Result of U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Main Written) Examination, 2014 Direct Recruitment to U.P. Higher Judicial Service held on 14th, 15th and 16th November, 2014 has been declared. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur notified Advertisement for recruitment additional district judges through M.P. Higher Judicial Service (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment for BAR, Exam 2015 Haryana Judicial Services Examination 2014-Pre is conducted on 10th of Jan 2015. The result is awaited. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI will hold examination for direct recruitment against 14 vacancies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on Sunday, the 06th April,2014-Last Date 06.02.2014 13/11/2013: While renewing the term of the appointment of the existing incumbents the State Government is required to consider their past performance and conduct in the light of the recommendations made by the District Judges and the District Magistrates. Therefore, the High Court could not have issued a Mandamus for renewal of the term of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other similarly situated persons and thereby frustrated the provisions of LR Manual and Section 24 Cr.P.C .- SUPREME COURT.
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
Go Back to High Court Judgements
  Date 7/14/2011 12:00:00 AM
  Court Allahabad High Court
  Parties Sachchidanand (Sachchey) versus State of U.P and others
  Appeal Writ Petition - 6601 of 2011(PIL)
  Act Indian Penal Code - 302.
  Judgement
  Writ Petition No. 6601 (M/B) of 2011(PIL) 

Sachchidanand (Sachchey) 
versus 
State of U.P and others 

For the Petitioner: S/Sri Nadeem Murtaza, Gaurav Mehrotra and Santosh Kumar 

For the Respondents: Sri J.N.Mathur, Additional Advocate General, CSC, A.S.G and Sri Bireshwar Nath 


Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J. 
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. 
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.) 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
By means of this petition filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 8 (Central Bureau of Investigation) to conduct an enquiry in respect of the death of Dr. Yogendra Singh Sachan under mysterious circumstances in the District Jail, Lucknow on 22.6.2011. 
The petitioner establishes his credentials to file this PIL in various paras of the writ petition, which we need not repeat, more so when the maintainability of the writ petition has not been questioned 
Before we proceed to decide the issue involved, we find it appropriate to put on record the brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present writ petition, which are as follows: 
On 12.4.2005, it was resolved to launch the National Rural Health Mission (hereinafter referred to as NRHM) in order to uplift the standards of the basic medical facilities and to provide affordable and quality health services even to poorest citizen, who are residing in the remotest areas of the country. The stream was to adopt a synergistic approach by relating health to determinants of good health viz. segments of nutrition, sanitation, hygiene and safe drinking water. It also aimed at main streaming the Indian systems of medicines to facilitate health care. The plan of action included increasing public expenditure on health, reducing regional imbalance in health infrastructure, pooling resources, integration of organizational structures, optimization of health manpower, decentralization and district management of health programmes, community participation and ownership of assets, induction of management and financial personnel into district health system and operationalizing community health centres into functional hospitals meeting Indian public health standards in each block. 
The allegation is that in order to divert the public monies to their own reserves, the higher officials and functionaries of the State created a post of Chief Medical Officer (Family Welfare) specially for the NRHM. A huge annual budget of rupees three thousand crores was provided to the State Government by the Central Government for the NRHM and because of the alleged misappropriation and misutilisation of the aforesaid funds, two Chief Medical Officers (Family Welfare), namely, Dr. Vinod Kumar Arya and Dr. B.P.Singh, were murdered respectively on 27.10.2010 and 2.4.2011. In respect of the aforesaid incidents, two F.I.Rs were registered, one on 5.4.2011 at case crime no. 112/2011 under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and the other on 7.4.2011 at case crime no. 115/2011, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 407, 468 and 471 IPC at P.S. Wazirganj, Lucknow, wherein it has been categorically averred by the Joint Director Administration, Directorate of Family Welfare, U.P that financial embezzlement/financial irregularities have been committed by various officials of Family Welfare Department as well as Medical and Health Department at Lucknow. 
It is the further case of the petitioner that since the name of influential politicians belonging to the ruling party, which is presently in power in the State of U.P as well as certain high ranking officers, who are presently holding high offices in the State, were regularly appearing in the news reports wherein their roles were also being pointed out in the bungling relating to the funds of NRHM scheme, free and fair investigation by the U.P.Police was not possible in the matter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing no. 3611 (M/B) of 2011 (PIL) with the prayer that the enquiry be directed to be conducted by an independent agency into the affairs of the department of health and family welfare, Government of U.P relating to the implementation of the NRHM scheme in the State of U.P since financial year 2007-08 onwards involving the bungling of funds and to ascertain the liabilities for the same. In the said writ petition, counter affidavit was asked for from the respondents, but till date no counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner made out a case in the writ petition that because of the illegalities and improprieties being committed in NRHM programme, murders of two Chief Medical Officers, as stated above, had taken place and two ministers of the concerned department were made to resign. 
