RABIA @ MAMTA & ANR vs. NCT OF DELHI & ORS

#38
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 03.12.2015


W.P. (CRL) 2349/2015 & CRL.M.A.16695/2015

RABIA @ MAMTA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Colin Gonsalvis, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar,
Advocate

versus


NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel
(Criminal), Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC
(Criminal) and Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC
(Criminal) with Mr. Rohit Kaul and
Mr. Ashish Negi, Mr. Advocates for
R-1
Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Shailendra Babbar, SPP and Dr.
Rajiv Sharma, DCP, North (Crime)
and ACP Sukhvinder Singh (SIT) and
SI SI Somil Sharma, PS, Nand Nagri
for R-2 & R-3
Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Advocate for
R-4
Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Nitesh Mehra, Advocate for the
Intervenor Manzoor Hassan

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 1 of 65





CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The Supreme Court in Sidhartha Vashisth alias Manu Sharma vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) reported as (2010) 6 SCC 1 commenting on the
necessity of insisting upon the fairness of investigation observed at
paragraph 197 of the report:-

2. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab & Others reported as
(2009) 1 SCC 441 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “fairness of the
investigation is meant not only for the accused but even for the victim.” In
paragraph 28 of the report the Supreme Court expounded:-
“ 28. An accused is entitled to a fair investigation. Fair
investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of
fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. But the State has a larger obligation i.e.
to maintain law and order, public order and preservation of

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 2 of 65

3. I would be failing in my duty if I did not refer to the observations
made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and
Another vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported as (2004) 4 SCC 158
where the Supreme Court considered how justice itself can become a victim
if the investigation is not fair. The Court in paragraph 18 of the report
expressed thus:-

4. The present is a case where after having heard counsel for the parties
over two days and examining all the material placed on record including the
statements of the witnesses to the dastardly crime as encapsulated in the
video clipping furnished on behalf of the Delhi Police, in my view, the
impression I gather is that the investigation thus far, three months after the
alleged commission of the offence, is that the Special Investigating Team
(SIT) has concentrated on exonerating the police officers concerned rather
than discovering the truth.

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 3 of 65





5. It would be hyperbole to state that the state of affairs that has emerged
from having heard the present case shocks the judicial conscience of this
Court.
6. The present petition filed on behalf of Rabia @ Mamta and Sant Ram,
who are the widow and the father-in-law of the deceased victim Shahnawaz
Chaudhari, prays as follows:-
“In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
(a) For a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the respondent No.1 to form a Special
Investigation Team preferably comprising of officers from
another State to investigate into the incident and prosecute
the offending police persons;
(b) For a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the respondent No.2 to conduct a
departmental enquiry into the incident and terminate the
services of the police officers found guilty, and in the
meantime suspend them;
(c) For a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the respondents herein to pay
compensation of Rs.5 crores to petitioner No.1 and her
child;
(d) For any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and appropriate in the interest of justice.”

7. At the first listing of the present petition on 16.10.2015, on a
submission made on behalf of Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, learned counsel

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 4 of 65





appearing on behalf of Delhi Commission for Women, that Rabia @ Mamta
had been illegally detained by the police overnight in the concerned police
station on two occasions and that the police officers from the concerned
police station were visiting the residence of the petitioner demanding to
know whether any complaint has been made against any of their colleague,
this Court directed Mr. Rajinder Singh Sagar, Additional Deputy
Commissioner of Police-I, North East District, who was present in Court, to
personally supervise the safety, security and well-being of the petitioners and
afford protection to them.
8. Notice was issued to the official respondents, returnable on
20.10.2015.
9. It is an admitted position that the SIT appointed by the Delhi Police
came into existence thereafter on 17.10.2015.
10. When the matter came up for hearing on the returnable date i.e.
20.10.2015, it was observed that despite an opportunity, no status report had
been filed on behalf of the Delhi Police. It is in this backdrop that this Court
passed the following order:-
“ Where the mind is without fear and the head is held
high;

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 5 of 65





Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into
fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards
perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-
widening thought and action –
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country
awake. ”

- Rabindranath Tagore

1. There can be no higher or loftier philosophy, belief or
faith than humanism.
2. President Pranab Mukherjee is stated to have
expressed “apprehension whether tolerance and acceptance of
dissent are on the wane?” The President of this country is
stated to have recalled the teachings of Ramkrishna
Paramhansa ‘Jato Mat Tato Path’ “as there are a number of
beliefs, there are a number of ways”.
3. These are questions which have to be answered by the
collective conscience of this nation.
4. The present petition prays as follows:-

a) For a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the respondent No.1 to form a
Special Investigation Team preferably comprising of
officers from another State to investigate into the
incident and prosecute the offending police persons;
b) For a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the respondent No.2 to conduct a
departmental enquiry into the incident and terminate
the services of the police officers found guilty, and in
the meantime suspend them;
c) For a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the respondents herein to pay
compensation of Rs.5 crores to petitioner No.1 and her
child;

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 6 of 65





d) For any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and appropriate in the interest of justice.

5. The present petition recounts a horrific tale of
inhuman, reprehensible and condemnable conduct on behalf
of the police entrusted with the task of protecting and
upholding the rights of the citizens of Delhi.
6. On the fateful day at about 04.30 p.m. Shahnawaz
Chaudhari and his wife Rabia @ Mamta (the petitioner No.1)
accompanied by their 3½ month baby were on their way to
Karuna Hospital at Dilshad Garden, Delhi.

7. On the way they noticed a couple quarrelling with each
other and police officers present trying to intervene.
8. According to Rabia @ Mamta, since the late
Shahnawaz Chaudhari was acquainted with the lady
concerned, he stopped and made enquiries as to what the
trouble was. The policemen are alleged to have asked him to
stay out of it. Shahnawaz Chaudhari, however, insisted that
since it was an ordinary matrimonial disagreement between
the quarrelling couple, it would be best to let them sort it out
amongst themselves. The policemen are alleged to have
taken umbrage at Shahnawaz Chaudhari’s persistent and
purportedly uncalled for intervention as they perceived his
actions to be an invasion by a busy body interloper into their
domain and started roughing up Shahnawaz Chaudhari.
When Shahnawaz Chaudhari objected to the treatment meted
out to him, the policemen are stated to have not only rebuked
and rebuffed them but also snatched the keys to the
motorcycle on which the family was travelling. At this
juncture, it is alleged that another vehicle belonging to the
police drove up and all the policemen who had assembled
there ganged up and repeatedly kicked, punched and beat up
Shahnawaz Chaudhari. Despite the entreaties in this regard
by Rabia @ Mamta, the police persisted with their assault on
Shahnawaz Chaudhari and even assaulted him with dandas .
The 3½ month old child was separated from Shahnawaz
Chaudhari and Rabia @ Mamta and the latter were bundled
into a police vehicle. The torture and brutality intensified in
the police vehicle and three policemen climbed on to the
chest of Shahnawaz Chaudhari and sat on him while the
fourth continued giving persistent blows on his torso. The

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 7 of 65





entreaties of Shahnawaz Chaudhari and Rabia @ Mamta to
the policemen to stop and desist from what they were doing,
fell on deaf ears. Upon reaching Nand Nagri Police Station,
Shahnawaz Chaudhari was taken inside. Rabia @ Mamta
was subsequently informed that Shahnawaz Chaudhari was
being taken to hospital since his health had deteriorated.
Rabia @ Mamta observed that Shahnawaz Chaudhari was
unconscious at that time.
9. Rabia @ Mamta was made to wait at the Police Station
till 02.00 a.m. without being informed of the status of the
health and well-being of Shahnawaz Chaudhari. Rabia @
Mamta was finally asked by the concerned Metropolitan
Magistrate who arrived to record her statement. Rabia @
Mamta asserts that her statement was coerced by exertion of
pressure by the policemen present and on the threat that the
well-being of Shahnawaz Chaudhari could be jeopardized if
she were to implicate them in any manner. Rabia @ Mamta
was finally dropped of at her parents’ house at 03.00 a.m.
10. Rabia @ Mamta visited GTB Hospital in search of
Shahnawaz Chaudhari but to no avail. In desperation she
went back to the Nand Nagri Police Station and beseeched the
policemen to tell her where Shahnawaz Chaudhari was. She
is stated to have spent the night outside the Nand Nagri Police
Station waiting and pleading with the policemen to tell her of
Shahnawaz’s whereabouts.
11. At 07.00 a.m. the same morning Rabia @ Mamta went
back to her parents’ house and came back to Nand Nagri
Police Station once again accompanied by her father
(petitioner No.2). It was at this stage that they were informed
that Shahnawaz Chaudhari has been declared dead on arrival
by the doctor at the GTB Hospital on the previous day.
12. Rabia @ Mamta states that onlookers and passers-by
have recorded videos of the incident on their mobile
telephones which are a part of the report of the concerned
SDM. It is further urged on her behalf that the entire area
which falls within the Nand Nagri Police Station is covered
by CCTV Cameras and a perusal thereof would reveal the
truth about what transpired on that fateful day.
13. What happened thereafter is the natural response of an
angry and anguished public to this dastardly act. The people
of the area took to the streets and the roads in Nand Nagri

