Surireddy Pullamma and ors. Vs. Secretary to Govt., Home Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyd. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal - unauthorised detention - articles 21 and 226 of constitution of india, section 302 of indian penal code, 1860 and section 174 of criminal procedure code, 1973 - appeal against wanton investigation and compensation for unauthorised detention caused by investigation - police exceeded limits in apprehending petitioner on basis of incoherent version of child witness - said version relied upon without waiting for collection of supporting material - respondent contended that when court did not found fault with investigation in light of contrary statements given by child witness - contention advanced by respondent accepted - court declined to grant compensation in view of arguments advanced by respondent. - a.p. record of rights in land and pattadar pass books act, 1971. section 5(3) & a.p. record of rights in land and pattadar passbooks rules, 1989, rules 5 & 19: : [g.s. singhvi, c.j., & g.v. seethapathy, c.v. nagarjuna reddy, jj] amendment of record of rights procedure held, proviso to section 5(1) and (3) represent statutory embodiment of the most important facet of rules of natural justice i.e., audi alterem partem. these provisions contemplate issue of notice to persons likely to be affected by action/decision of mandal revenue officer to carry out or not to carry out amendment in record of rights. similarly, a notice is required to be issued to any other person whom recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by amendment. a copy of amendment and notice is also required to be published in prescribed manner. the publication of notice in prescribed manner is in addition to notice, which is required to be given in writing to all persons whose names are entered in record of rights and who are interested in or affected by amendment and also to any other person whom recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by amendment. the publication of a copy of amendment and notice is only supplemental and not the alternative mode of giving notice to persons whose names are entered in the record of rights. if legislature thought that publication of a general notice in form viii will be sufficient compliance of rules of natural justice, then there was no occasion to incorporate a specific requirement of issuing written notice to persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment. the requirement of issuing written notice to such persons clearly negates the argument that publication of notice in form vii is sufficient. thus the language of form viii in which notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of substantive provision contained in section 5((3), which casts a duty on recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or aggrieved by the proposed amendment. - the superintendent of police having prima facie satisfied with uk averments of the representations got a telephonic message given by the additional s. further, the most interesting part of this case is that the entire family both men and women were implicated in this case and lw1 went on attributing different acts to each of the petitioners in committing the offence. , in protecting the innocent people from facing a charge of the nature of section 302 ipc, is appreciated, his report did not throw any light whatsoever, whether thecrime was committed by the deceased's wife along with anantaramulu, more so, having recorded a finding that by the time of his visit to the village, there arc strong rumours about her illicit intimacy with anantaramulu. with the result while the real culprit escaped the punishment, the poor innocent members of the petitioner's family were made to languish in jail for over 5 months and suffer the humiliation in silence till they were cleared by the s.order1. the petitioners 6 in number were initially taken into custody as accused in crime no.43/96, on the file of cherla police station alleging that they have done away with the life of one vanaparti venkateswarlu onthe intervening night of 22/23-2-1996 and they were chaged for an offence punishable under section 302 ipc. but, subsequently it was found that the case was mistakenly alleged, on the basis of final report filed by the s.d.p.o, dated 16-11-1996, filed this writ petition questioning the inaction on the part of the respondents herein in not conducting an enquiry into the petition dated 31-05-1996 submitted by them against the officials involved in the investigation of the crime and also seeking a direction for payment of compensation of rs.9.00 lakhs towards the value of the crops that were lost by the petitioner's family due to their unauthorised detention in the jail for over six months.2. in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is also alleged that because of the humiliation the petitioner's family suffered in the eyes of the public, and because of their detention for a period of five months, the husband of the petitioner nos.2 and 3 left their company and they were sent to their father's house i.e., petitioner nos.5's house.3. the respondents filed their counter stating that though on a subsequent stage i.e., during the investigation conducted by the s.d.p.o., it came to light that on the basis of a false statement given by master v. narayana, son of the deceased aged about 10 years, the circle inspector and his subordinates were justified in taking the petitioners into custody pending investigation treating them as accused. it is also the case of the respondents that on the basis of the report of the petitioner dated 31 -5-1996, the additional superintendent of police by his telephonic message dated 22-6-1996 directed the s.d.p.o, to conduct the investigation afresh in which the petitioners innocence was established. hence, it is not correct to contend that no action was taken by the additional superintendent of police and other superior officers of the police department. there is no justification in the claim for compensation by the petitioners as the police acted on the basis of the evidence available on record. hence, they cannot be penalised forthe same4. the facts leading to the filing of the case are that on a complaint given by the village development officer, on 23-2-1996, that the deceased sri vanaparthi venkateswarlu, found hanging in the early hours of 23-2-1996, the police registered the case initially under section 174 cr.p.c., i.e., death under suspicious circumstances and the assistant sub inspector visited the village. after recording the statements of lw1 to lw7, conducted inquest and as per the statements of witnesses, panchayatdars at the inquest opined that there are disputes between the deceased and his wife for the last 5 to 6 months and as usually at about 8.00 p.m. on 22-6-1996, the deceased beat his wife and she left the house. thereafter the deceased has gone to street enquiry of the whereabouts of his wife and when the persons named in column no.9 tried to chase him with sticks, apprehending that those people may beat him, the deceased ran back to his house and bolted from inside. thereafter all of them left the place. it is only in the early hours of 23-2-1996, the son of the deceased master v. narayana aged about 10 years (lw1) found his father hanging to the roof beam with a rope. on the basis of the statement given by the witnesses, the panchayatdars opined that it is a death under suspicious circumstances. thereafter the investigation was taken over by the circle inspector of police on 29-2-1996 and the child gave a different statement implicating the petitioners. as per the statement of lw1, recorded by him, that after the neighbours returned back to their houses having chased the deceased with sticks, himself and his father were sleeping in the house by keeping the doors open and all the petitioners herein entered the house from the back door and threatened him that if he opens his mouth, he will be killed. thereafter, all of them pounced on his father and killed him by twisting the testicles and hanged him with a coconut rope to the ceiling beem. the petitioner no.5 herein while returning home lias taken him to one nulli lakshmi, lw8 in the remand report and handed over him to her. in the morning when he woke-up from the bed he was told that hisfather died and then approached b. savithri, lw7, in the report. then he started attributing individual acts to each of the accused. the motive part, the c.i. got spoken through lw8 stating that when petitioner no.5 stored teak wood in her house, the deceased informed the forest officials about 5 years back. she also states that the deceased dragged one aakula narasamma, niece of petitioner no.5 and both the parties went round the police station for that incident also. in the instant case, on the spot the c.i. arrested all the women i.e., petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and sent them to remand on 4-3-1996, subsequently, he has shown the arrest of petitioner no.5 on 15-3-1996 and remanded him to judicial custody. it is also on record that the petitioners could not get bail for nearly 5 months and they were languishing in the jail.5. while things stood thus, on 31-5-1996, the 1st petitioner, submitted a detailed representation not only to the hon'ble chief minister and down to the superintendent of police but also to the opposition party m.l.as., stating that the deceased's wife is having illicit contact with budigam anantharamulu in the village and