Abetment to suicide case: Suspension of first IO recommended
Goswami was arrested on Nov 4
IG’s recommendation comes after internal police inquiry report found ‘errors, faults and loopholes’ in the probe conducted by SH Varade; Arnab Goswami denied bail as HC says the investigation in the case can’t be termed illegal.
On a day of setbacks to the editor-in-chief of Republic TV, Arnab Goswami, in the abetment to suicide case, the Inspector General of Konkan range has recommended suspension of the first investigating officer (IO) for dereliction of duty in the case; theBombay High Court rejected his plea for bail; and an order of the magistrate allowing his interrogation in the prison surfaced.
The Inspector General of Police Konkan range wrote to Mira Bhayandar and Vasai Virar (MBVV) police commissioner advising him to suspend the officer who investigated the suicide case of Anvay Naik and his mother Kumud Naik, in which Goswami and two others were arrested. The investigating officer, SH Varade, is currently posted in theMBVV commissionerate .
The internal report says that Varade had reached to the farmhouse around 8:45am on May 5, 2018, and the family was informed about the deaths at 9:30 am. Instead of rushing the victims to the hospital, Varade waited till 2:30 pm when the family members arrived from Mumbai. This, according to the report, showed that Varade had failed to ensure immediate medical assistance to the victim and delayed the treatment.
The report further claims that even after Varade found the suicide note, and it was a clear-cut case of suicide, he did not immediately register an FIR for abetment to suicide. Instead, he registered two separate accidental death reports.
The report says while Varade registered abetment of suicide case by attaching Naik’s ADR documents, the ADR documents of his mother were not added, and he registered a case of murder in her death by attaching the documents of her ADR that too after three months of the incident.
This, according to the report, needs to be investigated as it was not necessary.
As per the FIR and closure report by the Alibaug police, Naik allegedly killed his mother by strangulating her, wrote a suicide note by naming the three accused and then hanged himself. The closure report filed by Varade had also said the company of Naik was already in the loss for 4-6 years and that they were under pressure due to mounting dues of vendors. In the report, it is also mentioned that there are several such lacunae in the investigation, including the allegations that Varade did not question or recorded the statements of Goswami's chief financial officer and head of finance.
Also after filing the closure report in the suicide case, Varade did not inform the complainants. He, however, mentioned in the report that they had been informed. It’s wrong and can be considered as misleading the court, the report said. Due to these “errors, faults and loopholes” in the investigation, the complainant in the case got an opportunity to raise objections, and the image of police department was maligned, the internal report said.
“We have received the communication from Thane office regarding the suspension of the officer in question, and we will be examining it," said a senior police officer from MBVV commissionerate.
The HC division bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik, in a 56-page judgment delivered on Monday, rejected all the submissions made on behalf of Goswami – with an observation that the investigation in the case can’t be termed as illegal. The court also observed that the investigation carried out by the police was “in consonance with the provision of the Criminal Procedure Code.”
The court, acknowledging the victim’s rights, said that the contentions raised by senior advocates Harish Salve and Aabad Ponda cannot be accepted, since the judicial magistrate had accepted the closure report in April 2019 without hearing the complainant and without giving an opportunity to her for filing the protest petition. “…the continuous persuasion of the state government by the informant for redressal of her grievance since her two family members had committed suicide, and in the aforesaid background, the concerned investigating officer, after intimating the magistrate, commences the further investigation, cannot be said to be irregular or illegal by any stretch of imagination. The victim’s rights are equally important like the rights of the accused,” the bench said. The court agreed with the submissions made by senior advocate Amit Desai for the state government and senior advocate Shirish Gupte for complainant, Akshata Naik, that the government had the powers to order further investigation “depending on the nature of the closure report” filed before a concerned court and that this was only a further investigation and not “reinvestigation.”
“A distinction also exists between further investigation and reinvestigation. It is observed that whereas reinvestigation without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not,” the bench observed.
The bench has, however, directed the Alibaug court to decide bail applications filed by Goswami and the other two co-accused – whose interim relief prayer too was rejected by HC along with Goswami’s – be decided within four days of them filing the respective applications.
Meanwhile, the revision petition hearing challenging judicial custody in Alibaug sessions court was adjourned till Tuesday morning, and Goswami has also filed his application for bail.