The writ petition makes specific averments about the involvement of high and mighty persons in the bungling of funds, which resulted into cold-blooded murders aforesaid. In pursuance of the two F.I.Rs registered at P.S.Wazirganj, as referred to above, few arrests were made and Dr. Yogendra Singh Sachan, the then Deputy Chief Medical Officer (Family Welfare), who was implicated in both the F.I.Rs, was arrested on 5.4.2011 as he was said to be involved in the financial bungling. Lately, the U.P.Police has come out with the story that both the aforesaid murders of Chief Medical Officers (Family Welfare), namely, Dr. V.K.Arya and Dr. B.P.Singh, were committed at the behest of Dr. Yogendra Singh Sachan and as such Dr. Yogendra Singh Sachan was made the main accused in the cases of murder of two Chief Medical Officers as well. The petitioner's plea is that this subsequent theory of involvement of Dr. Sachan in murders of two aforesaid Chief Medical Officers is a deliberate twist by the police so that the real culprits involved in the said murders be shielded and the whole guilt be placed on Dr. Sachan who is no more alive. The theory, according to the petitioner, is in contradiction to the earlier stand of the police where only financial irregularities were attributed to Dr. Sachan in the F.I.Rs. Lodged against him and in pursuance whereof he was arrested. 
Further plea is, that Dr. Yogendra Singh Sachan, who was in jail, was supposed to appear on 23.6.2011 in the court of competent magistrate for extension of judicial remand and it was expected that on the aforesaid date, he could have made vital revelations in the matter. Unfortunately on 22.6.2011 i.e. one day prior to his scheduled appearance, he was found dead in mysterious circumstances in District Jail, Lucknow. Since Dr. Sachan was found missing at the time of locking of the prison in the evening of 22.6.2011, a search was made and his dead body was found in the latrine of the jail hospital at the first floor. The death of Dr. Yogendra Singh Sachan was reported in the night of 22.6.2011 by the jail authorities, saying it to be prima facie a case of suicide. The police did not lodge any F.I.R taking it a case of suicide. However, the wife of Dr. Sachan, namely, Dr. Malti Sachan moved an application for lodging an F.I.R before the Station Officer, P.S.Gosaiganj, Lucknow, who initially failed to lodge the F.I.R . On the repeated requests and efforts on the part of the wife of Dr. Sachan and other family members and in view of mounting pressure of the media, an F.I.R was registered at P.S.Gosainganj, Lucknow as case crime No. 271/11 under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC on 26.6.2011 against unknown persons. 
The post-mortem on the dead body was conducted on 23.6.2011 between 10 a.m. and 11-30 a.m. The time of death, as shown n the aforesaid report is one day before, which relates to forenoon of 22.6.2011. As already observed, the death of Dr. Sachan was reported by the jail authority only in the night and not before. The post-mortem report also shows that there were 8 ante-mortem injuries and one post-mortem injury on the body of Dr. Sachan, as detailed below: 
1.Incised wound 6 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep present on lateral aspect of right side of neck, 1 cm below right angle of mandible. Tailing present towards mid line of neck. Margins are clean cut, wound is spindle shaped, red clotted blood present in and around the wound. 
2.Incised wound 3 cms x 0.5 cm x muscle deep present on front of neck, 6 cms below chin, starting from midline going towards left. Margins are clean cut, spindle shaped. (This wound is within the boundaries of ligature mark). 
3.Incised wound 4 cms x 1.5 cms x muscle deep, present on frontal aspect of right elbow joint. Margins are clean cut, spindle shaped, red clotted blood present in and around the wound. 
4.Incised wound 3 cms x 1 cm x muscle deep, present on anterio medial aspect of right elblow, 3 cms medial to injury no. 3. Margins are clean cut, spindle shaped, red clotted blood present in and around the wound. 
5.Incised wound 3 cms x 1 cm x muscle deep present in frontal aspect of anterio medial part of left elbow joint. Tailing present towards medially. Margins are clean cut, spindle shaped, red clotted blood present in wound. 
