*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 26th July, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 7802/2009
ASIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION..... Respondent
Through: Mr. B.S.Gautham, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns communication dated 25 th/29th August, 2008 of the respondent NHRC closing the case initiated on the complaint of the petitioner, for the reason of the petitioner having not sent the copy of the OPD slip of the hospital and medical treatment given to the victim. W.P.(C) No.7802/2009 Page 1 of 5
2. Notice of the petition was issued and record of the respondent NHRC was requisitioned. However, it was informed that the records were not available; though re-constructed records were directed to be provided, but no re-constructed records also have been made available today. The counsel for the petitioner has been heard.
3. The petitioner had on 26th December, 2007 complained to the respondent NHRC that one Mr. Ganesh Barnwal, a Public Call Office (PCO) operator was picked up by the police in Deoghar in Jharkhand on 19th December, 2007 on the charges of killing journalist Pramod Kumar Munna; that the said Mr. Barnwal was tortured to extract confessional statement during the interrogation; according to the victim two policemen tied two live wires around his neck and subjected him to electric shock till he lost consciousness; that on 20th December, 2007, he was left at his residence in an unconscious state and had to be admitted in the morning of 21st December, 2007 to Deoghar Sadar Hospital in a serious condition.
4. NHRS upon receipt of the aforesaid complaint issued notice to the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar. A reply was submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar to the effect that since the last call to the mobile phone of the deceased was from the number of the PCO Booth W.P.(C) No.7802/2009 Page 2 of 5 of the said Mr. Barnwal, the said Mr. Barnwal was called for enquiry on 20th December, 2007 at 7:30 a.m.; that Mr. Barnwal was again called to police station at 1800 hours in the evening and after the enquiry was over, he was permitted to leave the police station. It was further stated that as far as the claim of Mr. Barnwal of being admitted to the Hospital was concerned, the enquiries at the hospital revealed that Mr. Barnwal had visited the OPD of the hospital on 22 nd December, 2007 where he had complained of pain in his whole body and inability to walk and had not complained of or got examined any injury marks on his body. It was further reported that Mr. Barnwal had thereafter gone back to his home along with his wife. A copy of the OPD slip of Mr. Barnwal was forwarded by the police along with the response. The police, of course, denied that any injury was inflicted on Mr. Barnwal.
5. It appears that on receipt of the report aforesaid and upon the petitioner failing to produce any documents or medical record of injury, the complaint was closed by the NHRC.
6. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that the factum of Mr. Barnwal having been admittedly called to the Police Station shortly before he went to hospital complaining of pain in the whole body and W.P.(C) No.7802/2009 Page 3 of 5 inability to walk, res ipsa loquitor speaks of violation of human rights by the Police and the respondent NHRC ought not to have closed the proceedings. It is further contended that since the OPD card had already been produced by the Police before the NHRC, the NHRC erred in holding that because the medical record had not been produced, the complaint could not be proceeded with.
7. In the present case, while in the complaint it was alleged that Mr. Barnwal was admitted to the hospital on 21 st December, 20074 but as per the OPD card, he visited the hospital on 22 nd December, 2007, i.e., two days after he was called to the Police Station for interrogation. There is even otherwise no presumption that pain in the whole body or inability to walk would be owing to or will necessarily be caused by torture inflicted by the Police. Had any injuries been inflicted by Police upon Mr. Barnwal, he would have in the ordinary course of human conduct, while visting the hospital got the same examined and the same would have found mention in the OPD card. There is nothing of the nature in the instant case. There is thus no error in the order closing the complaint.
8. Similarly, no error is found in the order of the NHRC closing the complaint for the reason of the failure of the petitioner to produce the W.P.(C) No.7802/2009 Page 4 of 5 record of the medical treatment given to the petitioner. Had injuries as claimed been inflicted on Mr. Barnwal there would have been record of the medical treatment given. The OPD card produced by the Police itself does not support the complaint.
9. No error is, thus, found in the order of the NHRC.
10. The petition is dismissed.
11. No orders as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J JULY 26, 2011 anb.
W.P.(C) No.7802/2009 Page 5 of 5