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 8 of 65





area were blocked by citizens. The police force which arrived
in strength at the scene of the riots had to resort to a lathi-
charge to disperse the agitated masses.
14. Thus, the life of a young man with a young wife and
an infant child was extinguished.
15. We do not know whether Shahnawaz Chaudhari was a
good samaritan or a busy body interloper. We do know,
however, that he tried to intervene on behalf of the quarrelling
couple in the presence of police officers and paid a heavy
price for it.
16. The tragic incident brings to mind a couplet from
Shakeel Badayuni immortalized by the voice of Begum
Akhtar:-

“....Mera Azm Itna Buland Hai
Ke Paraaye Sholon Ka Darr Nahin

“Ishwar Allah Tero Naam
Sabko Sanmati De Bhagwaan”

18. However, we shall overcome.
“Bhar Lo Syahi Kalam Mein
Baaki Hai Khoon Jo Jism Mein
Phailaa Do Yakeen Logon Mein
Keh Do Ki Hum Taiyaar Hain

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 9 of 65





Dushman Ba-Khanjar Hi Sahi
Ham Par Bhi Hathiyaar Hain

Yaad Karo Woh Laala-O-Gul
Jo Is Watan Ki Jaan Hain
Budh Bhi Hain Kabir Bhi
Nanak Aur Bhagat Singh Veer Bhi
Gurudev Aur Mahaveer Bhi
Auliya Nizamuddin Peer Bhi
Gandhi Aur Azaad Hain
Keh Do Humein Sab Yaad Hain
Woh Jo Chaman Ki Shaan Hain

Na Thakna Hai Na Jhukna Hai
Manzil Se Pehle Nahin Rukna Hai
Chaman Par Aanch Na Aane Paye
Watan Kaa Maan Na Jaane Paye
Ye Karz Toh Ada Karna Hai
Ye Farz Toh Poora Karna Hai
Jeena Hai Toh Khul Kar Jeena Hai
Gar Marna Hai Toh Marna Hai”

- Sifar

19. The above incident begs a question which can best be
expressed in these words:-
“....Kahan Hain Kahan Hain Muhafiz Khudi Ke
Jinhe Naaz Hai Hind Par Woh Kahan Hain
Kahan Hain Kahan Hain Kahan Hain

.... .... .... ....
.... .... .... ....

Zara Is Mulk Ke Rehbaron Ko Bulao
Ye Kuche Ye Galiyan Ye Mazaar Dikhaoo
Jinhe Naaz Hai Hind Par Unko Laao
Jinhe Naaz Hai Hind Par Woh Kahan Hain
Kahan Hain Kahan Hain Kahan Hain.”

- Sahir Ludhianvi


W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 10 of 65

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 11 of 65

“Then said Jesus ‘Father, forgive them for they know not

- Narsinh Mehta

28. A Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
occasion to consider the issue of protection of human rights
which have been the subject of a worldwide crusade. India is
a signatory to the International Convention of Civil and
Political Rights, 1966. In the said decision, Justice T.S.
Thakur writing for the Bench observed that “ custodial torture
is in fact violation of human dignity and degradation that
destroys self-esteem of the victim and does not even spare his
personality. Custodial torture, is a calculated assault on

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 12 of 65





human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded,
civilisation takes a step backwards. The Court relied upon
the Report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure
and the Third Report of the National Police Commission in
India to hold that despite recommendations for banishing
torture from the investigative system, growing incidence of
torture and deaths in police custody come back to haunt. ”
29. On behalf of the police an affidavit has been filed
authored by Mr. Rajendra Singh Sagar, Additional
DCP/North East, Delhi. The affidavit begins with the
assertion “that present short reply affidavit is being filed
without adverting to the contents of Writ Petition is general
with leave and liberty of this Hon’ble Court to file a detailed
seriatim reply if so directed by this Hon’ble Court or so
required in the facts of the case subsequently. The answering
respondents No.2 and 3 are confident that based upon the
submissions hereinafter, this Hon’ble Court, would be
apprised with the correct facts of the issue at hand.”
30. It is stated on behalf of the police that Shahnawaz
Chaudhari, the deceased, was in a drunken condition and
started quarrelling with the police officials. It is admitted that
Shahnawaz Chaudhari was taken in the ERV to the Police
Station and on the way he showed signs of physical
discomfort and was immediately rushed to GTB Hospital. It
is stated that the patient was declared as brought dead by the
doctors at GTB Hospital. It goes on to assert that a judicial
enquiry under section 176(1A) of Cr.P.C. was conducted and
the concerned Magistrate after inspecting the dead body of
the deceased Shahnawaz Chaudhari in the presence of
Inspector Sanjeev Kumar recorded his finding. The said
judicial enquiry recorded the statements of witnesses and
concluded as under:-
“In the light of the examination of witnesses and post
mortem report and other documents filed it is evident,
that the deceased Shanu died due to asphyxia caused
by compression of neck. The internal injuries on the
neck of the deceased show that force was applied by
the broad object on the neck of the deceased due to
which the deceased expired. The medical evidence on
record clearly proves that this is not a case of natural
death and rather it is a case of homicide. The issue

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 13 of 65





whether it is a case of intentional killing is beyond the
scope of this enquiry and can only be ascertained once
proper investigation is carried out. The DCP
concerned is accordingly directed to take appropriate
action for proper investigation is carried out. The DCP
concerned is accordingly directed to take appropriate
action for proper investigation in the matter by
registration of FIR.”

31. A perusal of the report dated 06.10.2015 reveals that
Shahnawaz Chaudhari died due to asphyxia caused by
compression of the neck. The internal injuries on the neck of
Shahnawaz Chaudhari prima facie demonstrate that force was
applied by a broad object on his neck owing to which he was
asphyxiated to death. It thus concluded that Shahnawaz
Chaudhari’s death was a case of homicide.
32. It is stated on behalf of the police that in pursuance to
the above said report dated 06.10.2015, an FIR under sections
302/34 IPC has been registered against “unknown persons”.
It is also stated that a Special Investigating Team (SIT)
comprising of ACP, Eastern Range, Inspector Rakesh Dixit
and Sub-Inspectors Manish/Ved Prakash has been constituted
on 17.10.2015. In this behalf it is relevant to point out that
the present petition was instituted on 13.10.2015. It is also
pertinent to point out that although the said SIT was
constituted on 17.10.2015, no status report with regard to the
investigations conducted by them has been placed before this
Court. It is also noticed that the inquest conducted by the
concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate concluded as far back as
on 15.09.2015 that Shahnawaz Chaudhari’s death was a case
of custodial death. I hasten to add that Mr. Phoolka, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of DCW states that they
support the case of the petitioner.
33. This Court had by way of order dated 16.10.2015,
directed Mr. Rajendra Singh Sagar, Additional DCP/North
East, Delhi to personally supervise the safety, security and
well-being of the petitioners and afford adequate protection to
them. Today it has been urged on behalf of Ms. Shama
Khatoon and Mr. Danish Chaudhary, the sister and brother of
Shahnawaz Chaudhari, that the police has been approaching
and intimidating witnesses to the gory incident that resulted in

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 14 of 65





the unfortunate demise of Shahnawaz Chaudhari and that the
CCTV Cameras of the area which are a part of the evidence
in the subject FIR have been removed by the official
respondents.
34. The police authorities must be strictly held to the
standards by which they profess their conduct to be judged.
35. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in
order to instil confidence in the public as well as in the public
interest the following directions are being issued for an
effective and independent investigation into the subject FIR:-
1) The SIT shall immediately secure all evidence related
to the subject FIR including the CCTV Cameras
footage from the concerned area as well as the
concerned Police Station.
2) The SIT shall obtain all contemporaneous video
recordings alleged to have been made by members of
the public on their mobile handsets at the time of the
unfortunate incident.
3) The SIT shall take into their custody forthwith the
Duty Roster and all other relevant documents from the
concerned Police Station and clearly define the role of
the police personnel who were on duty at the relevant
time.
4) Since the subject FIR has been registered against
“unknown persons”, the SIT shall forthwith investigate
and ascertain the identity of the said “unknown
persons”, who perpetrated the unspeakable crime.
5) The SIT shall take into custody the report of the
concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate qua the inquest
into the custodial death of Shahnawaz Chaudhari as
well as the video recording of the post-mortem
conducted on the body of Shahnawaz Chaudhari.
6) The SIT shall file a comprehensive status report before
this Court with regard to the unnatural death of
Shahnawaz Chaudhari and the circumstances
antecedent and attendant thereto, before the next date
of hearing.
36. In the event, it is determined during the ensuing
investigation that police officers were complicit in the
commission of the offences alleged, the Disciplinary

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 15 of 65





Authority shall initiate appropriate disciplinary action against
the said delinquent officers in accordance with law.
37. In this behalf, it is directed that to restore the
confidence of the general public in the force, the officers
found to be delinquent and complicit in Shahnawaz
Chaudhari’s death be suspended and/or transferred during the
pendency of the enquiry/investigation. This direction is just
necessary, expedient and warranted in the light of the
allegations made on behalf of Ms. Shama Khatoon and Mr.
Danish Chaudhari, the sister and brother of the victim
Shahnawaz Chaudhari, as afore stated.

