adjudication of the issue involved in.the instant petition, the New
petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to place reliance on
the same during the pendency of the instant petition.
10. CAVEAT
That, no notice on lodging a caveat by the opposite party is
received,
An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith
JABALPUR (Vikram Singh) °
DATED : COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
/ 16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR (MP)
WRITPETITION NO. 2221 2-;2922
PETITIONER : Sone Lal Singh.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT : State of M.P. & Others.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sone Lal Singh, S/o Shri Jitendra Singh,
Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Ward No.9, Village Papura, Post Chandpur,
Tehsil teonther, District
Rewa (M.P.), do hereby state as here under :
1. That, the deponent is competent to exec
ute an affidavit in
support of the petition which has been drafted
by the counsel on
the basis of the documents made available to him.
2. That, the contents of the paragraph from 1
to end of the
enclosed petition are true on the basis of
the documents
available in the office record.
3, That the contents of Paragraph 1 and 2 aretrue
to the best of
my personal knowledge and beliefs on the
basis of the
Br¢
VERIFICATION
: I, deponent do hereby verify that the contents of
Paragraph 1 to
3 are correct and true to the best of my perso
nal knowledge and
beliefs.
verified atJP dated.
Sue
‘ or
DEF.
tderstitred oy Fs,
Oo Sh
Te: by
Grose .....
emt. 44 SINGH
Sig “¢ 9,
Naan Oa
ee week Eb EBERT eee be Bh CERES Cees
For
k
iuie fia
(ne s
+ ourt