6.Incised wound 6 cms x 1.5 cms x muscle deep present on anterio lateral aspect of left elbow joint. Margins are clean cut, spindle shaped, red clotted blood present in wound. 
7.Incised wound 9 cms x 1 cm x muscle deep present on front of right thigh extending medially, 3 cms below right inguinal fold. Margins are clean cut and sharp, red clotted blood present in wound. 
8.Incised wound 4 cms x 1 cm over lateral aspect of left wrist joint, 13 cms from the tip of left thumb. Margins are clean cut, spindle shaped, red clotted blood present in wound. 
9.An oblique placed ligature mark 37 cms x 3 cms present on all around the neck above thyroid cartilage in front of right ear along the line of mandible. Ligature mark is interrupted by 4 cms area in front of mastoid process and in right ear lobule. Ligature mark is situated 1 cm below right ear lobule (posteriorly) and 6 cm below left ear lobule. 
Drawing attention of the Court to the aforesaid post-mortem report, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the injuries aforesaid found on the body of Dr. Sachan cannot be said to be self-inflicted. 
Since it was an unnatural death, therefore, a judicial enquiry was conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow Sri Rajesh Upadhyay under the provisions of Section 176 Cr.P.C. In his report dated 11.7.2011, he has considered the facts and circumstances of the case, post-mortem report and the statements of various persons etc. and has come to the conclusion, that it was not a case of suicide but that of murder. He has also mentioned that the wife of Dr. Sachan and his brother Dr. R.K.Sachan have raised their index finger towards the persons holding high offices in the Health Department and that nothing has come forward to establish any enmity of Dr. Sachan with anyone and that before the murder of Dr. Sachan, two Chief Medical Officers have been murdered and the reason for such murders is the corruption and commission in the Health Department, and hence who are the persons responsible for the same is a matter of investigation. The said report has been produced before us. 
The report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate reveals some very important and relevant facts, which were not taken into consideration by the police though as investigating agency, it was not only incumbent but was also normally required to make the investigations, keeping in mind the spot situation, the posture in which the dead body of Dr. Sachan was found, the injuries on the body and the fact that no weapon was discovered from the spot from where the dead body was recovered. Dr. Ashutosh Kumar Dube, Medical Superintendent, Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow has stated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate that though he has conducted atleast one hundred post-mortem examinations till date but he has not found any such case where a person might have cut so many nerves for committing suicide and that the manner in which the bleeding points of both sides have been cut, points out towards an extra-ordinary circumstance, in which normally no person can commit suicide. Dr. Mausmi Singh, Lecturer in Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Department, Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University, Lucknow also stated that these injuries were inflicted by any sharp-edged heavy weapon and that normally no person committing suicide can inflict so many injuries on himself. She also stated that a doctor, who is to commit suicide, is not expected to have inflicted so many injuries on his body. She also ruled out the possibility of suicide by hanging because of the ligature mark on the neck, which is a post-mortem injury. 
It does not appeal to reason that even if the jail authorities intimated the police about the death of Dr. Sachan treating it to be a case of suicide, why the police did not make any investigation for verifying the factum of alleged suicide being committed by him. The deceased was found sitting on commode facing towards cistern and the belt around his neck, which was tied somewhere in the window, 4 feet high from the floor of toilet. The dead body was recovered from the toilet of operation theatre, under construction, which was soaked in blood. There were so many injuries on the body of deceased, but the police did not make any effort to find out the cause of death; instead it felt satisfied only by the intimation sent by the jail authorities that it was a case of suicide. 
Even if the police had taken it to be a case of suicide, the investigation should have been immediately started, first for satisfying that it was a case of suicide and not of murder and second to find out, the reason for such suicide. So many injuries on the body of deceased which were later on specifically detailed in the post-mortem report the very next day i.e. 23.6.2011, were sufficient for the police to make an investigation for testing the theory of suicide and for finding out whether it was a case of murder, but the police again did not make any such investigation, even after getting the post-mortem report. 