38. Renotify for further consideration on 17.11.2015.
39. At this juncture, Mr. Rajendra Singh Sagar, Additional
DCP/North East, Delhi states that a status report on behalf of
the SIT shall be supported by an affidavit of the DCP
(Crime).
40. Directed accordingly.
41. Before parting, it would serve civilized society well to
recall the words of Mahatma Gandhi:-
“Let the first act of every morning be to make the following
resolve for the day:

- I shall not fear anyone on Earth.
- I shall fear only God.
- I shall not bear ill will toward anyone.
- I shall not submit to injustice from anyone.
- I shall conquer untruth by truth. And in resisting untruth, I
shall put up with all suffering.”



42. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature
of Court Master to counsel for the parties.”


11. On that day, this Court directed the petition to be listed for further
consideration on 17.11.2015.

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 16 of 65





12. On 17.11.2015, almost a month after the subject petition had been
instituted, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Delhi Police.
13. This Court was constrained to observe as follows:-
“…A perusal of the same reveals that no information with
regard to the perpetrators of the crime has been stated therein.
The official respondent is expected to comply with the
th
directions issued by this Court by way of order dated 20
October, 2015 in letter and spirit on or before the next date of
hearing….”

14. The letter and spirit this Court alluded to in the said order dated
17.11.2015 referred to the following portion of the order dated 20.10.2015:-
“35. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in
order to instil confidence in the public as well as in the
public interest the following directions are being issued
for an effective and independent investigation into the
subject FIR:-
7) The SIT shall immediately secure all evidence related
to the subject FIR including the CCTV Cameras
footage from the concerned area as well as the
concerned Police Station.
8) The SIT shall obtain all contemporaneous video
recordings alleged to have been made by members of
the public on their mobile handsets at the time of the
unfortunate incident.
9) The SIT shall take into their custody forthwith the
Duty Roster and all other relevant documents from the
concerned Police Station and clearly define the role of
the police personnel who were on duty at the relevant
time.
10) Since the subject FIR has been registered against
“unknown persons”, the SIT shall forthwith investigate

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 17 of 65





and ascertain the identity of the said “unknown
persons”, who perpetrated the unspeakable crime.
11) The SIT shall take into custody the report of the
concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate qua the inquest
into the custodial death of Shahnawaz Chaudhari as
well as the video recording of the post-mortem
conducted on the body of Shahnawaz Chaudhari.
12) The SIT shall file a comprehensive status report before
this Court with regard to the unnatural death of
Shahnawaz Chaudhari and the circumstances
antecedent and attendant thereto, before the next date
of hearing.
36. In the event, it is determined during the ensuing
investigation that police officers were complicit in the
commission of the offences alleged, the Disciplinary
Authority shall initiate appropriate disciplinary action
against the said delinquent officers in accordance with
law.
37. In this behalf, it is directed that to restore the confidence
of the general public in the force, the officers found to be
delinquent and complicit in Shahnawaz Chaudhari’s death
be suspended and/or transferred during the pendency of
the enquiry/investigation. This direction is just necessary,
expedient and warranted in the light of the allegations
made on behalf of Ms. Shama Khatoon and Mr. Danish
Chaudhari, the sister and brother of the victim Shahnawaz
Chaudhari, as afore stated.”

15. When the matter came up for hearing yesterday, Mr. Kirti Uppal,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Delhi Police handed over in a
sealed cover a status report qua the investigation conducted by the SIT into
the unnatural death of Shahnawaz Chaudhari. A video clip was also handed
over to the Court by Mr. Shailendra Babbar, learned Special Public
Prosecutor with a request that the same may be viewed by the Court.

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 18 of 65





16. Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) has objected
all along to the appointment of the special counsel to represent the Delhi
Police on the ground that the latter have no authority to represent the Delhi
Police owing to a bar contained in Section 24, sub-Section 8 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). The
objections made on behalf of the nominated counsel in this behalf have been
noted by this Court on more than one occasion. The acrimony which has
erupted between two sets of counsel representing the Delhi Police,
authorizedly or unauthorizedly, has resulted in ugly spats before this Court
and prima facie seems to be a spillover of the deep distrust between the
nominated counsel appointed by the Government of National Capital
Territory of Delhi and the Special Counsel appointed by the Hon’ble
Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
17. The above deadlock has led to this Court having voiced this following
refrain on numerous occasions:
“ Nero Fiddled While Rome Burned ”
18. In other words, the State seems to have occupied itself with
unimportant matters and neglected important ones, totally ignoring the
gravity of the situation.

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 19 of 65





19. Before I proceed to consider and discuss the status report filed on
behalf of the Delhi Police yesterday, I would be remiss if I did not mention
the dramatic development that transpired in Court at the very moment when
Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned Senior Counsel was in the midst of his submissions
before this Court. One Mr. Zahid Ahmed, who was present in Court and
repeatedly trying to invite my attention to himself, was finally permitted to
address the Court.
20. Mr. Zahid Ahmed, claims to be an eye witness to the incident leading
up to the unfortunate demise of Shahnawaz Chaudhari, which occurred on
07.09.2015 at 06.00 p.m., when he was present at the Gagan Cinema T-
Point, Nand Nagri, Delhi. Mr. Zahid Ahmed alleged-and with justification
since what he stated was admitted to by the police officer, who heads the SIT
and who was present in Court, on a query in this behalf-that despite having
called the concerned ACP heading the SIT five times and offering to record
his testimony in relation to the incident, the latter for reasons best known to
him, did not do so.
21. This Court was constrained to direct the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, within whose jurisdiction the

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 20 of 65





subject FIR has been registered, to record Mr. Zahid Ahmed’s statement
under Section 164 of the Code, before the said Magistrate.
22. I must pause at this stage to refer to the respective stands of the
various parties before this Court canvassed over the past two days.
23. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr. Divya
Jyoti Jaipuriar, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has strenuously urged
that the investigation into the murder of Shahnawaz Chaudhari be referred to
the Central Bureau of Investigation without further ado.
24. This submission made on behalf of the petitioner is echoed by Ms.
Prabhsahay Kaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Delhi Commission
for Women as well as Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel
(Criminal) appearing on behalf of Government of NCT of Delhi. The
opposition, if any, to the said submission has emanated from the Special
Counsel representing the Delhi Police.
25. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer to the submissions made
by Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned Senior Counsel, who is instructed by Mr.
Shailendra Babbar, learned Special Public Prosecutor, who has been

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 21 of 65





instructed to represent the Delhi Police by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor
of Delhi.
26. Mr. Uppal, learned Senior Counsel has canvassed that the SIT must be
permitted to firstly obtain a second opinion on the basis of the post-mortem
report of Shahnawaz Chaudhari in order to establish which amongst the 23
injuries suffered by the latter caused his death and by what “mode”. Mr.
Uppal, learned Senior Counsel would then urge that the CFSL ought to
furnish a report recreating the scene of the crime including the possible
injuries suffered by Shahnawaz Chaudhari whilst he was in the ERV (a
vehicle which the police used to transport him from the site to the concerned
police station and onward to the hospital where he was pronounced ‘brought
dead’). According to Mr. Uppal, learned Senior Counsel, the CFSL report in
this behalf would establish the cause of death. Lastly, it was urged by Mr.
Kirti Uppal, learned Senior Counsel that the FSL report needs to be obtained
from the latter on the viscera which has already been dispatched to the them.
Mr. Uppal, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the intervention of this
Court was essential and a direction be issued to the All India Institute of
Medical Sciences, Delhi to expedite the rendering of a second opinion, based
on the videography conducted at the time post-mortem was carried out on

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 22 of 65





the body of Shahnawaz Chaudhari. Mr. Uppal, learned Senior Counsel
further submitted that a direction would be needed to the CFSL to
expeditiously furnish a report regarding the scene of crime and opining
which of the injuries caused to Shahnawaz Chaudhari during his
transportation in the ERV by the police, caused his death.
27. Needless to say that the objective sought to be achieved by requiring
the authorities above stated to carry out the said tasks would assist the
prosecution in arriving at the truth behind the unnatural death of Shahnawaz
Chaudhari. However, it would have been better for the SIT to have sought
exhumation on Shahnawaz Chaudhari’s body and seek medical opinion
thereon, rather than to seek an opinion on the videography conducted at the
time post-mortem was conducted on Shahnawaz Chaudhari.
28. The submissions made on behalf of the SIT and the opposition thereto
shall be referred to later in this order.
29. Before adverting to the facts of the case and the respective
submissions made on behalf of the parties, it would be necessary to consider
the status report handed over in Court yesterday on behalf of the Delhi
Police.

