PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Tuesday raised serious concerns over the manner in which the investigation into the alleged assault during the Morjim demolition drive was conducted, observing that the case diary produced before it did not prima facie contain clear contemporaneous entries recording the precise time, place and circumstances of key investigative steps.
The Court also noted that the case diary was produced in loose sheets without clear running pagination.
The Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Hiten Venegavkar, while hearing suo motu proceedings into a lawyer's assault, stopped short of making any findings on criminal liability but ordered an independent departmental inquiry into multiple lapses, including the maintenance of the case diary, delays in collecting evidence, handling of an urgent request for police protection and investigative steps taken after the Court had directed transfer of the probe.
"The case-diary papers presently produced do not prima facie contain a clear contemporaneous entry recording the precise time, place and circumstances in which this investigative step was undertaken. The case diary has also been produced in loose sheets without clear running pagination."
As per its direction, investigating officer has been changed and now entrusted to Police Inspector Sanjit Kandolkar of Colvale Police Station under the direct supervision of the Superintendent of Police, North Goa.
The status report has been ordered to remain in a sealed cover. The Bench further recorded that within a short period of taking charge, the new investigating officer had collected medical, documentary and electronic evidence that had not previously been secured and had recorded statements of relevant witnesses.
One of the principal concerns arose from documents produced during Tuesday's hearing. The Court recalled that when the matter was heard on July 20, it had specifically been informed that statements of the Mamlatdar, Talathi, Surveyor of the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority and other government officials present at the demolition site had not been recorded. It had therefore directed in open court that the investigation be withdrawn from Police Sub-Inspector Pratik Garudi and handed over to another officer under the direct supervision of the Superintendent of Police.
Despite that direction, the papers placed before the Court indicated that the earlier investigating officer proceeded around 8 pm or 8.30 pm on July 20 to record statements of the Mamlatdar and Talathi.
The Court observed that although the statements bore the date, they did not mention the time at which they were recorded. One statement further indicated that it had been typed in English on a laptop and printed at a nearby stationery establishment before being signed.
While observing that recording statements of material official witnesses after the transfer direction was prima facie a serious matter requiring independent examination, the Bench clarified that it was refraining from commenting on the contents, correctness or evidentiary value of those statements, leaving those issues to be independently assessed by the new investigating officer and ultimately by the competent criminal court.
The High Court also examined the handling of an official communication seeking police protection before the demolition.
Referring to an affidavit filed by the officer holding additional charge of the SDPO, Pernem, the Court noted that the communication was received in the SDPO office on July 13 and that the officer had stated she orally instructed staff to immediately forward it to Mandrem Police Station and was later informed that the direction had been complied with.
However, the records placed before the Court indicated that the communication was actually forwarded only on July 17 at about 4.45 pm.
The Bench observed that if the affidavit was correct, the officer had been wrongly informed that her direction had been carried out. It directed that the identity of the staff member who received the oral direction, the date and time of the instruction, the person who represented that the communication had been dispatched and the reason for its remaining in the office until July 17 be ascertained from contemporaneous official and electronic records.
The newly appointed investigating officer has been directed to immediately secure the original inward, outward, dispatch and movement registers of the SDPO office relating to the communication between July 10 and July 17, along with relevant electronic communications and acknowledgements, and to record statements of all persons who handled the communication. The Court further directed that no original record be altered, supplemented or reconstructed and that any explanatory note be separately dated and timed rather than retrospectively incorporated into contemporaneous records.
It recorded that following a review by the Superintendent of Police on the night of July 20, directions had been issued to add Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to the FIR.
The Court expressly clarified that it had neither directed addition of Section 109 BNS nor expressed any opinion on whether its ingredients were established against any accused. It emphasised that the addition flowed from the investigation and supervisory assessment and that its applicability would be independently determined in accordance with law.
The Inspector General of Police has been directed to nominate within 24 hours a senior police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, unconnected with the criminal investigation and outside the concerned chain of command, to conduct a preliminary departmental inquiry into the conduct of the earlier investigating officer, delays in investigation, maintenance of investigation records, handling of the police protection communication, supervisory decisions regarding penal provisions and whether any acts or omissions disclosed negligence, dereliction of duty, failure of supervision, suppression of material or any other misconduct. Separately, the newly appointed investigating officer has been directed to examine whether any act or omission by the earlier investigating officer, members of the SDPO office staff or any other public servant had any material bearing on the incident or the subsequent investigation, including whether evidence or information had been deliberately withheld, delayed, altered or otherwise dealt with to assist or shield any person. The Court stressed that this was only a direction to investigate a disclosed angle and not a finding of collusion or criminal misconduct.
The investigating officer has also been directed to ascertain the exact time and place where the July 20 statements were recorded, the device on which they were prepared, the place from which they were printed, the persons present and corresponding entries in the case diary, station diary and movement records.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on July 22, with the Court directing that if the investigating officer is unable to remain present owing to investigative duties, another responsible officer conversant with the investigation shall appear with the relevant records.