It was only when Dr. Malti Sachan, wife of the deceased repeatedly asked for lodging an F.I.R under Section 302/120-B IPC, the same was registered on 26.6.2011, though the complaint was sent on 23.6.2011, and that too with the intervention of media. It is also significant to mention here that in the F.I.R lodged by Dr. Malti Sachan, it was specifically stated that Dr. Sachan was arrested on 5.4.2011 because of the financial scam in the Family Welfare Department, in which high level persons/officers were involved, therefore, in a designed manner under a conspiracy her husband was named for committing murders of two Chief Medical Officers, Dr. Vinod Kumar Arya and Dr. B.P.Singh though earlier he was said to be involved only in financial irregularities. The F.I.R also mentioned that Dr. Sachan was to appear before the Court on 23.6.2011 and he had suffered very serious injuries on his body inside the jail, where he has been murdered under a conspiracy so that correct and true facts may not come out. She further stated that all this has been done only to protect high-ups. Despite the aforesaid F.I.R being lodged though registered late, the police did not make any investigation in the light of the allegations made therein. 
The inaction on the part of the police, in the facts and circumstances aforesaid, to unearth the mystery of death of Dr. Sachan by taking the investigation in right direction and sitting tight over the matter assuming it to be a case of suicide persuades us to observe that for reasons better known to the police, it failed to discharge its legal obligation. From the record (Case Diary), which has been produced before us and as was fairly stated by learned Additional Advocate General, the police investigation is at a very nascent stage till date. The Investigating Officer as late as on 7.7.2011 has asked for the opinion of medico-legal cell of the State Government, besides examining certain witnesses, though the F.I.R was registered on 26.6.2011. 
The reason for such delay in investigation though not required to be commented upon in detail certainly creates doubt upon the intentions of the police. Slow and tardy progress in investigation in such a serious matter, where death had occurred in judicial custody, cannot be appreciated. 
There is also nothing in the investigation till date which may suggest that the police has made any effort to find out the reason for death which has been said to be murder in the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate nor the circumstances in which such a heinous crime was committed. From the facts, as narrated above and as found in the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate coupled with the injuries which apparently cannot be self-inflicted, persuades us to direct that the investigation be transferred to an independent agency. 
We also take notice of the fact that on 23.6.2011, a misc. application was moved in the pending PIL (Writ Petition No. 3611 (M/B) of 2011) for making autopsy on the body of the deceased by an independent panel of doctors as the public in general was shocked by the gory incident which had taken place inside the jail premises. Learned Advocate General on that date gave a statement before the Court that post-mortem has been conducted in the morning by a board consisting of five doctors in the presence of the family members He further said that the brother of Dr. Sachan, who himself is senior doctor by profession was also present at the time of post-mortem. The Court, therefore, on the statement so given by learned Advocate General, observed that the autopsy has been done by independent doctors. On a further request being made by learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Kamini Jaiswal that viscera of the deceased may be preserved, learned Advocate General informed that this has already been ordered. However, the said instructions given to the learned Advocate General were found to be incorrect, therefore, an application for recall of the order dated 23.6.2011 was moved the very next day, wherein the Court took notice of the aforesaid facts and observed that the instructions might have been given by some officers and, therefore, such statement was given by the Advocate General. It has also been brought to our notice that despite the statement given by the learned Advocate General that viscera of the deceased was already ordered to be preserved, the same was not preserved and Dr. Raj Kumar Sachan, brother of deceased Dr. Yogendra Singh Sachan also filed an affidavit that he or family members of Dr. Sachan were not present at the time of post-mortem, and in fact, the family members were not allowed entry. 
We do not have any doubt that the learned Advocate General had acted on the basis of instructions given to him and thus no fault can be attributed to him in making such a statement, but the fact remains that why such incorrect instructions were given to him by the officers/officials, who fully knew that the facts were otherwise. It is also not known who had given such instructions and what action has been taken by the State Government against the officers, who gave the incorrect instructions which in fact dissuaded the Court from passing any order as was prayed for in the application. Why the viscera was not preserved is also not known, although the cause of death of Dr. Sachan still required investigation. 
It is broadly on the aforesaid background that the petitioner alleges that the local police has failed to investigate the matter in right perspective, for which he attributes motive for protecting the high and influential people. 
At the out set, it may be appropriate to put on record that State Government is not opposing the enquiry/investigation to be entrusted to any independent agency after taking it away from the local U.P. Police. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri J.N.Mathur has stated this fact on instructions on behalf of the State Government and has very categorically stated that the investigation of the case be handed over to any independent agency and the local police be not allowed to make any further investigation to instill faith and confidence in people about the bona fides of the State Government in getting the enquiry/investigation conducted freely and fairly. However, he has got some reservations in entrusting the enquiry/investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) raising an apprehension that the CBI is likely to enter into the questions which are not required to be looked into and it being under the control of the Central Government, may prejudice the political interest of the ruling party in the State of U.P. 