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 23 of 65





30. The status report begins with an assertion that the directions of this
Court by way of order dated 20.11.2015 have been complied with, with
utmost urgency and sincerity. The Disciplinary Authority has initiated
action in accordance with law against the delinquent police officers found
complicit in the commission of alleged offences. It is further stated that
pending departmental enquiries against the said police personnel they are
being placed under suspension. It is contended that since neither the
concerned Metropolitan Magistrate nor the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Seemapuri directed the concerned authority to preserve the CCTV footage
from the cameras installed at GTB Hospital on record, the footage now
recovered by the SIT, does not relate to the material time when the incident
occurred. It is also stated that one Mr. Yogender Solanki, who had provided
the video clip which is in their custody and which has been viewed by this
Court yesterday i.e. 02.12.2015, stated that he had received the same on
WhatsApp and despite efforts made to trace the actual author of the said
video clip, no headway has been made in this regard. The status report places
great reliance on the testimony of an individual, who is attired in civil
clothes and is visible in the said video clip. The long and the short of the
statement of the said civilian, who has been identified as Vinay Kumar by

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 24 of 65





the SIT, is that according to him none of the police personnel involved nor
anybody else gave Shahnawaz Chaudhari a beating at the material time. The
report also places great emphasis on the testimony of one Fahmida, the
mother-in-law of Farha, who was having an altercation with her husband at
the Gagan Cinema, T-point, Nand Nagri which quarrel was the reason in the
first place for the presence of the police at the spot, where the incident
occurred. Her testimony is relied upon to urge that the police personnel
present did not beat Shahnawaz Chaudhari with lathies , dandas , fist blows or
kicks nor did they press his neck. Similar is the testimony reproduced at
great length in the status report of Rihana, Shamshad, Mohd. Salman, Nafees
Ahmed and Tufail Ahmed, who were allegedly witnesses to the incident at
Gagan Cinema, T-point, Nand Nagri on the date of the incident.
31. The testimony of the eye witness Manish, who runs a puncture repair
shop at the spot, is relied upon to demonstrate that the allegation of police
brutality is unfounded and false. The testimonies of Lokesh Mittal,
Devender as well as Rani are also relied upon in this behalf.
32. In paragraph 30 of the status report the sequence of events at the
relevant time is enumerated thus:

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 25 of 65





“That from the investigations conducted so far the sequence
of events has been:-
(a) That at 09.00 AM vide DD No.26-B dated
07.09.2015 departure entry of ERV-57 (Police
Station Gypsy), number DL-1C-M-4335 was
lodged for patrolling duty along with in-charge
SI Manzoor Hasan and driver Constable Deepak
No.1651/NE.
(b) That at 05.05 PM SI Rajender Singh made his
departure entry vide DD No.80-B for execution
of warrant of attachment along with Constable
Sumit No.3424/NE and L/Ct Anita No.2903/NE
at F-22/147 Sunder Nagri, Delhi. Investigation
of the case revealed that SI Rajender and
Constable Sumit went for execution of warrant
of attachment on the private motorcycle of SI
Rajender and lady Constable Anita went in the
ERV which was called in the police station
Nand Nagri for the purpose to accompany SI
Rajender.
(c) That at 05.45 PM, call regarding quarrel at
Sunder Nagri, Gagan Cinema T Point received
in Police Control Room which was passed over
to PCR Van Baker-36. The PCR call was made
by one Farah w/o Shamshad r/o E-117/19,
Sunder Nagri, Delhi by her mobile phone
number 7832886512.
(d) That at 05.50 PM, PCR Van Baker-36, reached
at spot. In-Charge ASI Tej Singh, Gunman Ct.
Udaiveer and Ct. (Dvr) Sachin were present in
the PCR Van.
(e) At 05.51 PM a PCR call regarding quarrel at
Gagan Cinema T-Point was received in PS
Nand Nagri vide DD No.84-B, which was
marked to HC Shripal on emergency duty for
necessary legal action.

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 26 of 65





(f) After few minutes, Shahnawaz @ Shanu along
with his wife Rabia and child arrived at the spot
on a Bullet Motorcycle.
(g) Shahnawaz @ Shanu asked caller Farah to get
down from the PCR Van and on resistance from
police personnel Shahnawaz @ Shanu started
abusing the police personnel.
(h) Despite directions not to intervene, Shahnawaz
@ Shanu kept on insisting that Farah should get
down from the PCR Van. Due to this, a scuffle
ensued between Shahnawaz @ Shanu and the
PCR staff.
(i) After few minutes, police Gypsy from local
police station Emergency Response Vehicle
(ERV)-57 staff reached the spot. SI Manzoor
Hasan, I/C ERV-57, Driver Ct Deepak and lady
Ct Anita were present in ERV-57.
(j) On their way back to the police station, the
police Gypsy (ERV-57) reaches Gagan Cinema
T-Point. Normally the spot Gagan Cinema T-
Point falls on the way from Sunder Nagri to the
police station.
(k) Lady Constable Anita segregated Rabia towards
one side.
(l) Shahnawaz @ Shanu became very violent and
kept on abusing the police personnel and
resisting himself to be taken in the police Gypsy
and the police station.
(m) At 06.08 PM, PCR Van Baker-36 passed
message to Baker-1 that they were on the spot
and ERV Staff (Gypsy) are also on the spot.
And one man is misbehaving with them and the
ERV Staff (Gypsy), which is causing traffic
jam. Further, they requested to send local
police at the spot.

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 27 of 65





(n) At 06.12 PM, I/C PCR Van B-36 contacted the
Duty Officer of the Police Station Nand Nagri
on ‘landline phone’ that one man is
misbehaving with them and the ERV staff,
which is causing traffic jam and asked for
sending local police on the spot.
(o) Police personnel finally managed to put
Shahnawaz @ Shanu inside the ERV-57 (Police
Station Gypsy) and the Gypsy was ready to
move from spot to PS Nand Nagri.
(p) Meanwhile, Constable Sumit also arrived along
with SI Rajender Kumar on his private
motorcycle sent from the police station on
demand of PCR Baker-36.
(q) Due to traffic congestion, SI Rajender could not
reach the spot and directed Constable Sumit to
reach the spot on foot.
(r) Constable Sumit reached the Gypsy and
boarded the rear cabin of the Gypsy. He held
the door of Gypsy on the direction of SI
Manzoor Hasan since the legs of Shahnawaz @
Shanu were protruding from the police Gypsy
(ERV-57) and started for the police station.
(s) ERV-57 (Police Station Gypsy) followed PCR
Van to PS Nand Nagri.
(t) At 06.25 PM, Insp Tarkeshwar Singh, SHO
Nand Nagri and Insp Sanjeev Kumar, Insp
Investigation/ Nand Nagri along with staff were
about to start for spot for the verification of DD
No.84-B, as per directions of senior officers, in
Govt. Vehicle vide DD No.23-A.
(u) At 06.25 PM, Police Gypsy arrived in
compound of PS Nand Nagri and all persons get
deboarded along with Shahnawaz @ Shanu who
was already unconscious.

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 28 of 65





(v) After alighting from the EVR, Rabia went
inside the Police Station.
(w) Soon after PCR Van also reached PS Nand
Nagri and was parked outside the gate of PS
Nand Nagri.
(x) Farah deboarded from the PCR Van and went
inside the police station along with ASI Tej
Singh. Thereafter, Shahshad reached Police
Station and met Rabia and Farah. He came to
know that Shahnawaz @ Shanu had been taken
to the hospital.

(y) While SHO Insp. Tarkeshwar Singh along with
staff were leaving the Police Station vide DD
No.84-B, they saw ERV coming inside the
police station compound. I/C ERV apprised
him that one Shahnawaz @ Shanu who was
brought in ERV was not well. On this,
SHO/Nand Nagri directed I/C ERV to take
Shahnawaz @ Shanu to GTB hospital.
(z) Shahnawaz @ Shanu was immediately shifted
to the emergency of GTB Hospital in ERV-57
(Police Station Gypsy) accompanied by SI
Manzoor Hasan, Constable Deepak and
Constable Sumit.
(aa) At about 06.35 PM PCR Baker-36, reported
brief of the incident to Central Police Control
Room.
(bb) At 06.54 PM, deceased Shahnawaz @ Shanu
was declared brought dead in GTB Hospital.
(cc) Statement of Farah wife of Shamshad revealed
that ERV reached Police Station before PCR. It
means, ERV moved swiftly in comparison with
PCR Van which moved before ERV from spot.
The distance between spot to PS Nand Nagri is
one (01) Kilometer and there is only one red
light on Wazirabad Road in between the spot
and PS Nand Nagri. The said red light has left

