NEETU KUMAR NAGAICH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Neetu Kumar Nagaich
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
NAVIN SINHA.J. -
(1.)The deceased aged 21 years, a 3rd year student at the National Law University Jodhpur, was the only son of the petitioner. She seeks justice to unravel the mystery of her son's homicidal death, dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the State Police. The investigation has reached a dead end without identification of the offenders. The prayer in the writ petition is therefore for a mandamus to transfer the investigation in FIR No.155 of 2018 dated 29.06.2018 registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at the Mandore Police Station, Jodhpur City, Rajasthan to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
(2.)Shri Sunil Fernandes, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the evening of 13.08.2017 the deceased had gone out of the hostel to a restaurant situated around 300 meters from the University campus, along with his friends at the University. His dead body was found at 09.00 A.M. the next morning on the railway tracks behind the restaurant. Relying on frivolous stories floated of the deceased having committed suicide due to depression, the University authorities did not register a first information report (hereinafter referred to as 'the FIR'). The FIR was registered nearly ten months later, on 29.06.2018, after much persuasion by the petitioner and her husband. The casualness and callousness of the police is reflected from the fact that neither was the crime scene sealed nor necessary investigation done with promptitude by proper examination of relevant witnesses including CCTV footage, and digital footprints, mobile locations etc. and WhatsApp chats during the relevant period of time on the day of occurrence. It is difficult to accept that the service providers did not provide mobile dump datas of towers in the location of the incident or that they were conveniently found by the police to be "dark zones".
(3.)The railway authorities had confirmed, Annexure P-2, that during the intervening night approximately five trains had crossed the track and no engine driver had reported any untoward incident till the body was suddenly found on the railway track at 09.00 A.M. next morning. Prior to that a witness who had gone to answer the call of nature at 06.30 A.M. had stated that he did not see any dead body on the railway track. The nature and number of injuries found on the body of the deceased make it evident that it was a homicidal death and not accidental or suicidal in nature. The caretaker of the warehouse near the place of occurrence has not been examined on the frivolous pretext that he was deaf and therefore unreliable. The excuse that the caretaker could not be relied upon, because he was deaf, is preposterous.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.