Sri J.N.Mathur has suggested that this Court should constitute a Special Investigating Team (SIT) in which highly reputed and experienced officers from many fields/discipline including from the CBI may be nominated and the investigation carried out by such team may be monitored by the High Court itself wherein a retired High Court Judge may also form part of the team. For the aforesaid submission, he placed reliance upon the case of Ram Jethmalani and others v. Union of India and others,Writ Petition (Civil) No. 176 of 2009, wherein the Apex Court directed for constitution of SIT under Article 142 of the Constitution with two retired Judges of Supreme Court. 
The case of Ram Jethmalani (supra) was a case where looking to the complexities of the issues and various other factors, the Apex Court directed for constitution of a SIT, which power appears to have been exercised under Article 142 of the Constitution. In National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat and others, (2009) 6 SCC 767 also, the issues were different and, therefore, the Court passed an order to that effect. The present is a case where investigation is being made in a custodial death which occurred in jail premises in mysterious and unexplained circumstances. The Court would constitute a SIT in only rare circumstances where the CBI, a recognized independent agency is not available for any good reason for conducting the investigation. Constitution of a SIT, investigation of which is to be monitored by the Court, need not be ordered in every case where a demand of enquiry/investigation is made through CBI or where a grievance is raised against the local police in making the investigation. It will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether SIT should be constituted of well reputed and experienced officers of the police department or that of any other department including CBI. 
Sri Gaurav Mehrotra appearing for the petitioner, in response, has submitted that the apprehension of the State government is baseless as the CBI would enquire/investigate in the death of Dr. Yogendra Singh Sachan, who died in judicial custody under mysterious circumstances, which remains yet to be explained by the local police and that there is no basis to be suspicious about the conduct of CBI which is an autonomous body, merely because its administrative control vests in the department of Personnel and Training of the Central Government. His submission is that the independence of the CBI cannot be questioned merely on apprehensions and it being an independent body, has been entrusted with the investigation in many crucial cases. 
The investigations which are to be carried out by the CBI would not be affected or influenced by the Central Government or the Minister thereof as they are to derive their duty under the mandate of law. The CBI would enquire and investigate into all aspects of the matter which are relevant for establishing the cause of death of Dr. Sachan. 
In the case of Vineet Narain and others v. Union of India and others, (1998) 1 SCC 226, wherein the Apex Court while considering the meaning and scope of Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, observed that the Minister concerned in the Central Cabinet has the ultimate responsibility to Parliament for the functioning of these agencies, he being the final disciplinary authority in respect of the officers of the agency with power to refer complaints against them to the appropriate authority, but wherein their Lordships have specifically circumscribed the power of the Minister in regard to the investigations which are to be made by the C.B.I, by observing that all powers of the Minister are subject to the condition that none of them would extend to permit the Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case and in that respect the officers concerned are to be governed entirely by the mandate of law and the statutory duty cast upon them. 
The Apex Court while deliberating upon the desirability of the CBI enquiry in a given case, held in the case of Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and others, (2010) 2 SCC 200, that it can safely be concluded that in an appropriate case when the Court feels that the investigation by the police authorities is not in a proper direction and in order to do complete justice in the case.....it was always open to the Court to hand over the investigation to the independent agency like CBI. 
In Mohd. Anis v. Union of India and others, 1994 Supp. (1) 145, the Apex Court observed, ".......Fair and impartial investigation by an independent agency, not involved in the controversy is the demand of public interest. If the investigation is by an agency, which is allegedly privy to the dispute, the credibility of the investigation will be doubted and that will be contrary to the public interest as well as the interest of justice." 
In Ajab Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 2000 SC 3421, which was a case of custodial death, the Apex Court directed the investigation to be carried out by CBI and made the following observations: 
".........We do not appreciate the death of persons in judicial custody. When such deaths occur, it is not only to the public at large that those holding custody are responsible, they are responsible also to the Courts under whose orders they hold such custody." 

The Supreme Court not only handed over the investigation to CBI but also awarded compensation to the family members for the death of Rishipal. 
