Gurugram: Two days after the Rohtak police reportedly told the agitating family of Sandeep Lathar—an ASI who committed suicide on 14 October—that they had registered a First Information Report (FIR) based on his suicide note, the family is yet to get a copy of the FIR; nor has the document been made public.
According to reports, after the ASI’s family refused to allow a post mortem and cremation, Rohtak Sadar police station registered FIR number 305 under Sections 108 (abetment to suicide) and 61 (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on 15 October, on the complaint of Lathar’s wife, Santosh.
The Haryana CM Nayab Saini’s OSD Virendra Badkhalsa reportedly informed the family about the FIR’s registration and read out its contents in the presence of negotiators.
Also, Rohtak Police reportedly told the family that the FIR named IAS officer Amneet P. Kumar, wife of deceased IPS officer Y. Puran Kumar; her brother Amit Rattan, an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA from Bathinda (Rural) in Punjab; head constable Sushil Kumar, who served as Puran Kumar’s gunman; and one other individual.
After this, the Lathar family has allowed the autopsy and cremation of the ASI.
While neither the SP nor the SHO of Sadar Police Station, Rohtak—which has jurisdiction over the area where the alleged suicide occurred—responded to calls by ThePrint, a junior police officer confirmed that an FIR had been registered, though he was not privy to its contents.
Lathar’s alleged suicide came after the alleged suicide of IPS officer Y. Puran Kumar, an Inspector General of Police at Police Training College, Sunaria, at his Chandigarh residence on 7 October.
In his suicide note, Y. Puran Kumar had accused the Haryana Director General of Police, Shatrujeet Kapur (on leave now), and former Rohtak SP, Narendra Bijarniya, of trying to frame him in a false case of corruption by arresting his gunman Sushil Kumar, and obtaining a statement from him against the IPS officer.
Kumar’s suicide note also charged 13 other serving and retired officers of humiliating and harassing him and discriminating against him for his caste.
On Kumar’s wife Amneet P. Kumar’s complaint, the Chandigarh Police had registered an FIR and an SIT constituted by Chandigarh DGP Sagarpreet Hooda had begun investigations in Rohtak 11 October.
Though Sandeep Lathar’s name was nowhere in the original FIR registered for Kumar’s suicide in Chandigarh, sources told ThePrint that his role was also under investigation by the Chandigarh police, since he was part of the team that arrested Sushil Kumar.
Lathar was in the cyber cell of the Rohtak Police and the sources said that the Chandigarh Police had asked him for some records for their investigation.
With the IG’s family refusing to allow an autopsy or cremation for eight days, demanding action against the named officers, the Haryana government had transferred Bijarniya 10 October, and Kapur was sent on leave 14 October.
The day Kapur was sent on leave, Lathar allegedly shot himself dead on the terrace of his uncle’s farm after writing a suicide note and recording a video.
In his video, he termed Shatrujeet Kapur and Bijarniya as honest officers, and Y. Puran Kumar as corrupt.
Terming himself a follower of Bhagat Singh, Lathar said he was giving his Ahooti (sacrifice) because Y. Puran Kumar’s wife Amneet P. Kumar, her brother Amit Rattan and others were pressuring honest people.
However, the FIR has not been made public so far.
Seema Sindhu, a Supreme Court lawyer, told ThePrint that though it was mandatory for the police to register an FIR if a cognisable offence is reported, it is not mandatory for it to include all persons named in the suicide note as accused.
“To make one accused, there has to be a live and proximate nexus of the accused with the suicide, which means direct involvement just before the suicide. It is not mandatory for the police to make all the people mentioned in the suicide note as accused in the case. Practically the only mandatory thing for the police is to lodge an FIR wherever there’s information about a cognisable offence. After this, they have huge powers and discretion,” said Sindhu.
She said that in this particular case, Lathar had not explained how Amneet P. Kumar, Amit Rattan and others were responsible for his suicide.
“He said DGP Shatrujeet Kapur and Narendra Bijarniya were honest officers, and Y. Puran Kumar and Sushil Kumar were corrupt. In that case, it was ideal for him to stay alive and give all these statements to the Chandigarh Police during its investigations in the Y. Puran Kumar suicide case. However, this can’t be considered a sufficient reason for suicide. Furthermore, if Amneet P. Kumar, Amit Rattan and others were trying to build pressure, it was for action on her FIR, which was against Kapur, Bijarniya and 13 other officers. Lathar’s name nowhere figured in the FIR,” Advocate Seema Sindhu added.
She, however, cautioned that an FIR was just the first piece of information recorded in a criminal case. It has no evidentiary value except to corroborate or contradict the informant’s statements when he testifies in court.
“While additional accused names can be added by the police on its own any time during the investigation if new facts or evidence come through, the power to delete already named accused persons is not with the police. Names can only be deleted by recommending to the court in the charge sheet or by filing closure report in the entire FIR if no substance is found in the FIR,” she added.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Haryana IPS officer’s case takes murky turn. ASI found dead, ‘final video’ alleges corruption