Attempt to hide truth, HC asks why no FIR registered even after a year
- CBI sought part RTI exemption, Govt gave it full
- Screen Awards: Milkha, Ram-Leela and Madras Cafe dominate
- DGCA seeks fresh public objections after clearing AirAsia for take-off
- Delhi: 51-year-old Danish national alleges gangrape, 15 detained for questioning
- I wonder if I will be able to ever reunite with my husband, my kids. I miss them: Devyani
SMELLING a rat in the investigation done by the Chandigarh Police in the mysterious death of a Sector 40 resident, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday cornered the police for not registering an FIR in the case even after a year of the incident.
Observing that there has been an attempt to hide the truth, a single-judge Bench questioned the police as to why the probe is not being handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Dissatisfied with the investigation and explanation offered by UT counsel for not registering an FIR, the high court on Wednesday directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) to remain present in the court on the next hearing.
Counsel appearing on behalf of Chandigarh Police was made to field a volley of questions as the Bench perused the post mortem report of the deceased. While, according to the Chandigarh Police, Vinay Kumar committed suicide in September 2012 by hanging himself from a ceiling fan at his residence, findings of the post-mortem report belie police's claims. The injuries found on the body do not suggest that they could have been self-inflicted by Vinay, 31.
Alleging that rather than registering an FIR, the Chandigarh Police are allegedly forcing her to enter into a compromise with the suspects, mother of deceased, Mithlesh Rani, resident of Sector 40 had moved the high court. She had alleged that if she does not oblige, she will be implicated in false cases by the Chandigarh Police. The mother has also alleged that Vinay was murdered by his wife, her associates and his body was later hanged to make it appear a case of suicide.
Referring to the post mortem report and circumstantial evidence in the case, the court observed that if not a case of murder but a case of abetment of suicide ought to have been registered by the police. Significantly, the post-mortem report mentions three external injuries, on neck, shoulder and stomach, which could not have been self-inflicted.