The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday questioned whether Section 306 IPC could apply in the suicide case of IPS officer Y Puran Kumar, who accused senior officials of caste-based harassment. The Court asked the petitioner to show any Supreme Court ruling where conviction was based on similar allegations.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday raised serious questions about whether the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could actually be applied in the case of Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Y Puran Kumar’s death.
A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that demanded a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the case. The investigation is currently being handled by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Chandigarh Police.
The PIL was filed by Navneet Kumar, who is the President of an NGO, claiming that the case needed an independent probe due to its sensitivity and the involvement of senior officials.
The Bench directly asked the petitioner’s lawyer about the applicability of the abetment charge, saying,
“Looking into gravity of allegations, can 306 [IPC] be made out by this kind of allegations? Please tell us one Supreme Court judgment where conviction was passed on the basis of these allegations.”
The Court further remarked,
“How can a mere abuse…even to that extent if somebody slaps a person, even then 306 is not made out, that is what Supreme Court has said.”
IPS officer Y Puran Kumar, belonging to the Haryana cadre, was found dead at his residence in Chandigarh on October 7.
He had reportedly shot himself and left a suicide note in which he accused senior officers, including Haryana Director General of Police (DGP) Shatrujeet Kapur and then Rohtak Superintendent of Police (SP) Narendra Bijarniya, of caste-based discrimination and targeted harassment.
Kumar’s wife, senior IAS officer Amneet P Kumar, has been demanding justice for her husband, who belonged to the Dalit community.
Following widespread public outrage, both DGP Kapur and SP Bijarniya were temporarily removed from their posts.
Adding further complexity to the case, another police official, Sandeep Lathar—who had earlier arrested one of Kumar’s aides in a different case—also died by suicide shortly afterward.
Lathar allegedly made corruption allegations against Kumar and even blamed some of Kumar’s family members in his note.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the case reflected systemic victimisation of senior officers. He presented the Supreme Court’s guidelines regarding the transfer of investigations to the CBI, saying that even top-level officers were not safe in the system.
He said,
“He [Kumar] has alleged that he was systematically victimised…the officers he has named, many of them have not even been transferred,”
However, the High Court noted that since the ongoing investigation was being conducted by the Chandigarh Police and not by the Haryana Police, there was no apparent issue of bias or partiality. Chief Justice Nagu remarked,
“Had it been conducted by Haryana, that would have been different.”
The petitioner’s counsel further pointed out that while Kumar’s death was being investigated by Chandigarh Police, the subsequent suicide of Lathar was being handled by the Haryana Police.
He suggested that the involvement of two different agencies could create inconsistencies in the overall investigation.
The Bench, however, asked for specific evidence showing that the police agencies were not carrying out a fair and impartial investigation.
The judges noted,
“CBI is already quite overburdened. Let’s not casually pass orders [for transfer of probe]…You have to point out some anomaly in the investigation, some lapse.”
In response, the counsel for the Chandigarh Police told the Court that there was no reason to transfer the case, as it was already being investigated by a team of senior officers.
He informed the Bench.
“There are three IPS officers in the SIT,”
He also mentioned that neither Kumar’s wife nor anyone legally fitting the definition of a ‘victim’ had approached the Court in this matter.
Representing the State of Haryana, Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan opposed the PIL, arguing that the petitioner had no direct connection to the case.
Balyan said,
“He is resident of Punjab, filing PIL about the issue in UT and involving State of Haryana, which has no role. There has no special circumstances,”
ALSO READ: India’s 53rd Chief Justice: Centre Approves Appointment of Justice Surya Kant As CJI
When the Court was briefed about the content of Kumar’s suicide note, it once again questioned whether the charge of abetment of suicide was sustainable.
In the end, the Court decided to adjourn the hearing and granted the petitioner’s counsel additional time to prepare his arguments and present further evidence.
The next hearing will likely determine whether the case will remain with the Chandigarh Police or be transferred to the CBI for further investigation.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Suicide Charge
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
