the professional mis-conduct of IO Puran Singh Mehra (since retired from service), it is most respectfully submitted that even though he filed the charge sheet against the actual culprits, he did not carry out investigation with professional rigour, as brought out in para 9 supra. In view of the above, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue directions to the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh/Director General of Police, (U.P.) to initiate departmental action against him.


Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 188 OF 2015
SMT. SUNITA DEVI AND ANR. ….. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.

  1. Smt. Seema Garg, daughter-in-law of petitioner No.1, and her
    two children were murdered on 24.07.2001. FIR No.221 of 2001 to
    this effect was lodged in Police Station Pilakhwa, District Ghaziabad,
    U.P. under Sections 302/394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
    ‘the IPC’). After investigation, the police filed a final report on
    17.08.2001 against Nitin Garg, husband of Seema Garg, Manveer @
    Mintoo and Mukesh for the offences punishable under Sections 302,
    109, read with Section 34 IPC. During the course of trial, accused
    Nitin Garg was also murdered.
    2
  2. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 16.10.2004 acquitted the
    accused persons, namely, Manveer @ Mintoo and Mukesh. In the
    course of judgment the Trial Court observed that the investigation has
    not been carried on properly.
  3. The case of murder of Nitin Garg was also investigated by the
    State Police and a chargesheet was filed against certain persons.
    Those persons were acquitted by the Sessions Court. The High Court
    confirmed the said judgment. Special Leave Petition filed challenging
    the said judgment of the High Court was dismissed by this Court.
  4. Several other proceedings were initiated by the petitioners herein
    before the High Court and before this Court in relation to the aforesaid
    cases and it is not necessary at this stage to refer to all those
    proceeding.
  5. The petitioners filed the above writ petition for constitution of a
    Court-monitored investigation/SIT to re-investigate the aforesaid cases
    pertaining to FIR Nos. 221 of 2001 and 228 of 2002 registered at
    Police Station Pilakhwa, Uttar Pradesh. This Court by Order dated
    8.2.2018 rejected the prayer for re-investigation of the case pertaining
    to FIR No. 228 of 2002. This Court directed constitution of a SIT for
    3
    re-investigation of FIR No.221 of 2001. The relevant portion of the
    order is as under:
    “9. As noted above, in the judgment passed by
    the sessions court in Criminal Case No.221 of
    2001, the court has categorically observed that
    the investigation has not been conducted fairly. It
    is evident that the real culprits responsible for
    murder for petitioners’ family have not been
    subjected to trial. It is clear that the
    investigating agency showed lackadaisical
    approach in carrying/proceeding with the
    investigation. We are of the view that it is
    necessary to have a fair, honest and complete
    investigation.
  6. Having examined the entire materials placed
    on record, we deem it proper to constitute a
    Special Investigating Team (SIT) to re-investigate
    FIR No.221 of 2001 titled “State v. Manvir
    Singh and Anr.” registered at Police Station
    Pilakhua, District Ghaziabad, U.P. Shri M.L.
    Sharma, IPS (retired), former Special Director,
    CBI, is appointed as the Chairman of the SIT.
    Shri M.L. Sharma is permitted to take assistance
    of two officers of his choice of the CBI as its
    members. We direct the SIT to proceed as
    regards further investigation in respect of FIR
    No.221 of 2001 and to submit its report within a
    period of three months from today. Needless to
    say that appropriate secretarial assistance and
    logistic support shall be made available to the SIT
    by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The
    Government of Uttar Pradesh is also directed to
    provide to the Chairman and the members of the
    SIT all travelling, boarding and lodging expenses
    while discharging their responsibility entrusted to
    them. “
  7. Accordingly, SIT was constituted to re-investigate FIR No.221 of
    4
  8. The SIT filed its report dated 8th February, 2018 before this
    Court. The findings and recommendations of the SIT are at para 11
    which are as under:
    “FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    11.1 On a thorough re-investigation in the
    case and taking into consideration the evidence
    on record, the SIT is of the opinion that accused
    Manveer and Mukesh were involved in the
    murder of Seema and her two children Bhavya
    and Pratyaksh at the behest of Nitin Garg in
    pursuance of a criminal conspiracy hatched
    between them. It bears repetition that as per
    statements of Sanjay Sharma and Sonu Tomar
    (who is no more), recorded by IO Mehra, CBI and
    SIT, Manveer was last seen at the house of
    deceased Seema by him and his employee Sonu
    Tomar between 4:30 to 5:00 p.m. on 24.07.2001,
    just before these gruesome murders. Further,
    Manveer’s post-crime conduct by way of