both of them having killed the deceased person falsely implicated them by paying huge bribes to the c.i. and his subordinates. the superintendent of police having prima facie satisfied with uk averments of the representations got a telephonic message given by the additional s.p., to the s.d.p.o., venkatapuram on 21-6-1996 to re-investigate the entire case from the beginning personally and it is strongly believed that the entire investigation went on wrong lines and the accused figured in the murder case is allegedly not true accused. it is now, established beyond doubt that as per the report of the s.d.p.o., the petitioners are falsely implicated in this case.6. according to me, this case is having two facets, one, whether the c.i. of police is justified in apprehending the petitioners herein in a crime originally registered under section 174 cr.p.c. on the basis of a statementgiven by child witness, which is completely at variance with his earlier version and whether the c.i. of police has falsely implicated the petitioners in this case. the second aspect is whether the respondents are justified in closing the case by treating the death of the deceased as suicide in the light of the material available on record that because of the illicit intimacy of the deceased's wife with b. anantaramulu, there were disputes between the wife and husband for the last 5 months and on the fateful day the wife of the deceased having left her house has slept in the house of sri b. anantaramulu, as per her own statement and as per the statement of lw1 to s.d.p.h.o., he implicated the petitioner's family as per the dictation of his mother, who is responsible in doing away with the life of the deceased with the help of sri b. anantaramulu.issue no.1 : the assistant sub inspector of police recorded the statements of as many as 7 lws. including the son of the deceased (lw1) i.e., the child witness. all of them spoke in one voice that on 22-9-1996, the deceased along with his wife and son left for cherla in the morning and returned home by about 7.00p.m. in the night after seeing matinee show picture 'orey rickshaw'. as per the version of the child witness, after finishing dinner his father asked his mother to come over to his sister's house where prayers to lord christ are being offered by the villagers, on her refusal his father beat her and immediately his mother left the house. thereafter, both of them i.e., himself and his father went to his father's sister's house and inquired whereabouts of his mother. they were informed that his mother did not go there. then the deceased started inquiring the neighbours in the street and in fact, when he approached one kummari venkateswarlu and started inquiring about his wife and when he pleaded ignorance, the deceased seemed to have untied the bullocks in his compound under the belief that the bullocks will be going to the place where his wife is and followed the bullocks. on that the neighbours including thepetitioners got annoyed and they asked him to drive back the bullocks to his compound and tie them. but, he refused by saying, 'i will not tie them to the pole'. in those circumstances, kummari venkateswarlu, the petitioners and others have taken sticks and started chasing him. apprehending that he will be beaten he ran back to his house and bolted from inside. thereafter all of them went back. it is only in the early hours of 23-2-1996, the boy woke up and found his father hanging to the beam of the ceiling. almost all the witnesses adhered to the same version in the statements given by than to assistant sub inspector on 23-2-1996. now, it is on record that the c.i., has taken up the investigation on 29-2-1996 and there is a change in the version of the child witness from the statement recorded by him on 29-2-1996 and the motive part for committing the offence was spoken by ms. lakshmi, lw8 and on that basis the c.i., apprehended these petitioners.7. i have no manner of doubt that the c.i. exceeded his limits in apprehending the petitioners on the basis of on incoherent version spoken by the child witness before him which is at variance with the version given by him to the assistant sub inspector on 23-2-1996. except stating that there were some disputes between the petitioner's family and the deceased about 5 years back, which are very trivial in nature, there is no other reason worth naming whatsoever for committing the offence. as per the version given by the child witness, his father was killed by squeezing the testicles, but the doctor who conducted the autopsy, in his final report opined that the death is due to strangling, but not because of the squeaser of the testis. the c.i. recorded the statement of the deceased's wife anjamma who is so many words admitted before him that having left her house after she was beaten by the deceased went to the house of anantaramulu and slept there throughout the night and she came to know of the death of her husband while she was going to maamidigudem village, through one mr. suri babu. by the time the c.i. visited the placethere is an inquest report available in the file which shows that there were disputes between the deceased and his wife for last 5 to 6 months and he was also suspecting that his wife was having illicit intimacy with anantaramulu, in whose house she slept for that night.8. i have gone through the entire record,the c.i. of police did not make anyinvestigation into that aspect and when thestatement of the child witness before him isat variance, even without waiting forcollection of some more supporting materialpointing the accused finger at the petitioner'sfamily, apprehended the entire family membersand lodged them in the jail.9. as stated supra, the disputes between the petitioner's family and the deceased dates back to 5 years. if they went to do-away with the deceased, they need not wait till the deceased's wife develops illicit intimacy with anantaramulu, for long 5 years and they need not select such an opportunity to do-away with the life of the deceased. further, the most interesting part of this case is that the entire family both men and women were implicated in this case and lw1 went on attributing different acts to each of the petitioners in committing the offence. i have no manner of doubt that this was done at the behest of the c.i. for obvious reasons to divert the investigation from its proper direction. the innocence of the petitioners came to the fore in the investigation conducted by the s.d.p.h.o.issue no. 2: i have gone through the report filed by the s.d.p.o, dated 7-11-1996, 18-11-1996 and 12-4-1998, to my surprise, as per the report of the s.d.p.o., the child witness implicated the entire family in this crime, at the instance of his mother, whose character is very doubtful. while the effort of the s.d.p.o., in protecting the innocent people from facing a charge of the nature of section 302 ipc, is appreciated, his report did not throw any light whatsoever, whether thecrime was committed by the deceased's wife along with anantaramulu, more so, having recorded a finding that by the time of his visit to the village, there arc strong rumours about her illicit intimacy with anantaramulu. the way in which the investigation was conducted, either by the c.i., or by the s.d.p.o., i am of the opinion that truth is the casualty in this investigation. with the result while the real culprit escaped the punishment, the poor innocent members of the petitioner's family were made to languish in jail for over 5 months and suffer the humiliation in silence till they were cleared by the s.d.p.o., and they have to make the jail as their abode for long 5 months.10. in fact, i thought of awarding damages to the petitioners in this case. but the government pleader, forcibly put forth his plea in defense of his clients that when the courts themselves did not find fault with the investigation in the light of the contrary statements given by the child witness and refused the bail, how can his clients, who is involved in investigation of the crime can be found fault with. i find sufficient force in the contention of the government pleader. instances are many, where the courts granted bail to the accused involved in day light murders. but, in this case, i really wonder how the courts refused bail. apart from the incoherent statements of lw1, special provisions are made in cr.p.c. in case of women facing criminal charges. in all fairness i have no answer and i have to bow down my head for the way in which some of the judicial officers are discharging the judicial functions without application of mind and without knowing the effect of the orders passed by them on the society at large.11. as i cannot direct any action against these judicial officers, i cannot adopt a different course to punish the culprits in this case and accordingly, they are let off. but, at the same time, i feel it is an appropriate case where atleast departmental enquiry has to be initiatedagainst the c.i. to un-earth the truth, so that a proper message can be conveyed to the investigating officials that times arc changing and any dereliction of duty on their part will be viewed seriously.12. with the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. no costs.13. this writ petition having been set down for being mentioned on 27-4-1998 as per the court directions pursuant to the order of the high court dated 174-1998 and made herein and upon perusing the said order dated 17-4-98 and upon hearing the above counsels. the court on 27-4-98 made the following