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 29 of 65





turn free for going towards the police station.
Statement of witnesses established that the
journey covered by ERV took only a few
minutes.
(dd) During examination in the intervening night of
07/08.09.2015 by Shri Achal Tyagi, Ld. MM,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi petitioner number 1
stated that at around 04.00 PM Shahnawaz @
Shanu asked one couple as to why they were
fighting in public. The police officials were
also present at spot at that time and asked
Shahnawaz @ Shanu not to interfere.
Thereafter, police officials told Shahnawaz @
Shanu that he was trying to teach law to them,
he should come to PS, they will teach him law.
The police officials thereafter took Shahnawaz
@ Shanu and the petitioner in Police Gypsy and
brought them to the PS. Shahnawaz @ Shanu
became unconscious on the way as fight had
ensued on the spot and the police officials were
pulling and dragging him. Her clothes were
also during scuffle. The police officials also
slapped Shahnawaz @ Shanu and thereafter
made Shahnawaz @ Shanu and her to sit in the
police vehicle. The police officials took her on
one side and thereafter took out lathis/wooden
sticks. She has stated that Shahnawaz @ Shanu
had taken beer at his house, however, he was
not drunk. She has stated that Shahnawaz @
Shanu was unconscious when the police vehicle
reached at PS. She also stated that no one from
her house was present in the PS besides herself.
(ee) Further, during her subsequent examination on
16.09.2015 by Shri Achal Tyagi, Ld. MM,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi petitioner number 1
stated tha ton 07.09.2015, she along with her
husband were going to see her sister when they
saw a fight going on near red light of Gagan
Cinema. Shahnawaz @ Shanu stopped there
and asked Farah, whom he knew, to get down

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 30 of 65





from the police vehicle and to settle the dispute
amicably with her husband. It is further stated
that on this, the police officials, who were 4 to 5
in number started beating Shahnawaz @ Shanu
with hands. It is stated that after some time,
other police officials also came at the spot and
they also started beating Shahnawaz @ Shanu.
The police officials thereafter took out dandas
and started beating Shahnawaz @ Shanu.
Shahnawaz @ Shanu was made to sit in the
police Gypsy and besides Shahnawaz @ Shanu,
there were five other police officials at the back
of Gypsy. It is stated that while coming to PS
Nand Nagri, three police officials sat on the
chest of Shahnawaz @ Shanu despite her
objection. At the PS Shahnawaz @ Shanu was
taken out from the police vehicle and thereafter,
she was not allowed to see her husband as she
was taken inside the PS by the lady Constable
and she was informed that her husband
Shahnawaz @ Shanu became unconscious and
shifted to hospital.
(ff) Petitioner No.1, during her examination, under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the SIT, stated that
policemen put Shahnawaz @ Shanu in ERV in
which there were two policemen on the front
seat, four in the rear cabin in addition to one
lady Constable, herself and Shahnawaz @
Shanu. There were three policemen in uniform
on the left hand side and one policeman in civil
clothes, herself and lady Constable on the
RIGHT HAND SIDE. The first policeman on
the LEFT HAND SIDE (Rear Cabin) caught
hold of Shahnawaz @ Shanu’s hand and the
policeman in the middle was beating
Shahnawaz @ Shanu. The last policeman on
the LEFT HAND SIDE caught Shahnawaz @
Shanu’s legs. The first policeman on the LEFT
HAND SIDE sat on Shahnawaz @ Shanu’s
chest. The person in civil clothes sitting next to
her on the RIGHT HAND SIDE also started

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 31 of 65





beating Shahnawaz @ Shanu. The middle
policeman on the LEFT HAND SIDE sat on
Shahnawaz @ Shanu’s abdomen. The
policeman sitting at the end on the left hand
side sat on the legs of the Shahnawaz @ Shanu
and said that Shahnawaz @ Shanu should not
be spared. She was taken out of PS along with
Shahnawaz @ Shanu who was unconscious
while deboarding from Gypsy. She further
stated that the Gypsy reached Police Station
Nand Nagri in 5 minutes (approx.) and
Shahnawaz @ Shanu was taken out from ERV-
57 (Police Station Gypsy) in unconscious
condition. She was taken inside the police
station by telling her that Shahnawaz @ Shanu
needs to be shifted to hospital as he was
unconscious.
(gg) Further, in her statement before SDM
Seemapuri, she stated that Shahnawaz @ Shanu
was unconscious when he was deboarded from
the ERV in Police Station.
(hh) Perusal of statements of petitioner No.1 given
before Ld. MM, SDM, Seemapuri and SIT and
analysis of contents of video-clip provided by
SDM Seemapuri reveals that deceased
Shahnawaz @ Shanu was motionless (probably
unconscious) before carrying him in Police
Gypsy (ERV) on spot and he was struggling for
life.
(ii) A request has been made to the Director of
CFSL, New Delhi to recreate the scene of crime
and also to assist the SIT in establishing the
injuries that could result from the beating as
alleged by Rabia.
(jj) From the analysis of available video-clip it has
been revealed that:-
a. The video-clip available depicts that
deceased Shahnawaz @ Shanu seems

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 32 of 65





to be motionless from 04 minutes 25
seconds onwards out of total duration
of recording of 5 minute 1 second.
b. It is also evident from the video-clip
that one person (Constable Udaiveer)
later on identified, was pulling
Shahnawaz @ Shanu from inside the
Gypsy by holding his shoulder and T-
Shirt while the petitioner number 1
was pulling Shahnawaz @ Shanu out
of the Gypsy.

(kk) One of the eye-witnesses Manish son of Sanjay
Singh stated that deceased Shahnawaz @ Shanu
was boarded in Gypsy thrice but he forcefully
managed to deboard himself from the Gypsy
every time. However, the video clip available
clearly depicts that 4-5 policemen had to
struggle very hard to put Shahnawaz @ Shanu
into the Gypsy and this was done only once, not
thrice as claimed by Manish.

33. On the basis of the statements of witnesses and material evidence, the
status report concludes as follows:
“31. From the statements of witnesses and material
evidence on record, it can be concluded that:-
i. It is evident from the investigation conducted
that ERV-57 reached on the spot coincidently
after execution of warrant of attachment, while
it was on the way back to the police station.
ii. Similarly, it is also evident that Shahnawaz @
Shanu a resident of E-2/245, Sultan Puri, Delhi
also reached at the spot coincidently while
going to see his ailing sister-in-law who was
admitted in Karuna Hospital. Shahnawaz @

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 33 of 65





Shanu was drunk and was using abusive
language against the police persons. He was
constantly trying to resist policemen who
wanted to remove him from the spot since he
was creating a traffic jam.
iii. The PCR was at the spot in response to a call
made by Farah while both ERV-57 (Police
Station Gypsy) and deceased Shahnawaz @
Shanu reached the spot coincidently. Staff from
the police station reached the spot to manage
the traffic jam created by the action of
Shahnawaz @ Shanu.
iv. Since Shahnawaz @ Shanu and ERV-57 along
with its staff reached the spot coincidently, any
action on part of the policemen in the entire
episode does not seem to be pre-planned.
v. The investigation conducted so far clearly rules
out any possibility of third degree or physical
beating (torture) given to deceased Shahnawaz
@ Shanu inside the police station Nand Nagri.
vi. It has been established that in PCR Van Baker-
36, ASI Tej Singh as In-charge, Constable
Sachin as Driver and Constable Udaiveer as
Gunman were present on duty during the
incident on 07.09.2015. Their sitting
arrangement at the time of arrival on the spot to
attend the PCR call received by DD No.84-B
dated 07.09.2015 Police Station Nand Nagri is
attached. (Annexure-I)
vii. It has been established that SI Rajender and Ct.
Sumit went for attachment of proceedings on SI
Rajender’s motorcycle at Sunder Nagri, while
W/Ct. Anita was sent in the Gypsy (ERV-57) to
join SI Rajender and Ct. Sumit. After the
execution of attachment proceedings, SI
Rajender and Ct. Sumit returned to the Police
Station on the motorcycle. However, W/Ct.
Anita was being taken back to the Police Station

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 34 of 65





in the ERV-57 by its In-charge SI Manzoor
Hassan and Driver Ct. Deepak. When the ERV-
57 reached Gagan Cinema T-Point, they
stopped on seeing the crowd gathered there.
Thereafter, when PCR Baker-36 requested for
re-enforcement from the Police Station, at
Gagan Cinema T-Point, SI Rajender and Ct.
Sumit were dispatched for the spot on SI
Rajender’s motorcycle. However, the
motorcycle stopped a few meters before the
Gagan Cinema T-Point because of traffic jam
owing to the crowd gathered there. Therefore,
SI Rajender stayed back on the motorcycle,
while Ct. Sumit went to the ERV-57 on foot.
The sitting arrangement of staff reached in the
ERV-57 (Police Station Gypsy) that reached
Gagan Cinema T-Point is attached. (Annexure-
J).
viii. The investigation shows that Shahnawaz @
Shanu was brought in Police Station Nand
Nagri along with SI Manzoor Hassan on
conductor seat and Constable Deepak as Driver.
In the rear cabin of ERV-57 (Police Station
Gypsy), on the LEFT HAND SIDE, in all
probability, Constable Udaiveer was sitting
behind on the first seat, Constable Sumit on the
last seat by holding door of the ERV-57 (Police
Station Gypsy). On the RIGHT HAND SIDE
one person in civil clothes (Vinay Kumar) was
seated behind the driver, petitioner number 1
was on the middle seat and lady Constable
Anita was sitting along the door. Shahnawaz @
Shanu was lying on the floor in between the
seats. This arrangement can be seen at
(Annexure-K).
All the alleged police personnel have been suspended
from duty by the concerned Disciplinary Authorities. The
Director, FSL has been requested to expedite the result of
exhibits i.e. Viscera, Blood, Nails, DVR and video-clip.

