HC steps up scrutiny of police conduct in Morjim attack case

NT Reporter

Panaji

A day after the High Court of Bombay at Goa directed the Superintendent of Police, North Goa, to transfer the investigation into the Morjim advocate attack case to an experienced officer from a different police station, it stepped up pressure on the police department on Tuesday.

It gave the Inspector General of Police (IGP) 24 hours to nominate a senior police officer not below the rank of SP, unconnected with the criminal investigation and outside the concerned chain of command, to conduct a preliminary departmental inquiry into the conduct of police officials.

The inquiry will examine the conduct of the earlier investigating officer, the delay in recording statements of material witnesses and collecting medical and electronic evidence, the circumstances in which statements of government officials were recorded after the transfer direction, and the maintenance of the case diary and other investigation records.

The Division Bench comprising Justices Valmiki Menezes and Hiten S Venegavkar expressed concern over the manner in which the initial investigation was handled, particularly the recording of statements after the court, on Monday, had directed that the case be transferred.

During the hearing, the court was informed that the investigation into the First Information Report had been withdrawn from the previous officer and entrusted to Police Inspector Sanjit Kandolkar of Colvale police station, under the direct supervision of the Superintendent of Police, North Goa.

The court appreciated the “prompt steps”, but noted the actions of former investigating officer police sub-inspector (PSI) Pratik Garudi.

The court had directed in open court that the investigation be transferred due to deficiencies, including the failure to record statements from key government officials such as the mamlatdar and talathi. However, it observed that despite the direction, Garudi recorded their statements between 8 pm and 8.30 pm that same evening.

“Once the transfer of investigation had been directed in open court and was known to the officer concerned, ordinary propriety required him to preserve the record and hand over the investigation without undertaking any further substantive investigative step,” the Bench said, describing the recording of the statements as “prima facie a serious matter requiring independent examination”.

The court said, “Responsibility for dealing with an urgent communication requiring police protection cannot remain diffused within the office.” It directed that the original dispatch and movement registers be secured to identify those responsible for the four-day delay.

The court said adequate police protection shall remain available throughout the demolition and that no person shall obstruct officials or agencies engaged in implementing its orders.