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioners 6 in number were initially taken into custody as accused in Crime No.43/96, on the file of Cherla Police Station alleging that they have done away with the life of one Vanaparti Venkateswarlu onthe intervening night of 22/23-2-1996 and they were chaged for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. But, subsequently it was found that the case was mistakenly alleged, on the basis of final report filed by the S.D.P.O, dated 16-11-1996, filed this writ petition questioning the inaction on the part of the respondents herein in not conducting an enquiry into the petition dated 31-05-1996 submitted by them against the officials involved in the investigation of the crime and also seeking a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.9.00 lakhs towards the value of the crops that were lost by the petitioner's family due to their unauthorised detention in the jail for over six months.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is also alleged that because of the humiliation the petitioner's family suffered in the eyes of the public, and because of their detention for a period of five months, the husband of the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 left their company and they were sent to their father's house i.e., Petitioner Nos.5's house.

3. The respondents filed their counter stating that though on a subsequent stage i.e., during the investigation conducted by the S.D.P.O., it came to light that on the basis of a false statement given by Master V. Narayana, son of the deceased aged about 10 years, the Circle Inspector and his subordinates were justified in taking the petitioners into custody pending investigation treating them as accused. It is also the case of the respondents that on the basis of the report of the petitioner dated 31 -5-1996, the Additional Superintendent of Police by his telephonic message dated 22-6-1996 directed the S.D.P.O, to conduct the investigation afresh in which the petitioners innocence was established. Hence, it is not correct to contend that no action was taken by the Additional Superintendent of Police and other superior officers of the police department. There is no justification in the claim for compensation by the petitioners as the police acted on the basis of the evidence available on record. Hence, they cannot be penalised forthe same

