Why not a CBI probe into Tapan murder: HC

KOLKATA: When the CID has failed miserably in nailing the murderers of Howrah environment activist Tapan Dutta, why shouldn’t another agency like CBI be asked to probe it all over again? This question was raised by Justice Dipankar Datta of Calcutta high court on Friday in response to a petition from Dutta’s widow Pratima.
On December 6, 2014, a Howrah court acquitted five persons accused of the 2011 murder, noting that CID had failed to turn up any evidence against them.By then Pratima had already moved HC for a central probe.
On Friday, Justice Datta directed the state to hand over all documents pertaining to the CID’s investigation, the ballistic report and the forensic report to the court by Tuesday when the case will be heard next. The judge expressed his displeasure when state lawyer Pradip Roy argued that Pratima’s sole objective was to send minister Arup Roy — also from Howrah — to prison. “Are you Arup Roy’s lawyer? If not, why are you trying to defend him? You cannot deny, after all, that police failed miserably in solving this case,” Justice Datta told Roy.
The court is of the view that a citizen involved with a movement to protect a wetland was murdered but the police failed to nab the culprits, the judge observed. “Who is responsible for this? One can’t expect the victim’s family to search for the culprits. It is for police to do so and then place all matters before the court for it to reach a verdict. But in this case, thepolice failed to book the culprits. I can order a reinvestigation. Why not the CBI,” he said.
Roy insisted that the high court, under writ jurisdiction, cannot order reinvestigation under the circumstances. “There is no precedence that after completion of trial, if the accused are acquitted, the high court under writ jurisdiction orders a reinvestigation,” he submitted.
Justice Datta was not impressed. “Law is now developing. The precedence that you speak of must have started at some point. There has to be a first time for everything. Let this be the first time in this case. After all, you can’t deny that the state failed to book the culprits. How then can you oppose further investigation? I can certainly order one,” he observed.
The judge also pointed out that Roy had himself stated that since 2009, Dutta had written to police every year that he faced death threats. Dutta had told police that he is associated with a wetland movement and certain vested interests are threatening his life. He also wrote that every evening, bike-borne miscreants were spotted in the neighbourhood, spreading terror. In spite of this, police took no action to save his life.
The judge also said: “I have doubt about the role played by Bablu Prasad who was in the same vehicle in which the victim was travelling when he was shot. How come he suffered no injuries? During trial, the prosecutor didn’t even examine his witnesses. He never even asked them whether they suspected anybody. What kind of work is this?” Justice Datta asked Roy.
The state lawyer then pointed out that none of the witnesses attended court on their free will. They had to be summoned. “The victim’s widow could have approached an appropriate forum instead of moving high court,” Roy said.
The judge then wanted to know why the state hadn’t moved an appeal. “After all, the accused are now scot free because of tardy investigation on the part of the police. Why didn’t the state prefer an appeal,” he wanted to know.