    disappearing from Pilkhua from 24th to 30th July,
    2001, before his arrest by the police also points
    towards his involvement in the crime. Co-accused
    Mukesh left village Shyamli and was not seen at
    Pilkhua after the incident and was picked up
    from village Pachak, Moradabad, by the police on
    the night intervening 29th, 30th July, 2001. More
    importantly, the disclosure statements made by
    Manveer and Mukesh before the police leading to
    the recovery of weapons of offence and their blood
    stained clothes link them with the crime. All
    these recoveries were admitted by them during
    the trial. These articles were found to have
    human blood on them by FSL, Agra. In addition
    to the above, as per the Report of CFSL, New
    Delhi, accused Manveer gave deceptive responses
    in the Polygraph Test on all critical
    questions/issues relating to this incident. The
    expert has further opined that in Forensic
    5
    Psychological Assessment and Forensic
    Statement Analysis, he had been found to be
    deceptive in his statements about his knowledge
    and involvement in this gruesome crime. As
    regards accused Mukesh, he could not be
    subjected to Polygraph Test because of his
    medical condition but he was subjected to
    Forensic Psychological Assessment and Forensic
    Statement Analysis and as per the expert
    opinion, he was found to be deceptive in his
    statements about his knowledge and involvement
    in these murders. It is pertinent to mention here
    that Manveer was a long time employee of Nitin
    Garg and he had no personal enmity with
    deceased Seema Garg and her two children.
    Manveer’s disclosure to the police that Nitin had
    tasked him to eliminate Seema as he suspected
    her fidelity finds resonance in the letter dated
    08.07.2001 of Sunil Bansal to Seema’s
    father-in-law Rajendra Prasad, wherein he (Sunil
    Bansal) mentioned that Nitin and his family were
    suspecting Seema’s character, while Seema
    suspected Nitin’s involvement with a girl of Delhi
    and Seema’s apprehension of danger to her life
    for these reasons. This letter was delivered by
    Irshad Malik to Rajendra Prasad personally at the
    behest of Sunil Bansal.
    11.2 All these facts and circumstances
    establish that Nitin had reasons to perpetuate
    the crime in question and he hatched a criminal
    conspiracy with his confidante Manveer, who, in
    turn, tied up with Mukesh, for the aforesaid
    purpose. The theory propounded by the
    petitioner’s side is not supported by evidence on
    record.
    11.3 It is most respectfully submitted that
    the findings of the SIT are consistent with the
    charge sheet filed by the local police for the
    reasons discussed in the preceding paras of this
    report. A young lady and her two innocent
    children were brutally murdered in cold blood
    but nobody has been held accountable for this
    diabolical crime. This report is being most
    6
    respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court
    for such directions as deemed fit in the interest of
    justice.
    11.4 As regards the professional
    mis-conduct of IO Puran Singh Mehra (since
    retired from service), it is most respectfully
    submitted that even though he filed the charge
    sheet against the actual culprits, he did not carry
    out investigation with professional rigour, as
    brought out in para 9 supra. In view of the
    above, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue
    directions to the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh/Director
    General of Police, (U.P.) to initiate departmental
    action against him.
    11.5 Further, as regards the allegations
    against the CBI investigation team briefly
    discussed in para 10 above, this Hon’ble Court
    may be pleased to direct Director, CBI, to cause
    an enquiry into the matter at his end for
    appropriate action.”
  9. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the
    petitioners, in the course of her arguments and in the written
    submissions, mainly raised the following contentions:
    “i. The SIT strangely has not investigated the
    truth and falsity of the statement made by
    Head Constable, Chander Pal;
    ii. Not even an endeavor to investigate the facts
    mentioned by the Petitioner himself was
    ever undertaken by the SIT. The SIT report
    discloses a pre-disposed state of mind and
    complete negation of the confidence reposed
    in them by this Hon’ble Court;
    iii. The SIT however at page 61 of its report
    refers to murder of Nitin Garg which seems
    to be a case of contract killing and killers
    have gone unpunished. The SIT, therefore
    suggests investigation of the FIR No.228 of
    7
    2002 and same needs to be followed up.”
  10. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having
    perused the report of the SIT and the objections filed by the petitioners
    to the said report, we are of the view that the CBI has to look into the
    report of the SIT and take a decision in the matter. We order
    accordingly.
  11. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. …..……………………..…J.
    (A.K. SIKRI)
    ….…………………………J.
    (S. ABDUL NAZEER)
    New Delhi;
    February 20, 2019.