4. The facts leading to the filing of the case are that on a complaint given by the Village Development Officer, on 23-2-1996, that the deceased Sri Vanaparthi Venkateswarlu, found hanging in the early hours of 23-2-1996, the police registered the case initially under Section 174 Cr.P.C., i.e., death under suspicious circumstances and the Assistant Sub Inspector visited the village. After recording the statements of LW1 to LW7, conducted inquest and as per the statements of witnesses, panchayatdars at the inquest opined that there are disputes between the deceased and his wife for the last 5 to 6 months and as usually at about 8.00 p.m. on 22-6-1996, the deceased beat his wife and she left the house. Thereafter the deceased has gone to street enquiry of the whereabouts of his wife and when the persons named in column No.9 tried to chase him with sticks, apprehending that those people may beat him, the deceased ran back to his house and bolted from inside. Thereafter all of them left the place. It is only in the early hours of 23-2-1996, the son of the deceased Master V. Narayana aged about 10 years (LW1) found his father hanging to the roof beam with a rope. On the basis of the statement given by the witnesses, the panchayatdars opined that it is a death under suspicious circumstances. Thereafter the investigation was taken over by the Circle Inspector of Police on 29-2-1996 and the child gave a different statement implicating the petitioners. As per the statement of LW1, recorded by him, that after the neighbours returned back to their houses having chased the deceased with sticks, himself and his father were sleeping in the house by keeping the doors open and all the petitioners herein entered the house from the back door and threatened him that if he opens his mouth, he will be killed. Thereafter, all of them pounced on his father and killed him by twisting the testicles and hanged him with a coconut rope to the ceiling beem. The Petitioner No.5 herein while returning home lias taken him to one Nulli Lakshmi, LW8 in the remand report and handed over him to her. In the morning when he woke-up from the bed he was told that hisfather died and then approached B. Savithri, LW7, in the report. Then he started attributing individual acts to each of the accused. The motive part, the C.I. got spoken through LW8 stating that when Petitioner No.5 stored teak wood in her house, the deceased informed the forest officials about 5 years back. She also states that the deceased dragged one Aakula Narasamma, niece of Petitioner No.5 and both the parties went round the police station for that incident also. In the instant case, on the spot the C.I. arrested all the women i.e., Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and sent them to remand on 4-3-1996, subsequently, he has shown the arrest of Petitioner No.5 on 15-3-1996 and remanded him to judicial custody. It is also on record that the petitioners could not get bail for nearly 5 months and they were languishing in the jail.

