Sessions court to try two ITBP officers for abetment to suicide

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 16

An Assistant Commandant and Second-in-Command of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) will continue to face regular trial by the sessions court in an abetment-to-suicide case. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the ITBP’s plea for holding trial by the Force Court in accordance with provisions of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act.

The ITBP had movedthe High Court against Haryana and other respondents through Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain and counsel Aditya Sanghi for setting aside the order datedJanuary 24, 2018, passed by a Jhajjar Additional Sessions Judge.

The Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan was told that the Jhajjar court had dismissed the ITBP’s application to allow it to try the accused — Assistant Commandant Parveen Kumar and Second-in-Command Ram Bharat Kushwah — through the Force Court.

The case has its genesis in an FIR dated October 28, 2014, registered under Section 306 of the IPC at the Bahadurgarh police station, GRP district, Ambala Cantonment, after information was received from the Assaudha-Sampla railway station on October 27, 2014, that a person had committed suicide. Later identified as Madan Lal, a suicide note was recovered from his bag. The Bench was told that the respondents’ names were mentioned in the note as the persons responsible for the suicide.

The complainant, Pawan Kumar, submitted an application to the police that his brother Madan Lal had told him that he was being pressurised by ITBP officials and left with no other option, he committed suicide. The police conducted investigation into the case before submitting challan against the respondents.

The Bench was told that the trial court had wrongly dismissed the application on the grounds of delay on the petitioner’s part in filing the plea. The senior counsel added that there was no delay. It was further argued that the application was dismissed on technical grounds. “Considering it to be procedural delay, the trial court should have passed an order in the manner that there is no delay,” the counsel stated.

The state counsel, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and specifically stated that trial was at the final stage with only three prosecution witnesses left to be examined. The sessions court took cognisance of the offence at the time of framing of charges on February 11, 2016. Thereafter, trial started. He added that the petitioner’s plea for trial transfer could have been filed before framing of charges.

“Finding no illegality in the impugned order and considering the advanced stage of trial, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed,” the Bench noted.

The case

• Man commits suicide, holds two ITBP officers responsible in suicide note; his brother says the victim was being pressurised
• ITBP moves High Court for setting aside the 2018 order passed by Jhajjar Additional Sessions Judge, seeks trial by Force Court