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 35 of 65





From the PME report dated 09.09.2015, it is clear that
there are 23 injuries on the body of deceased Shahnawaz @
Shanu besides significant internal injuries on head & neck
region. The statements of witnesses and material evidence
has been able to establish.
a. The position of policemen and other persons
including deceased Shahnawaz @ Shanu inside the
Gypsy. (Annexure –K).
b. Shahnawaz @ Shanu became unconscious at some
point during the scuffle when he was being lifted
from the road and while he was being put inside the
ERV-57 (Police Station Gypsy) and remained
unconscious till he was taken out of ERV-57
(Police Station Gypsy) in the Police Station from
where he was shifted to GTB Hospital where he
was declared brought dead.
c. There are contradictions in statements of the
petitioner No.1, public person Vinay, public
witnesses- Manish, Lokesh Mittal, Shamshad,
Farah, Rihana and in the version of Ct. Sumit and
Ct. Udaiveer. The contradiction has been on the
variation of sitting plan inside the Gypsy [as per
version of Shamshad and Ct. Sumit at (Annexure-
K), as per version of Rabia at (Annexure-L), as per
version of Vinay Kumar (Annexure-M) in which
Shahnawaz @ Shanu was being carried to the
Police Station. The contradiction are also
regarding who beat Shahnawaz @ Shanu at the
spot i.e. Gagan Cinema T-Point before boarding the
Gypsy; alleged beatings/torture given by some of
the persons sitting inside the Gypsy enroute to the
police station.

d. In the light of the above facts, it has not been
possible for the SIT to come to any definite
conclusion at the stage as to at what point, which
action and on whose part the deceased Shahnawaz
@ Shanu received the fatal injury on his body
which ultimately resulted in his death. It is
precisely for these reasons that a Medical Board of

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 36 of 65





eminent doctors from AIIMS has been got
constituted and Director CFSL has been requested
to recreate the scene of crime.

The Investigation of the case is in progress. The undersigned
will abide by the directions by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi.”

34. A close scrutiny of what has been extracted hereinabove reveals the
following:-
(i) The post-mortem examination conducted on the body of
Shahnawaz Chaudhari on 09.09.2015 stated that there
were 23 injuries on the body besides significant internal
injuries on the head and neck region.
(ii) It is the contention of the SIT that they have not been able
to determine what caused these injuries at this point of
time and further investigation is necessitated in order to
conclusively determine what caused those injuries.
(iii) It was also the contention of the SIT that Shahnawaz
Chaudhari, the deceased-victim, was motionless
(probably unconscious) before he was lifted into the ERV
at the spot and was evidently struggling for life.
(iv) It is theorized by the SIT that as is evident from the video
clip Constable Udaiveer was pulling Shahnawaz
Chaudhari from inside the ERV by holding his shoulder
and T-shirt where as Rabia @ Mamta was pulling the
former out of the vehicle.
(v) It is concluded by the SIT that Shahnawaz Chaudhari, the
deceased-victim, was drunk and was using abusive

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 37 of 65





language against the police personnel. (On a query from
the Court it is asserted that although the post-mortem
report does not state that Shahnawaz Chaudhari was
drunk, the said fact cannot be conclusively determined till
such time that the SIT obtains the FSL result qua the
viscera in this regard.)
(vi) It is also concluded by the SIT that the entire incident was
not pre-planned and that any possibility of third-degree or
physical beatings by the police personnel, is ruled out.

35. In this behalf it would be relevant to observe that a plain reading of the
subject FIR reveals that Shahnawaz Chaudhari was fully conscious when he
was hauled into the ERV and had lost consciousness by the time the vehicle
reached the concerned Police Station. The testimony of the delinquent police
officers, as recorded in the subject FIR, clearly supports this conclusion.
Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the SIT that Shahnawaz Chaudhari
was motionless (probably unconscious) before boarding the ERV, is on the
face of it contrary to the record.
36. The dismissal of allegations of physical torture, inflicted by the
delinquent police personnel on Shahnawaz Chaudhari, by the SIT leave a lot
to be desired. There is no officer forthcoming to explain how Shahnawaz
Chaudhari sustained 23 injuries including the injuries on his head and neck

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 38 of 65





region between the time he was boarded on to the ERV and the time he was
declared brought dead at the GTB Hospital. The deceased victim was
admittedly in police custody throughout this period. The role of each of the
delinquent police personnel during the entire incident has not been
delineated in the status report. The SIT has refrained from mentioning what
caused the death of Shahnawaz on that fateful day. The only submission in
this behalf is that investigation is on-going.
37. I must observe that the SIT is as clueless today about what occasioned
Shahnawaz Chaudhari’s death as it was almost three months ago when the
incident occurred. It is also incumbent upon this Court to consider the fact
finding report dated 15.09.2015 authored by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Seemapuri in accordance with law. The report captures the chronology of
events thus:-
“ 2. The Chronology of events
The undersigned (SDM, Seemapuri) conducted a field
inquiry and recorded the statement sof the victim’s wife and
other eye-witnesses, watched the video recording (provided
by the media) of the incident and perused the post mortem
report of the victim. On the basis of the inquiry the following
sequence of events can be inferred/derived:-
th
7 September, 2015
4.30 p.m. The victim along with his wife Smt. Rabia @
Mamta and 3½ months old son left his house to

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 39 of 65





meet his relatives at Karuna Hospital, Dilshad
Colony and reached Gagan Cinema T-point
around 05.15 pm where he noticed an ongoing
scuffle between a couple; and a police vehicle
along with some police personnel was standing
there. The victim tried to intervene and mediate
as the lady amongst that quarreling couple was
apparently known to him. This led to his
altercation with the police. The police allegedly
beat him up with lathis and bundled him up in
the police van.
6.15 p.m. The victim and his wife were taken to the police
station Nand Nagri victim’s wife was left and
the victim was taken to the hospital where the
doctors declared him to be brought dead at
06.54 pm.
th
8 September, 2015
02.30 a.m. Statement of victim’s wife was recorded by
Metropolitan Magistrate. However, as per the
statement of the victim’s wife, she was not
aware of the death of her husband.
03.00 a.m. The victim’s wife was dropped at her parents
place by the police.
03.30 a.m. The victim’s wife went to GTB Hospital to find
out condition of her husband. However, she
could not locate her husband.
04.30 a.m. Victim’s wife reached Police Station Nand
Nagri to inquire about her husband. However,
she was not allowed to enter the Police Station.
She waited in front of the Police Station till
07.00 a.m.
07.00 a.m. Victim’s wife went to her father’s place in Nand
Nagri and came back to Police Station Nand
Nagri with her father.
08.00 a.m. The victim’s wife was informed about the death
of her husband by the police.

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 40 of 65





05.30 p.m. Victim’s wife arrived at the scene of occurrence
of the incident. Seeing her, a huge crowd
gathered there. Demanding disciplinary action
against the errant police officials, the public
blocked the road and pelted stones on the
police, leading to lathi charge by the police.”

38. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Seemapuri highlights the initial
hesitation on the part of the concerned SHO to disclose any information
about the incident.
39. The statement of Rabia, the widow of the deceased extracted in the
SDM’s report is as follows:-
“Smt. Rabia @ Mamta wife of Late Sh. Shahnawaj
Chduahary age around 36 years, r/o E-2, 245 Sultanpuri,
Delhi.

