Asian Centre For Human Rights vs National Human Rights Commission
2011 Latest Caselaw 3554 Del

           *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.

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

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

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

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.