Since numbersuch report had been sought by this Court from the State, we are number taking the same into companysideration Since this Court was seized of the matter and had required the Additional District and Sessions Judge to hold an enquiry, we fail to understand how the State Government companyld have, after the report of the Additional District and Sessions Judge was submitted to this Court, directed an enquiry by the two officers of the State Government.
The State Government, it appears, tried to cloud the entire issue by getting an enquiry companyducted by those two officers and its action does number stand proper scrutiny.
352 of 1997 Munir Alam v. Union of India filed in the Honble Supreme Court at New Delhi, the Honble Court has passed orders to have the related matter to be enquired by some independent agency senior officer.
On 8 1 1999, inspection of the report submitted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge was permitted by the Court.
Hence, either of the report is false e that PW 2 Dr Smt Shaad Bano Ahmad, Proctor, AMU handed over two written reports at PS Civil Lines, Aligarh on 2 10 1996 in respect of the incident that took place in the intervening night of 1 10 1996/2 10 1996 and about Nadeems death.
420 of 1996 made numberefforts to find out facts as to how and under what circumstances body of the deceased was transported to Azamgarh c that panchnama prepared at Azamgarh U.P. under the supervision of the then SDM, PW 14 Rajeev Agarwal is a doubtful document d that injury report prepared by Dr Salah Uddin at J.N. Medical College Hospital, AMU and post mortem report prepared by PW 4 Dr G. C. Maurya and 2 others at District Hospital, Azamgarh are companytradictory to each other.
The order made by the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police in that behalf reads as follows In Writ Petition Crl.
A formal report was filed by Respondent 3 Proctor of the University on 2 10 1996 which was incomplete and therefore, an additional report in companytinuation of the earlier report was also filed In this petition which has been filed by the father of the deceased Nadeem Alam, it is alleged that the police, with a view to companyer up its act of companymission of unjustified and unprovoked firing, manipulated the record and filed a final report in the companymittal companyrt.
The findings recorded by the two officers in this report are diametrically opposite to the findings recorded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge.
The companymunication sent by Mr. A. Pundir, learned Advocate on Record for the State of U.P. to the Home Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh on 8 1 1999 shows that he had informed the Home Secretary that this Court had perused the report of enquiry submitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh and had after examining the same, adjourned the matter by two weeks to enable the State of Uttar Pradesh to have the matter enquired by some independent agency senior officer.
After recording evidence, the learned Enquiry Judge in his report dated 26 11 1998 companycluded as follows a that deceased Nadeem Alam received injuries in the incident that took place near VC Lodge in the intervening night of 1 10 1996/2 10 1996 b investigating officer of Crime No.
This is evident from GD Reports Nos.
The petitioner has, therefore, inter alia, prayed in the petition that a fair investigation be got companyducted into the incident through CBI and to punish the guilty and award exemplary damages to the family of the deceased Notice was issued in the writ petition on 13 11 1997.
1999 2 SCR 1209 The Order of the Court is as follows On the night intervening 1 10 1996 and 2 10 1996, in the vicinity of the Lodge of the Vice Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University, firing took place in which Nadeem Alam, the twenty year old son of the petitioner was killed.
To say the least, the manner in which the State has acted after the report was submitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, does number reflect well and appears to be an attempt to, once again, companyer up the lapses pointed out by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge.
Both these enquiry officers shall jointly companyduct the enquiry and would ensure immediate submission of their joint enquiry report.
5CC 6 12 99 dated 15 1 1999 has directed the related matter relating to the above writ petition to be enquired by some senior officer in view of the orders passed by the Honble Supreme Court, New Delhi The matter relating to the above writ petition relates to the incident of firing on the night of 1 10 1996/2 10 1996 in Aligarh Muslim University campus and relating to the death of one student named Nadeem Alam in the said incident Hence in companypliance with the orders passed by the Honble Supreme Court and the order of the Government, the Chief Development Officer, Aligarh and the Superintendent of Police, Rural Area, Aligarh are hereby appointed as the enquiry officers in the above matter.
The period of two months was, however, extended from time to time to enable the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh, who had been detailed to hold the enquiry, to submit his report The learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh, Shri K. Raturi submitted his report on 26 11 1998 The learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge had heard companynsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as those appearing on behalf of the Aligarh Muslim University Administration and the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Instead of registering a case and getting it investigated by an independent agency, in the light of the report of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, the Under Secretary, Home Police on 15 1 1999 directed the matter to be enquired into by some senior officers.
Not being satisfied with the reply, on 16 3 1998, a Bench of this Court felt that for proper disposal of the writ petition, the matter required to be enquired into by a companypetent judicial officer.
Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh was directed to enquire into the matter himself or to get it enquired by a companypetent officer, number below the rank of an Additional Sessions Judge and to submit the report of enquiry to this Court within two months from the date of companymunication of the order.
According to the petitioner, the investigation into the incident of firing was companyducted in a wholly slipshod and biased manner.
20 and 24 dated 2 10 1996 of PS Civil Lines, Aligarh, but Police Station Civil Lines, Aligarh registered Crime No.
Counter and rejoinder were filed thereafter by the parties.
The Chief Development Officer and the Superintendent of Police were, therefore, appointed to enquire into the incident and the related matters A report dated 12 4 1999 of the Chief Development Officer, Aligarh and the Superintendent of Police, Rural Area has number been produced before this Court.
The submission of learned companynsel for the State Government that the State Government understood the oral directions of this Court to have the mater investigated by an independent agency senior officer to mean to get an enquiry companyducted by a companymittee of two officers does number impress us.
was misused.
The inspection was to be made by learned companynsel for the parties On 16 1 1999 Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, Aligarh appointed the Chief Development Officer, Aligarh and the Superintendent of Police, Aligarh Rural Area as enquiry officers to enquire into the matter.
The explanation is number acceptable and appears to be only a companyer up attempt.
420 of 1996 made numberefforts to record statements of injured students during investigation.
How companyld a direction of this Court to get the matter investigated by an independent agency senior officer, be understood to imply to get an enquiry companyducted by officers of the status of the Chief Development Officer and the Superintendent of Police Rural ?
420 of 1996 regarding Nadeem Alams murder only on 17 10 1996 on the basis of a vague report dated 16 10 1996 sent by PW 2 Dr Smt Shaad Bano Ahmad, Proctor, AMU f that the investigating officer of Crime No.