The magistrate’s court had earlier allowed the police to interrogate Goswami in Taloja jail for three hours daily.
On a day of setbacks to the editor-in-chief of Republic TV, Arnab Goswami, in the abetment to suicide case, the Inspector General of Konkan range has recommended suspension of the first investigating officer (IO) for dereliction of duty in the case; the
The Inspector General of Police Konkan range wrote to Mira Bhayandar and Vasai Virar (MBVV) police commissioner advising him to suspend the officer who investigated the suicide case of Anvay Naik and his mother Kumud Naik, in which Goswami and two others were arrested. The investigating officer, SH Varade, is currently posted in the
According to the report of the Raigad police’s internal probe to pin point lacunae in the investigation of the case, Varade conducted a ‘shoddy’ probe. For example, he did not take Naik and his mother to hospital when they were found unconscious on May 5, 2018 at their farmhouse in Alibaug.
The internal report says that Varade had reached to the farmhouse around 8:45am on May 5, 2018, and the family was informed about the deaths at 9:30 am. Instead of rushing the victims to the hospital, Varade waited till 2:30 pm when the family members arrived from Mumbai. This, according to the report, showed that Varade had failed to ensure immediate medical assistance to the victim and delayed the treatment.
The report further claims that even after Varade found the suicide note, and it was a clear-cut case of suicide, he did not immediately register an FIR for abetment to suicide. Instead, he registered two separate accidental death reports.
The report says while Varade registered abetment of suicide case by attaching Naik’s ADR documents, the ADR documents of his mother were not added, and he registered a case of murder in her death by attaching the documents of her ADR that too after three months of the incident.
This, according to the report, needs to be investigated as it was not necessary.
As per the FIR and closure report by the Alibaug police, Naik allegedly killed his mother by strangulating her, wrote a suicide note by naming the three accused and then hanged himself. The closure report filed by Varade had also said the company of Naik was already in the loss for 4-6 years and that they were under pressure due to mounting dues of vendors. In the report, it is also mentioned that there are several such lacunae in the investigation, including the allegations that Varade did not question or recorded the statements of Goswami's chief financial officer and head of finance.
Also after filing the closure report in the suicide case, Varade did not inform the complainants. He, however, mentioned in the report that they had been informed. It’s wrong and can be considered as misleading the court, the report said. Due to these “errors, faults and loopholes” in the investigation, the complainant in the case got an opportunity to raise objections, and the image of police department was maligned, the internal report said.
“We have received the communication from Thane office regarding the suspension of the officer in question, and we will be examining it," said a senior police officer from MBVV commissionerate.
The HC division bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik, in a 56-page judgment delivered on Monday, rejected all the submissions made on behalf of Goswami – with an observation that the investigation in the case can’t be termed as illegal. The court also observed that the investigation carried out by the police was “in consonance with the provision of the Criminal Procedure Code.”
The court, acknowledging the victim’s rights, said that the contentions raised by senior advocates Harish Salve and Aabad Ponda cannot be accepted, since the judicial magistrate had accepted the closure report in April 2019 without hearing the complainant and without giving an opportunity to her for filing the protest petition. “…the continuous persuasion of the state government by the informant for redressal of her grievance since her two family members had committed suicide, and in the aforesaid background, the concerned investigating officer, after intimating the magistrate, commences the further investigation, cannot be said to be irregular or illegal by any stretch of imagination. The victim’s rights are equally important like the rights of the accused,” the bench said. The court agreed with the submissions made by senior advocate Amit Desai for the state government and senior advocate Shirish Gupte for complainant, Akshata Naik, that the government had the powers to order further investigation “depending on the nature of the closure report” filed before a concerned court and that this was only a further investigation and not “reinvestigation.”
“A distinction also exists between further investigation and reinvestigation. It is observed that whereas reinvestigation without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not,” the bench observed.
The bench has, however, directed the Alibaug court to decide bail applications filed by Goswami and the other two co-accused – whose interim relief prayer too was rejected by HC along with Goswami’s – be decided within four days of them filing the respective applications.
Meanwhile, the revision petition hearing challenging judicial custody in Alibaug sessions court was adjourned till Tuesday morning, and Goswami has also filed his application for bail.
The magistrate’s court had earlier allowed the police to interrogate Goswami in Taloja jail for three hours daily.
