BHARATI TAMANG Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2013-10-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
October 08,2013
Bharati Tamang
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KURUMA VS. QUEEN [REFERRED TO]HERMAN KING VS. THE QUEEN [REFERRED TO]
S.P. GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
POORAN MAL SHRI HANUMAN PERSHAD GANERWALA JAGAT RAM MAGO RAMJI DAS SHARMA VS. DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION INVESTIGA TION NEW DELHI:DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION NEW DELHI:SHRI R N LIMAYA:SHRI R N LIMAYA [REFERRED TO]
JOOINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
ZAHIRA HABIBULLA H SHEIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV RANJAN SINGH ALIAS LALAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHOLU RAM VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
BABUBHAI JAMNADAS PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
RUBABBUDDIN SHEIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
BABUBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FOOD SECURITY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAM JETHMALANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
BENNET CASTELINO VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-90] [REFERRED TO]MRS. RABIA A. KHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE KAKUMAL KESWANI VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-8-250] [REFERRED TO]
KALPESH H THAKKER VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
MANDAKINI DIWAN VS. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(SC)-2024-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
HANS RAJ CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
BALAMURUGAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2020-9-888] [REFERRED TO]
PRATIMA BISOYI VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2024-4-147] [REFERRED TO]
J.V.BAHARUNI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2014-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
MEENAKSHI VS. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-408] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-11-98] [REFERRED TO]
CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
ALLAMA ZAMIR NAQVI VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
BABU LAL JAISWAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRIMA ROY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2020-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE VIOLENCE IN LAKHIMPUR KHERI (UP) VS. IN RE VIOLENCE IN LAKHIMPUR KHERI (UP) [LAWS(SC)-2021-11-128] [REFERRED TO]
ANANT THANUR KARMUSE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2023-2-61] [REFERRED TO]
EXTRA JUDL. EXEC. VICTIM FAMILIES ASSN. & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-51] [REFERRED TO]
XXXXXX VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-6-742] [REFERRED TO]
M/S DEUTSCHE BANK AG VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2016-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
POOJA PAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
JAMINI KANTA MONDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-10-27] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. NEPAL KRISHNA ROY [LAWS(CAL)-2014-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. MANJURI BIBI AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2015-11-42] [REFERRED]
ROYDEN HAROLD BUTHELLO VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
BHASKAR RAO NIMBALKAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
NEETU KUMAR NAGAICH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2020-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
DALBIR KAUR & ORS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2019-4-119] [REFERRED TO]
SAHADEB DALUI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-5-44] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK ANAND VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-12-142] [REFERRED TO]
AWUNGSHI CHIRMAYO VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2024-3-76] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. NIRANJAN [LAWS(PAT)-2020-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
R L JATAV VS. STATION HOUSE OFFICER [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-67] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-12-154] [REFERRED TO]
SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-87] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD YAMEEN VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2017-9-77] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAM VINCENT VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-5-129] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. KRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-552] [REFERRED TO]
SHAFIQUE AHMED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
DOROTHY MARBANIANG VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2023-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
ELEPHANT G. RAJENDRAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2018-11-120] [REFERRED TO]
J ANBAZHAGAN MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY CHEPAUK VS. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-733] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The
Petitioner is the widow of one late Madan Tamang R/o Rhododendron Dell, District Darjeeling, West Bengal. According to the Petitioner, her husband, who was the President of a political party called Akhil Bhartiya Gorkha League (in short "ABGL"), was brutally murdered on the morning of 21st May, 2010 under the gaze of general public, police and security personnel by the supporters of rival party called Gorkha Jan Mukti Morcha known as "GJMM" and that after the brutal attack on the deceased Madan Tamang he was rushed to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead. Alleging that the whole investigation which was initially held by the State police and thereafter by the CID and later by the CBI, was faulty in every respect, the Petitioner has come forward with the following prayers in the writ petition:
a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus quashing the Charge Sheet No. 76 of 2010 submitted on August 30th 2010 by the C.I.D. Homicide Squad, West Bengal along with Supplementary Charge Sheet No. 04(3) dated August 20, 2011 (C.B.I.) filed in G.R. Case No. 148 of 2010 by the CBI on 20.08.2011 and the proceedings emanating therefrom pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling in Sessions Case No. 77 of 2010.
b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus appointing an independent Special Investigation Team comprising of Senior Officers headed by a competent person or authority of impeccable credentials to conduct an investigation de novo into the conspiracy and gruesome murder of Madan Tamang on May 21st 2010 at Darjeeling and to take all necessary consequential steps/actions pertaining thereto;
c. Alternatively direct further/fresh investigation by the DIG level Officer of the CBI into the aspects contained and highlighted by the Petitioner in Annexure P/43.
(2.)We heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Ram Jethmalani learned senior counsel for the Respondents 10 to 15, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Additional Solicitor General for CBI, Mr. Kalyan Kr. Bandopadhyay, senior counsel for State of West Bengal and Mr. K. Radhakrishna, learned senior counsel for the Union of India.
(3.)In order to appreciate the grievances of the Petitioner and also to note the various features involved in the prosecution proceedings right from the date of occurrence, namely, 21st May 2010 till this date, it will be necessary to note down the various developments and incidents that were brought out by the Petitioner, the CBI, as well as, certain orders passed by the Sessions Court, Darjeeling and certain orders passed by the High Court of Calcutta. It will also enable this Court to find out whether the prayer of the Petitioner deserves to be granted.
a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus quashing the Charge Sheet No. 76 of 2010 submitted on August 30th 2010 by the C.I.D. Homicide Squad, West Bengal along with Supplementary Charge Sheet No. 04(3) dated August 20, 2011 (C.B.I.) filed in G.R. Case No. 148 of 2010 by the CBI on 20.08.2011 and the proceedings emanating therefrom pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling in Sessions Case No. 77 of 2010.
b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus appointing an independent Special Investigation Team comprising of Senior Officers headed by a competent person or authority of impeccable credentials to conduct an investigation de novo into the conspiracy and gruesome murder of Madan Tamang on May 21st 2010 at Darjeeling and to take all necessary consequential steps/actions pertaining thereto;
c. Alternatively direct further/fresh investigation by the DIG level Officer of the CBI into the aspects contained and highlighted by the Petitioner in Annexure P/43.
(2.)We heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Ram Jethmalani learned senior counsel for the Respondents 10 to 15, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Additional Solicitor General for CBI, Mr. Kalyan Kr. Bandopadhyay, senior counsel for State of West Bengal and Mr. K. Radhakrishna, learned senior counsel for the Union of India.
(3.)In order to appreciate the grievances of the Petitioner and also to note the various features involved in the prosecution proceedings right from the date of occurrence, namely, 21st May 2010 till this date, it will be necessary to note down the various developments and incidents that were brought out by the Petitioner, the CBI, as well as, certain orders passed by the Sessions Court, Darjeeling and certain orders passed by the High Court of Calcutta. It will also enable this Court to find out whether the prayer of the Petitioner deserves to be granted.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.