5. While things stood thus, on 31-5-1996, the 1st petitioner, submitted a detailed representation not only to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and down to the Superintendent of Police but also to the opposition party M.L.As., stating that the deceased's wife is having illicit contact with Budigam Anantharamulu in the village and both of them having killed the deceased person falsely implicated them by paying huge bribes to the C.I. and his subordinates. The Superintendent of Police having prima facie satisfied with UK averments of the representations got a telephonic message given by the Additional S.P., to the S.D.P.O., Venkatapuram on 21-6-1996 to re-investigate the entire case from the beginning personally and it is strongly believed that the entire investigation went on wrong lines and the accused figured in the murder case is allegedly not true accused. It is now, established beyond doubt that as per the report of the S.D.P.O., the petitioners are falsely implicated in this case.

6. According to me, this case is having two facets, one, whether the C.I. of Police is justified in apprehending the petitioners herein in a crime originally registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on the basis of a statementgiven by child witness, which is completely at variance with his earlier version and whether the C.I. of Police has falsely implicated the petitioners in this case. The second aspect is whether the respondents are justified in closing the case by treating the death of the deceased as suicide in the light of the material available on record that because of the illicit intimacy of the deceased's wife with B. Anantaramulu, there were disputes between the wife and husband for the last 5 months and on the fateful day the wife of the deceased having left her house has slept in the house of Sri B. Anantaramulu, as per her own statement and as per the statement of LW1 to S.D.P.H.O., he implicated the petitioner's family as per the dictation of his mother, who is responsible in doing away with the life of the deceased with the help of Sri B. Anantaramulu.

Issue No.1 : The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police recorded the statements of as many as 7 LWs. including the son of the deceased (LW1) i.e., the child witness. All of them spoke in one voice that on 22-9-1996, the deceased along with his wife and son left for Cherla in the morning and returned home by about 7.00p.m. in the night after seeing matinee show picture 'Orey Rickshaw'. As per the version of the child witness, after finishing dinner his father asked his mother to come over to his sister's house where prayers to Lord Christ are being offered by the villagers, on her refusal his father beat her and immediately his mother left the house. Thereafter, both of them i.e., himself and his father went to his father's sister's house and inquired whereabouts of his mother. They were informed that his mother did not go there. Then the deceased started inquiring the neighbours in the street and in fact, when he approached one Kummari Venkateswarlu and started inquiring about his wife and when he pleaded ignorance, the deceased seemed to have untied the bullocks in his compound under the belief that the bullocks will be going to the place where his wife is and followed the bullocks. On that the neighbours including thepetitioners got annoyed and they asked him to drive back the bullocks to his compound and tie them. But, he refused by saying, 'I will not tie them to the pole'. In those circumstances, Kummari Venkateswarlu, the petitioners and others have taken sticks and started chasing him. Apprehending that he will be beaten he ran back to his house and bolted from inside. Thereafter all of them went back. It is only in the early hours of 23-2-1996, the boy woke up and found his father hanging to the beam of the ceiling. Almost all the witnesses adhered to the same version in the statements given by than to Assistant Sub Inspector On 23-2-1996. Now, it is on record that the C.I., has taken up the investigation on 29-2-1996 and there is a change in the version of the child witness from the statement recorded by him on 29-2-1996 and the motive part for committing the offence was spoken by Ms. Lakshmi, LW8 and on that basis the C.I., apprehended these petitioners.

