‘Submit case diary in student death at hostel room’
Kolkata: A vacation bench of Calcutta High Court on Monday directed the state to present the case diary in a case where the father of a deceased student has appealed for a second autopsy of the body, suspecting that his son was ragged and killed inside the college.
The Division of Bench of Justices Biswajit Basu and Ajay Kumar Gupta was approached by the petitioner Rejaul Karim whose son Tohid Karim was allegedly found hanging in the hostel room of Jakir Hossain Institute of Pharmacy in August. He challenged a Single Bench judgement which refused to order a second autopsy and transfer
probe to CBI. The petitioner’s counsel Sabyasachi Chatterjee prayed for a second autopsy and transfer of the probe to CBI. He submitted that there is a lapse in police procedure. “The family was informed he was found hanging. The body was taken from the hostel room to the morgue where the inquest was conducted and not at the alleged place of occurrence where the body was found. Autopsy report states the reason for death cannot be ascertained without the forensic report. Same doctor opined it was suicidal. Ligature mark was found,” he submitted
He said in cases of unnatural death (UD) police must register UD cases in terms of Section 194 (BNSS). “Police’s failure to register FIR and delay in lodging UD case raises suspicion. Inquest at the hospital raises concern about integrity of probe and preservation of evidence. Section 194 of BNSS clearly states that inquest needs to be performed at the place of occurrence,” he submitted.
The Advocate General Kishore Datta submitted that the inquest was conducted in presence of a magistrate. There were no external injuries found in the inquest and in the post mortem report. The court said that the cased diary needs to be produced to reach a decision as to whether procedure laid down under Section 194 (1) BNSS was properly followed while conducting inquest. The state was directed to produce it at the next hearing before a regular bench. It was submitted that on August 19, 2024, the autopsy report was handed over to the petitioner but upon reviewing it, he found several inconsistencies and omissions. The petitioner strongly apprehends that the report was incomplete and possibly influenced to obscure the true cause of death.