Around 04.30 p.m. on 07/09/2015, Rabia @ Mamta
along with her husband and her kid was going to see her
relative at Karuna Hospital, Dilshad Colony. They
reached Gatan T-Point where her husband saw a lady
named Farah standing near a PCR van. Her husband
apparently knew the lady and therefore, he asked her as
to why she was standing there. Police officials asked her
husband, not to interfere in the matter. Her husband told
the police that it was a private issue between the couple
and they would sort it out at home. The police took
umbrage at this and slapped him. Her husband objected
to this and this led to further altercation between him and
the police. Meanwhile, another police vehicle reached
the spot and the police started beating her husband with

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 41 of 65





batons, hands and feet. She started shouting and begged
to let her husband go, but the police kept beating him.
Subsequently, they bundled him in a police vehicle and
three policemen sat over him in the vehicle. She kept
pleading the policemen, not to beat her husband but they
kept beating him in the vehicle as well.
Around 05.30 P.M., when the vehicle arrived at police
station Nand Nagri gate, police officials first de-boarded
her and when she asked to de-board her husband, it was
observed that he was unconscious. Police officials asked
her to go inside the police station and get the entry of her
name and address done and since her husband was
unconscious, they were taking him to the hospital. She
was made to wait at the police station where she kept
inquiring about her husband but nobody disclosed her
anything. Her statement was recorded by judge saab
around 02.30 am. She was asked by the police not to
disclose anything adverse about the police and also about
the beating by the police, otherwise the parole of her
husband would be jeopardized. The police also promised
her to send her home along with her husband soon after
recording her statement by Judge saab. Accordingly, she
did not disclose all the facts before the Judge saab and
only mentioned a minor scuffle with the police. Her
statement was recorded under undue pressure of the
police.
Around 3.00 am police officials dropped her at her
parent’s residence, D-3 Block/357 Nand Nagri, Delhi.
From there, around 3.30 am she went to GTB Hospital to
look for her husband but she could not find him.
Around 4.30 am she went to the P.S. Nand Nagri but the
police officials did not allow her to go inside the police
station. She kept waiting at the police station till 7.00 am
in the morning. Thereafter, she called her father around
8.00 am police officials informed her that her husband
was no more.

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 42 of 65





Then she went to mortuary of GTB Hospital and after
seeing her husband’s dead body, she went back to the
spot (Gagan Cinema T-Point) in the evening and
enquired from the local people if anyone has captured the
incident, as she remembered some students making video
clips of the incident in their mobile phones.
While she was collecting the evidence regarding the
incident, a number of people gathered there and after
seeing the clip of the incident, they blocked the road,
later police got the blockade cleared.”

40. The fact finding report also recorded the statement of Manish, son of
Sanjay Singh and Subhash, son of Ganesh Das who are allegedly eye
witnesses.
41. The statement of Manish as recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
in his fact finding report is at variance with the statement made by Manish
subsequently before the SIT.
42. It is relevant to notice that whereas in the earlier statement Manish
stated that he witnessed 4 to 5 policemen beating the victim and continuing
to beat him for around 10 minutes before putting him into the police van and
taking him to the Police Station, in the later statement he testifies differently
and absolves the delinquent police personnel from any wrong doing.

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 43 of 65





43. Be that as it may what is more alarming is the circumstance that
Subhash, son of Ganesh, a Priest by profession at the Shiv Mandir located at
the site of the incident, who deposed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Seemapuri that the police personnel beat-up Shahnawaz Chaudhari, who fell
down on the road, at which time they promptly dragged him into the police
van, has not been examined by the SIT at all. Subhash is conveniently
unavailable. On a query from the Court, it has been stated that Subhash has
gone back to his native village and consequently, his statement under Section
161 of the Code has not been recorded so far by the SIT.
44. Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Delhi Commission for Women has strenuously urged that the investigation
be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inter alia for the
following reasons:
(i) The material on record prima facie establishes the involvement
of police officials.
(ii) The conduct of the police in illegally detaining Rabia @
Mamta, the widow of the victim, on two separate occasions
overnight, at the Police Station and the deliberate delay in
informing her of her husband’s death, so as to persuade her to

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 44 of 65





record a statement absolving the delinquent police officials in
order to secure her husband’s release.
(iii) The circumstance that an FIR has been registered, inter alia ,
against 50 people including Rabia @ Mamta for rioting and
arson and then proceeding to detain Rabia @ Mamta alone.
(iv) Despite the passage of almost three months, since the date of
incident, the FIR continues to be maintained against “Unknown
Persons.” And despite numerous opportunities given by this
court, the investigation is not complete.
(v) The ocular testimony of Subhash is conspicuous by its absence
in the status report filed by the SIT.
(vi) Lastly, that the focus of the SIT seems to be to exonerate the
police rather than find the guilty and bring them to book.

45. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submitted after viewing the video clip furnished on behalf of
the SIT that the said clip had been doctored, inasmuch as, parts of the video
clip showing beatings inflicted on Shahnawaz Chaudhari, are not present,

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 45 of 65





which is at divergence from the copy of the video clip filed on behalf of the
petitioners, which video clip is also a part of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Seemapuri’s fact finding report.
46. Before I proceed further, I must perform the unpleasant task of
recording the response of the SIT to the circumstance that Mr. Zahid Ahmed,
who claims to be an eye witness to the incident, and whose statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded before the concerned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi yesterday on the
directions of this Court, to the effect that if the police officer concerned
despite five calls did not record Mr. Ahmed’s testimony, what prevented him
from approaching him the concerned Magistrate in this regard. It is urged
that Mr. Zahid Ahmed should have approached the concerned Magistrate
under Section 156(3) of the Code if the SIT was reluctant to record his
testimony.
47. A decision of the Supreme Court in Anand Wardhan and Another vs.
Pandurang and Others reported as (2006) 1 SCC 769 has been cited on
behalf of the SIT to buttress this submission. The ratio of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as recorded in the said order is to the effect that “ the law
provides that if the police fails to investigate a case arising from a first

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 46 of 65





information report lodged before it disclosing commission of a cognizable
offence, it is open to the informant/complainant to move the Magistrate
concerned for appropriate order under Section 156 Cr.P.C., or may file a
complaint and obtain appropriate orders from him for issuance of process
against the accused for trial. ”
48. While there can be no quarrel with the proposition that the correct
course of action in the event the police fails to carry out the investigation
into a cognizable offence is to approach the concerned Magistrate under
Section 156 of the Code (Reference: Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. reported
as (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh
reported as (2008) 7 SCC 164 ), with utmost respect, the said principle has no
application to the facts of the present case. The present is a case where the
allegations leveled are serious and are that police officers have employed
third-degree methods against an individual whose only offence was to
intervene at a time when the former were berating a quarrelling couple.
49. The forcible beatings allegedly inflicted on Shahnawaz Chaudhari by
the delinquent police officers and their alleged conduct in illegally detaining
Rabia @ Mamta, a 28 years old woman overnight in a Police Station,
contrary to the mandate of law under Section 46(4) of the Code and in the

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 47 of 65





face of all canons of justice on two separate occasions and their alleged
oversight in informing her that her husband had been brought dead to the
GTB Hospital at 06.54 p.m. on 07.09.2015 till 07.00 a.m. on the following
day, is according to me is also the reason why the decision relied upon by the
Delhi Police does not come to their aid.
50. In the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Rubabbuddin
Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported as (2010) 2 SCC 200 while
considering the transfer of an investigation at the stage where the police had
completed its investigation and submitted its charge sheet into the alleged
fake encounter of Sohrabuddin, referred to an earlier decision of the
Supreme Court in R.S. Sodhi vs. State of U.P. reported as 1994 Supp (1)
SCC 143 wherein the Court had observed as follows:-
“ 2 . … We have perused the events that have taken place since
the incidents but we are refraining from entering upon the
details thereof lest it may prejudice any party but we think
that since the accusations are directed against the local
police personnel it would be desirable to entrust the
investigation to an independent agency like the Central
Bureau of Investigation so that all concerned including the
relatives of the deceased may feel assured that an
independent agency is looking into the matter and that would
lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility.
However faithfully the local police may carry out the
investigation, the same will lack credibility since the
allegations are against them . It is only with that in mind that
we having thought it both advisable and desirable as well as

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 48 of 65

51. It then went on to record its earlier decision in Kashmiri Devi vs.
Delhi Admn. reported as 1988 SCC (Cri) 864 observing that:-

52. The Supreme Court held as follows:-

82. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances even at this
stage the police authorities of the State are directed to hand
over the records of the present case to the CBI Authorities

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 49 of 65

53. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal
and Others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West
Bengal and Others reported as (2010) 3 SCC 571 considered the issue as to
whether a High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can direct the Central Bureau of Investigation
established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 to
investigate a cognizable offence, which is alleged to have taken place within
the territorial jurisdiction of a State, without the consent of the State
Government and concluded as follows:-

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 50 of 65

(iii) In view of the constitutional scheme and the
jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article
32 and on the High Courts under Article 226 of the
Constitution the power of judicial review being an
integral part of the basic structure of the
Constitution, no Act of Parliament can exclude or
curtail the powers of the constitutional courts with
regard to the enforcement of fundamental rights.
As a matter of fact, such a power is essential to
give practicable content to the objectives of the
Constitution embodied in Part III and other parts of
the Constitution. Moreover, in a federal
constitution, the distribution of legislative powers
between Parliament and the State Legislature
involves limitation on legislative powers and,
therefore, this requires an authority other than
Parliament to ascertain whether such limitations are
transgressed. Judicial review acts as the final
arbiter not only to give effect to the distribution of
legislative powers between Parliament and the
State Legislatures, it is also necessary to show any

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 51 of 65

(vii) When the Special Police Act itself provides that
subject to the consent by the State, CBI can take up
investigation in relation to the crime which was
otherwise within the jurisdiction of the State police,

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 52 of 65

54. In Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat and Others
reported as 2014 (2) SCALE 629 the Supreme Court was asked to transfer
the investigation into the murder of a RTI activist. Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Surinder Singh Nijjar speaking for the Bench held that the High Court may
transfer investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation to instill
confidence of the general public in the investigation.
55.
In Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
reported as (2015) 9 SCC 795 Justice T.S. Thakur, J, as he then was,
speaking for the Court, emphasized the importance of a fair and proper
investigation. The Court affirmed an earlier decision in Sasi Thomas vs.
State reported as (2006) 12 SCC 421 and observed as follows:-

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 53 of 65

56. The Supreme Court further cited the case of Nirmal Singh Kahlon
(supra) wherein it was held:-
“28 . An accused is entitled to a fair investigation. Fair
investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of
fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. But the State has a larger obligation i.e.
to maintain law and order, public order and preservation of
peace and harmony in the society. A victim of a crime, thus,
is equally entitled to a fair investigation.”