7. I have no manner of doubt that the C.I. exceeded his limits in apprehending the petitioners on the basis of on incoherent version spoken by the child witness before him which is at variance with the version given by him to the Assistant Sub Inspector on 23-2-1996. Except stating that there were some disputes between the petitioner's family and the deceased about 5 years back, which are very trivial in nature, there is no other reason worth naming whatsoever for committing the offence. As per the version given by the child witness, his father was killed by squeezing the testicles, but the doctor who conducted the autopsy, in his final report opined that the death is due to strangling, but not because of the squeaser of the testis. The C.I. recorded the statement of the deceased's wife Anjamma who is so many words admitted before him that having left her house after she was beaten by the deceased went to the house of Anantaramulu and slept there throughout the night and she came to know of the death of her husband while she was going to Maamidigudem village, through one Mr. Suri Babu. By the time the C.I. visited the placethere is an inquest report available in the file which shows that there were disputes between the deceased and his wife for last 5 to 6 months and he was also suspecting that his wife was having illicit intimacy with Anantaramulu, in whose house she slept for that night.

8. I have gone through the entire record,the C.I. of Police did not make anyinvestigation into that aspect and when thestatement of the child witness before him isat variance, even without waiting forcollection of some more supporting materialpointing the accused finger at the petitioner'sfamily, apprehended the entire family membersand lodged them in the jail.

9. As stated supra, the disputes between the petitioner's family and the deceased dates back to 5 years. If they went to do-away with the deceased, they need not wait till the deceased's wife develops illicit intimacy with Anantaramulu, for long 5 years and they need not select such an opportunity to do-away with the life of the deceased. Further, the most interesting part of this case is that the entire family both men and women were implicated in this case and LW1 went on attributing different acts to each of the petitioners in committing the offence. I have no manner of doubt that this was done at the behest of the C.I. for obvious reasons to divert the investigation from its proper direction. The innocence of the petitioners came to the fore in the investigation conducted by the S.D.P.H.O.

Issue No. 2: I have gone through the report filed by the S.D.P.O, dated 7-11-1996, 18-11-1996 and 12-4-1998, to my surprise, as per the report of the S.D.P.O., the child witness implicated the entire family in this crime, at the instance of his mother, whose character is very doubtful. While the effort of the S.D.P.O., in protecting the innocent people from facing a charge of the nature of Section 302 IPC, is appreciated, his report did not throw any light whatsoever, whether thecrime was committed by the deceased's wife along with Anantaramulu, more so, having recorded a finding that by the time of his visit to the village, there arc strong rumours about her illicit intimacy with Anantaramulu. The way in which the investigation was conducted, either by the C.I., or by the S.D.P.O., I am of the opinion that truth is the casualty in this investigation. With the result while the real culprit escaped the punishment, the poor innocent members of the petitioner's family were made to languish in jail for over 5 months and suffer the humiliation in silence till they were cleared by the S.D.P.O., and they have to make the jail as their abode for long 5 months.

10. In fact, I thought of awarding damages to the petitioners in this case. But the Government Pleader, forcibly put forth his plea in defense of his clients that when the Courts themselves did not find fault with the investigation in the light of the contrary statements given by the child witness and refused the bail, how can his clients, who is involved in investigation of the crime can be found fault with. I find sufficient force in the contention of the Government Pleader. Instances are many, where the Courts granted bail to the accused involved in day light murders. But, in this case, I really wonder how the Courts refused bail. Apart from the incoherent statements of LW1, special provisions are made in Cr.P.C. in case of women facing criminal charges. In all fairness I have no answer and I have to bow down my head for the way in which some of the Judicial Officers are discharging the judicial functions without application of mind and without knowing the effect of the orders passed by them on the society at large.

11. As I cannot direct any action against these judicial officers, I cannot adopt a different course to punish the culprits in this case and accordingly, they are let off. But, at the same time, I feel it is an appropriate case where atleast departmental enquiry has to be initiatedagainst the C.I. to un-earth the truth, so that a proper message can be conveyed to the investigating officials that times arc changing and any dereliction of duty on their part will be viewed seriously.

12. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

13. This writ petition having been set down for being mentioned on 27-4-1998 as per the Court directions pursuant to the Order of the High Court dated 174-1998 and made herein and upon perusing the said order dated 17-4-98 and upon hearing the above Counsels. The Court on 27-4-98 made the following