High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2380/2012 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P. K. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also Heard Mrs. H. M. Phukan, learned State Counsel. The fact involved in this writ petition and as narrated in the order dat ed 20.06.2012 is as follows:
Legal Reasoning
(cid:28)A road accident occurred at about 7.40 PM on 06.11.2009 near Bathowpuri Boro High School and the Gorchuk PS Case No. 195/2009 was registered in connect ion with the said accident. Smti Rupali Das and Sri Rajib Das, the wife and son respectively of the petitioner No.1 died in the road accident and when the petit ioner went to lodge an FIR, he learnt that a case was already registered on the road accident on the basis of an FIR filed by one Chittaranjan Sonowal (responde nt No.7), who falsely described that the two victims as his own wife and son. After hearing of the fraudulent FIR of the respondent No.7, the petition er gave a comlait to the OC of the Gorchuk Police Station on 18.11.2009 (Annexur e-B) indicating that, the respondent No.7 has falsely claimed himself to be rela ted to the two victims and accordingly requested the police for correction of th e case records. The report(s) of the I.O. (Annexure-D and E) shows that the poli ce have now shown the name of the victim Rajib Das as the son of the other victi m Rupali Das as the wife respectively, of the petitioner No.
Legal Reasoning
Coincidentally the mother of the victim Rupali Das (the mother-in-law of the petitioner No.1) have jointly filed this case for a direction on the respon dents to correct the connected records of the accident and to enable the petitio ners to receive the post-mortem report(s) and other documents, which are yet to be released to the genuine relation of the victims. (cid:29) The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition for appropriate act ion by the police against Sri Chitaranjan Sonowal, who is respondent No.7. In sp ite service of notice, the said respondent has not responded to the proceeding. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, it has been stated thus: (cid:28)3.That before adverting the parawise reply the deponent begs to state that the charge of the instant case of Garchuk P.S. Case No. 195/2009 U/S 279/338/304(A) in connection with the WP(C0 No. 2380/2012 was submitted vide charge sheet No. 33/2010 dated 31.03.2010 when the case vide No. 195/2009 was registered, SI Bima n Roy and the Officer In Charge of Garchuk Police Station and SI Manoj Lahakar was the In Charge, Traffic of Garchuk Police Station. In the instant case, the p reliminary steps were taken up by ASI Nakul Ch. Deka and SI Manoj Lahakar comple ted the investigation and submitted charge sheet of the case. It has been found that the Inspector of Police, Traffic, Pandu Division, Sri Babul Ch. Nath superv ised the case and suggested the Investigating Officer, SI Manoj Lahakar to submi t charge sheet against the accused driver in connection with the case of Garchuk PS 195/2009. Accordingly the charge sheet was submitted vide C.S. No. 33/2010 d
Decision
ated 31.3.2010 U/S 279/388/304(A) IPC. 5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that as per MCD No.1 dated 6.11.2009, the accident di d occur at around 7.00 PM and the names of the victims were recorded as Rupali S onowal, Rajib Sonowal and Sunu Boro. As per the case diary, the victims were sen t to the GMCH by ambulance. 8. That with regard to the statements in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, this deponents begs to state that as per case diary, one Chittaranjan Sonowal, S/O Sr i Kinaram Sonowal resident of Pandhoa, Village, P.S. Tengakhat, Dist- Dibtugarh, lodged an ejahar on 7.11.2009 stating that in the evening at about 7.00 p.m. on 6.11.2009, his wife Rupali Sonowal, aged about 30 years, and his son, Rajib Son owal, aged about 7 years, who were with Smti Sunu Boro, aged about 25 years, wer e knocked down by the driver of the cruiser vehicle no. AS-27/C-0079. The driver of the vehicle was allegedly driving in a rush and negligent manner while the v ictims were moving from Kotahbari Road towards the Delhi Public School and the d river of the vehicle after knocking them in front of Bathoupri High School, fled away from the scene. As a result, all the three were grievously injured and sen t to the GMCH by 108 ambulance for treatment. But, his wife and son succumbed to their injuries on way and the doctor declared them death on way. Smti Sunu Boro was admitted to the GMCH for treatment. As such, the complainant Sri Chittaranj an Sonowal prayed for action against the driver of the vehicle. On receipt of th e FIR lodged by Chittaranjan Sonowal, a case was registered vide Garchuk P.S. Ca se NO. 195/2009 U/S 279/338/34(A) IPC on 7.11.2009. 9. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that the names of the victims in the post mortem rep ort and the Forensic Medicine Department were recorded as Rupali Sonowal and Raj ib Sonowal as per the case diary. 10. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that after going through the case diary an d the records of Garchuk P.S., it has been found that there is no record of lodg ing ejhar by the petitioner Nareswar Das on 18.11.2009 though on the case diary No.III, dated 20.11.2009, ASI, N.C. Deka who took the preliminary step, had acce pted the photocopy of the affidavit submitted by the petitioner, Nareswar Das an d he stated in the case diary that it was attached with the case diaries. But no such photocopy of the affidavit has been found in the duplicate cases diary in which the initial I.O. had accepted Nareswar Das as the legal guardian of the de ceased victims as per the affidavit submitted by the petitioner Nareswar Das. 12. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 20 of the writ petition , the deponent begs to state that the ejahar lodged by Chittaranjan Sonowal was accepted and registered ide Case No. 195/2009. Regarding lodging of FIR by the p etitioner Nareswar Das, no records have been found in the case diary and in the police Station. 14.That the deponent further begs to state that an enquiry was conducted by the office of the deponent and during enquiry, Smti Sabitri Boro the mother-in-law o f Nareswar Das was examined. She has stated that her daughter Rupali Boro was ma rried to Nareswar Das and gave birth to three children two sons and a daughter. At the time of th motor accident her son-in-law, Nareswar Das was away from the family. As she is poor and illiterate, Chittaranjan Sonwal lodged the FIR claimi ng Rupali Boro as his (Chittaranjan Sonowal) wife. ASI Nakul Ch. Deka, who took the preliminary steps of the case, issued Form No.54 to Nareswar Das rectifying the names. However, SI Manoj Lahkar, who submitted the charge sheet of the case committed an omission when he did not intimate the Department of Forensic Medici ne, Guwahati Medical College to rectify the errors. However, the present O.C., G archuk Police Station has been directed to take necessary actions for rectificat ion of the names in the records of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Guwahat i Medical College and in the post mortem report. (cid:29) From the above stand of the respondents what is seen is that the present O/C Gor chuk Police Station has already been directed to take necessary action for corre ction of the names in the relevant records. However, as submitted by Mr. P. K. B arman, learned counsel for the petitioners and as agreed to Mrs. H. M. Phukan, l earned State Counsel, only rectification of mistakes will not be an end to the m atter, but the police will have to carry out investigation on the respondent No. 7 as to how he had identified himself as the husband of the deceased and father of the minor boy who also died in the accident. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents that apart from recti fication of the mistakes in the relevant documents, that will also carry out req uired investigation in the matter in respect of the wrong identity disclosed by the respondent 7 and accepted by respondent No.6.