57. The Supreme Court also referred to Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat
reported as (2010) 12 SCC 254 wherein it was observed:-
“32 . The investigation into a criminal offence must be free
from objectionable features or infirmities which may
legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that
investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior
motive. It is also the duty of the investigating officer to
conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and
harassment to any of the accused. The investigating officer

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 54 of 65





should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility
of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must
dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The investigating
officer ‘is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with
such evidence as may enable the court to record a conviction
but to bring out the real unvarnished truth’. (Vide R.P.
Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ
1239] , Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [(1974) 3 SCC
774 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 250] and Mahmood v. State of
U.P. [(1976) 1 SCC 542 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 72] )
*
40 . … Therefore, if the court, comes to the conclusion that
the investigation has been done in a manner with an object of
helping a party, the court may direct for further investigation
and ordinarily not for reinvestigation.
41 . The expression ‘ ordinarily ’ means normally and it is used
where there can be an exception. It means in the large
majority of cases but not invariably. ‘Ordinarily’ excludes
‘extraordinary’ or ‘special circumstances’. (Vide Kailash
Chandra v. Union of India [AIR 1961 SC 1346] , Eicher
Tractors Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs [(2001) 1 SCC 315]
and State of A.P. v. V. Sarma Rao [(2007) 2 SCC 159 : (2007)
1 SCC (Cri) 535] .)
42 . Thus, it is evident that in exceptional circumstances, the
court in order to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice, if
considers necessary, it may direct for investigation de novo
wherein the case presents exceptional circumstances.
*
45 . Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also part of
constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of
the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be
fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum
requirement of the rule of law. The investigating agency
cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted
and biased manner. Where non-interference of the court
would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must
interfere. In such a situation, it may be in the interest of
justice that independent agency chosen by the High Court
makes a fresh investigation.”


W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 55 of 65





58. The majority judgment in Mithilesh Kumar Singh (supra) held as
follows:-

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 56 of 65

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 57 of 65

59. From a conspectus of the decisions above referred, the following legal
situation emerges:-
(i) The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted
by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 58 of 65





(hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’). The restrictions
imposed by Section 6 of the said Act on the powers of the
Union cannot be read as a restriction on the powers of a
Constitutional Court.
(ii) The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India directing the Central Bureau of
Investigation to investigate a cognizable offence, alleged to
have been committed within the territory of a State, without the
consent of that State, will neither impinge upon the federal
structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of
separation of power and shall be valid in law. The High Courts
have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation
to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part-III in
general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular,
zealously and vigilantly.
(iii) The High Court may transfer a case to the Central Bureau of
Investigation after considering and in the light of the facts
antecedent and attendant at any stage and even after the police
has completed investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 59 of 65





(iv) The High Court may transfer investigation to the Central
Bureau of Investigation to instill confidence of the general
public in the investigation, keeping in mind the seriousness of
the case having far reaching implications.
60. In the present case, Shahnawaz Chaudhari, the deceased-victim
intervened on behalf of a quarrelling couple in the presence of police officers
and is alleged to have been mercilessly beaten by the latter. It is further
alleged that he was dragged into the police ERV, punched, kicked and sat
upon (his chest) on the way to the Police Station. Shahnawaz Chaudhari is
stated to have been unconscious when he was taken by the police officers
from the Police Station to the GTB Hospital when he was declared brought
dead. The unfortunate incident resulted in riots and the police is stated to
have resorted to lathi charge to disburse the agitated mass.
61. The fact finding report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Seemapuri
dated 15.09.2015 noted as follows:-
“10. Conclusion
Thus, the only logical conclusion for the sudden death
of an otherwise healthy person, who was taken into the
custody of police and beaten up[ by them is that he
succumbed to the injuries caused during this beating;
subsequent bundling up in the vehicle and pinning

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 60 of 65





down of the victim, by three persons, who sat on him
leading to asphyxia. The fact that he was declared
“brought dead” by GTB Hospital in the evening itself
and non-disclosure of this news to the wife of the
deceased by police till the next day only re-affirms
their role.”

62. Further, the Metropolitan Magistrate during judicial enquiry recorded
the following finding dated 16.10.2015:-
“In the light of the examination of witnesses and post-
mortem report and other documents filed it is evident,
that the deceased Shanu died due to asphyxia caused
by compression of neck. The internal injuries on the
next of the deceased show that force was applied by
the broad object on the neck of the deceased due to
which the deceased expired. The medical evidence on
record clearly proves that this is not a case of natural
death and rather it is a case of homicide. The issue
whether it is a case of intentional killing is beyond the
scope of this enquiry and can only be ascertained once
proper investigation is carried out. The DCP
concerned is accordingly directed to take appropriate
action for proper investigation is carried out. The DCP
concerned is accordingly directed to take appropriate
action for proper investigation in the matter by
registration of FIR.
Copy of this order be sent to (i) Ld. C.M.M. Shahdara
KKD Delhi (2) Home Department, Government of
NCT of Delhi (3) National Human Rights
Commission, Faridkote House, Copernicus Marg, New
Delhi (4) DCP concerned NE Distt.”

63. The status report filed on behalf of the SIT, its contents and
conclusion leads to an impression that the investigating agency has not been

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 61 of 65





able to conduct itself in an impartial and fair manner. The failure on the part
of the SIT to record the statement of Subhash despite a passage of three
months and their reluctance to record the statement of Zahid Ahmed
indicates that all is not well with the investigation.
64. In the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, while
concluding with the investigation into the death of Shahnawaz Chaudhari is
far from fair, independent, bona fide and prompt and whilst refraining from
suggesting with the SIT should or should not have taken a particular line of
investigation or apprehended any person, expect in accordance with law, it is
incumbent and advisable for this Court to transfer the investigation to the
Central Bureau of Investigation so as to instill confidence of the general
public in the investigation, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations
leveled against the police officers.
65. Accordingly, the police authorities (SIT) are directed to hand over the
record of the present case to the Central Bureau of Investigation within a
week from today and thereafter the CBI authority shall take up the
investigation afresh and conclude the same within a period of six months
from the date of taking over the investigation from the police authorities.

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 62 of 65





66. The Central Bureau of Investigation is directed to register a RC on the
basis of the subject FIR already registered.
67. I expect the police authorities in Delhi to cooperate with the CBI in
conducting the investigation properly and in an appropriate manner.
68. Before parting, it is necessary for me, in view of the deposition of Mr.
Zahid Ahmed, who claims to be an eye witness of the incident, to direct the
DCP, North-East to provide adequate protection to him and ensure his safety.

69. The statement of Mr. Zahid Ahmed, recorded under Section 164 of the
Code by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
yesterday i.e. 02.12.2015 be handed over to the Central Bureau of
Investigation.
70. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, Central Forensic
Science Laboratory, and Forensic Science Laboratory are directed to
transmit their reports/opinions directly to the Central Bureau of Investigation
in Delhi. The afore-stated authorities are directed to expedite their reports in
view of the gravity and seriousness of the allegations leveled against the
officers of the State police.

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 63 of 65





71. The present order relates to prayer clauses (a) and (b) in the present
petition, which are allowed. Insofar as prayer clause (c), which relates to
compensation to Rabia @ Mamta and her minor child aged six months is
concerned, the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and the Government
of NCT of Delhi shall take a decision in this behalf expeditiously and
preferably within one month from today.
72. It is hoped and expected that a humane, informed and well considered
decision shall be taken, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances
antecedent and attendant and the plight of the young widow and her six
month old baby boy.
73. The writ petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
74. It is made clear that any observations made in this order are only for
the limited purpose of deciding the issue whether investigation ought to be
handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation or not and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
75. A copy of this order be sent to the (i) All India Institute of Medical
Sciences; (ii) Central Forensic Science Laboratory; (iii) Forensic Science

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 64 of 65





Laboratory; (iv) Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, and (v) Secretary
(Home), Government of NCT of Delhi.



SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

DECEMBER 03, 2015
dn

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2015 Page 65 of 65