W.P. No. 7645/2013 (PIL). Case: Umesh Kumar Bohare Vs State of M.P. & Others, [Alongwith W.P. Nos. 7654 and 7665/2013 (PIL)]. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 7645/2013 (PIL) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri U.K. Bohare, Advocate, ShriRaju Sharma, Advocate and Shri Awadhesh Singh Bhadauria, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Additional Advocate General and Shri Vivek Khedkar, Dy. Advocate General |
| Judges | S. K. Gangele and G. D. Saxena, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 174; Constitution of India - Articles 21, 226, 32 |
| Judgement Date | November 12, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Order:
S. K. Gangele, J.
1. We have heard the petitions in regard to issuance of interim directions to CBI to investigate certain aspects of an incident in which near about 116 persons have been died in a stampede at Ratangarh Temple. A temple at holy shrine of Goddess Bhagwati is situated over a hill near Ratangarh village at District Datia, it is called "Ratangarh Mata Mandir'. The temple is at the bank of river Sindh. It is famous in neighbouring areas including U.P., M.P. and Rajasthan. Large number of devotees used to come to offer prayers at the temple of holy shrine at Navrati and after Deepavali. On 13th October 2013, a stampede occurred when large number of devotees had been crossing the bridge built over the Sindh river. In the aforesaid stampede near about 116 persons have been killed. The exact cause of stampede has still not been established. As per the news paper reports, the police had permitted number of tractors and other four wheelers to cross the bridge and there was some scuffle between the devotees. At that time, the police used batons i.e. lathi charge to control the people. It is further reported in the news papers that the police personnel floated a rumor that the bridge had collapsed, hence, a panic was created and in that panic, due to stampede persons were killed. Large number of persons had tried to escape by jumping in the river through ropes and sarees.
2. After the incident number of dignitaries including the Hon'ble Chief Minister had visited the place. The Director General of Police, as per the news paper report, had announced that an investigation would be carried out to find out what was the cause of stampede in which such a large number of persons had been killed. On 15.10.2013, within a short period, the State Government ordered a judicial enquiry and Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Saxena, Retired High Court Judge has been appointed to chair the judicial commission. Following three points have been referred to the Judicial Commission for the purpose of submission of its report:-
(A) Whether the district administration had made sufficient arrangements and had taken necessary steps looking to the number of devotees, who had come to visit the temple?
(B) What were the circumstances and reasons due to which the incident on 13th October 2013 had occurred and how many persons are responsible for that?
(C) What steps would be taken to prevent such type of incident in near future?
3. Judicial Commission has been appointed under the Provisions of Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952.
4. The petitioners in these petitions, which have been filed in public interest pleaded that the State authorities or the Government have not taken any step to investigate the incident because the police and district administration was involved in the incident and due to lapses and acts of the police personnel the incident had taken place. In order to divert the public attention and anger, a judicial enquiry has been ordered so that the administration could buy some time and the real culprits be saved. It is further pleaded by the petitioners in these petitions that in the interest of justice and looking to the allegations leveled against the police authorities and the administration, it is necessary to order a CBI investigation in regard to certain aspects of the matter.
5. The respondent/State opposed the prayer of CBI investigation in the objection filed on behalf of the respondents. It is pleaded by the respondents/State that a judicial commission has already been appointed to conduct an enquiry and submit the report to the administration and the Commission shall submit its report on all the aspects, hence, it would not be just and proper to order a CBI investigation. The objection has also been raised that the writ petitions are based on the basis of news paper reports, hence, the court can not take cognizance only on the basis of the news paper reports. No affidavits of affected persons have been filed to substantiate the claim of the affected persons. Hence, at this stage, it would not be just and proper to order CBI investigation.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have contended that the State administration and the higher authorities have not taken any step to conduct the preliminary investigation in accordance with the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. No statements of witnesses have been recorded by the police. Only a marg were registered at the police station. Higher police authorities did not conduct any investigation neither visited the spot, even the blood, which was on the bridge had been cleared on the very next day. Important piece of evidence was also destroyed, so it could not be find out that what was the cause of incident. In the news papers eye witnesses and injured persons made statements that the police had thrown dead bodies and injured into the river. The incident had happened due to rumor floated by the police and lathi charge. The aforesaid aspect could not be established in a judicial enquiry. For the aforesaid purpose, an investigation is necessary because the investigation is quite different from judicial enquiry. It is further contended that looking to the magnitude of the incident and the apathy of the administration and the fact that the administration had tried to save the culprits, an investigation by the CBI is necessary. In support of the contentions, learned counsel relied on the following judgments:-
(i) State of West Bengal Vs. Committee for protection of democratic rights- (2010) 3 SCC 571.
(ii) State of Maharashtra Vs. Farook Mohammed Kasim Markar- (2010) 8 SCC 582.
7. Contrary to this, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has contended that the State has already set up a judicial commission to inquire the incident. The terms of the reference of the Commission includes all the points, hence, an investigation by CBI could not be ordered. He further submitted that the allegations leveled in the petitions are baseless and are based on news paper reports. No affidavit of any affected person has been filed alongwith the petitions to substantiate the pleadings that the incident had happened due to action of the police authorities. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that final relief at this stage could not be granted in the case. Looking to all the aspects of the case, an investigation by CBI would be unnecessary. In support of his contentions, learned Additional Advocate General has relied on the following judgments:-
(i) State of Karnataka Vs. Arun Kumar Agrawal- (2000) 1 SCC 210.
(ii) Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya- AIR 2002 SC 2225.
(iii) State of Punjab Vs. Devendra Singh Bhullar- (2011) 14 SCC 770.
(iv) D. Venkatasubramaniam and others Vs. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari- (2009) 10 SCC 488.
(v) Kalyaneshwari Vs. Union of India and others- (2011) 3 SCC 287.
(vi) Yijay Shekhar Vs. Union of India and others- (2004) 3 SCC 263.
(vii) Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand- AIR 2010 SC 3753.
(viii) Bharat Amratlal Kothari Vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindi- AIR 2010 SC 475.
(ix) Laxmi Raj Shetty Vs. State of Tamil Nadu- AIR 1988 SC 1274.
(x) Rajender Singh Pathania Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- (2011) 13 SCC 329.
(xi) State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal- AIR 2010 SC 2550
8. We would like to mention some facts about the incident which had taken place at the temple of Ratangarh. As per the police version due to stampede the incident had happened, however, as per the news paper reports, the stampede occurred because the police persons had taken money from the owners of the tractors and other vehicles and permitted the vehicles to cross over the bridge, due to which congestion had occurred and some quarrel had also taken place between the follow passengers and thereafter police had resorted lathi charge and used batons to control the crowd. A rumor was also floated that the bridge had collapsed. Due to the aforesaid act, the stampede had occurred. Persons including women and children tried to jump in the river and for the aforesaid purpose ropes were used and sarees were also used as ropes.
9. The aforesaid facts were reported in the news paper "Dainik Bhaskar" in its edition of 14th October 2013. Some photographs of the place were also published. It was reported in the news paper that police had thrown bodies of some persons in order to reduce the number of casualties. Same facts have been mentioned in the news paper "Patrika" in its edition dt. 14th October 2013. Daily news paper "Patrika" in its edition dt. 15th October 2013, published the statement of Mr. Ashish Shivhare to the effect that he had been thrown by the police persons in the river. Statement of another person Mr. Ashish was also published in which he had told that some police persons had thrown him in the river. Statement of another person Bharat Lohpita was also published in...
To continue reading
Request your trial