In yet another case decided by the Apex Court 8.4.2011, in re: Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat and others, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2007, the matter was entrusted to CBI. In this case, the matter was referred to CBI even after the charge-sheet was submitted as the Court was of the opinion that in view of the involvement of police and officers of the State in the crime, the state authorities cannot be allowed to continue with the investigation. 
In (2010) 3 SCC 571, State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others, the issue was whether the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct the CBI, 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. Answering the aforesaid question, their Lordships held that the High Court can direct the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence without the consent of the State Government. The Apex Court also observed as under: 
".....Moreover, even if the investigation was conducted fairly and truthfully by the State police, it would still be viewed with suspicion because of the allegation that all the assailants were members of the ruling party. Having regard to all these circumstances, the High Court deemed it appropriate to hand over the investigation into the said incident to CBI." 

Sri J.N.Mathur also very candidly stated that in view of the fact that the State Government itself has consented and is ready to hand over the investigation to any independent agency after taking it away from the local police, there is no occasion for the State to file any counter affidavit to the writ petition which in fact raises pleadings for establishing that the local police is not acting in a manner which can be said to be satisfactory in the matter of investigation into the death of Dr. Yogendra Singh Sachan. 
It would be pertinent to mention at this juncture that the State Government itself is competent to hand over the investigation to CBI on its own after taking it out from the hands of local police but the submission is that it should be handed over to any other agency and not CBI. Thus, the only point of difference between the petitioner and the State is regarding the choosing of the independent agency who be entrusted with the enquiry/investigation into the matter. 
In view of the clear stand of the State Government and the demand of the petitioner to entrust the investigation in the matter of Dr. Sachan's death to an independent agency and the local police be not allowed to continue with the investigation, there remains no dispute between the parties about the transfer of the investigation to an independent agency and the local police be directed to stop its hands in further investigation. 
We need not address on the probable reasons/motive in the death of Dr. Sachan which the Chief Judicial Magistrate has found to be a case of homicide in further details, nor do we find it necessary to comment upon the role of State functionaries, in view of the specific stand of the State Government that the investigation be transferred to an independent agency where all these matters will be investigated and the local police would not be allowed to undertake any further investigation, but we, on the facts and circumstances, do feel satisfied that this is a case where the reasons, motive and cause of death of Dr. Yogendra Sigh Sachan requires to be investigated by an independent agency. 
The CBI has been entrusted the task of investigation in many cases and there is nothing before us to infer and presuppose that the CBI would not act independently or in accordance with the required procedure while making the investigation. In our opinion, the CBI is the appropriate independent agency which need be entrusted with the task of investigating the crime, namely, the custodial death of Dr. Yogendra Singh Sachan and accordingly to proceed in the matter as per law. 
Accordingly, we direct that reasons, circumstances and the cause of death of Dr. Yogendra Singh Sachan be investigated by the CBI. The CBI shall forthwith depute an officer to receive from the respondents all records relating to Dr. Sachan's death and the respondents shall immediately hand over all such records to such officer. The State shall provide all assistance and logistic support. The investigation shall be completed expeditiously, say, within a maximum period of three months. 
We clarify that any observation made in this order, which may apparently touch the facts under investigation, would not be taken as opinion of this Court on the issues in question. 
The Registry shall immediately forward a copy of this order to the Director, CBI for compliance. 
The writ petition stands allowed. Costs easy.

July 14, 2011 


The case was listed today for pronouncement of orders. At the time of pronouncement of the order, learned Additional Advocate General Sri J.N.Mathur has produced a photostat copy of the order dated 13.7.2011 in which consent has been given by the State Government to refer the investigation to CBI as per requirement of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and also another photostat copy of the order of the same date, in which decision of the State Government to refer case crime no. 276/11 under Section 302/120-B IPC, registered at P.S. Gosainganj, Lucknow to CBI has been made. Both the orders are taken on record. 
Sri Gaurav Mehrotra appearing for the petitioner, however, expressed his apprehension giving some instances of the past that even after the consent being given and the matter being referred to CBI by the State Government, many of the cases could not be investigated by the CBI for better known reasons. He has given some instances of such cases, but we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid plea of the petitioner, as we do not know the reasons for which the investigation in such cases could not be completed and also because we, in our order, have directed the CBI to make investigations, therefore, we have no reason to infer otherwise. 
Consequent to our order and in view of the decision taken by the State Government itself, the Director, CBI is directed to take charge of the investigation immediately from the local police. 


14.7.2011