Stating that Jharkhand Police was “feeding questions” to get “a specific reply”, which is “not appreciated”, the Jharkhand High Court Tuesday got here down closely on the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the alleged homicide of Dhanbad choose Uttam Anand.
Hearing the case suo motu, the court docket famous that the post-mortem report says the loss of life was “brought on by laborious and blunt substance due to head damage”, and requested why police have been asking if such accidents have been doable due to a fall.
“We have perused the questionnaire framed by the Investigating Officer particularly Mr Vinay Kumar… to Dr Kumar Shubhendu, Assistant Professor… SNMMC, Dhanbad: ‘Please clarify whether or not the accidents within the head are doable by fall on street floor or not?’… When the Investigating Agency is investigating the incidence so as to discover out the rationale of loss of life, then how and underneath what circumstances such query is being requested by the Investigating Officer from the involved physician, that too when the CCTV footage clarifies all the scene of incidence?” the Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan stated.
“(The) postmortem report clearly discloses that the deadly damage has been brought on by a tough and blunt substance. Thereafter, it’s for the Investigating Agency to discover out the weapon of crime. Feeding a specific query to the physician to get a specific reply is under no circumstances appreciated.” The court docket stated it didn’t obtain any passable solutions from police.
ASJ Uttam Anand, 50, had been knocked down whereas out on his morning stroll by an auto-rickshaw that veered sharply in the direction of him on an empty street, as CCTV footage confirmed. The postmortem report talked about “diffuse contusion” within the head in addition to fracture and blood clots within the safety layer of the mind. The police have arrested two individuals and seized the autorickshaw, which was discovered to be stolen.
The court docket stated it was important to unearth the “conspiracy” and catch the “mastermind” and that “apprehending a pawn” wouldn’t serve any objective. “Time can be of essence on this investigation. Delay in addition to any flaw within the investigation could ultimately have an effect on the trial adversely.”
The court docket additionally questioned the delay within the registration of an FIR. It stated it was “intriguing” that whereas the CCTV footage of the incident grew to become “viral inside 2 to 4 hours from the time of incidence” and Judge Anand was taken to hospital round 5.30 am, the FIR was lodged “belatedly at 12.45 pm”, after a grievance by his spouse. “The CCTV should be repeatedly monitored by police. The docs of the hospital should even have knowledgeable police,” stated the Bench.
The court docket took observe of the advice of a CBI probe, and stated a notification by the company was seemingly by Wednesday.