CHANDIGARH: Thanks to contradictory reports given by different investigating agencies and enquiry commissions the death of Jagdev Singh Khudian a member of the ninth Lok Sahba is virtually a closed case now. More than two years have passed since the body of Jagdev Singh was fished out of Rajasthan canal after his mysterious disappearance from his native village in Faridkot district on Dec.28-1989.
The initial police finding that Jagdey Singh Khudi and committed suicide not only led to a furor but forced the state government 10 appoint a commission of enquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1952. Justice Harbans Singh Rai a siting Judge of the Punjab and the Haryana High Court was appointed to the Commission of Enquiry and given one months’ time to ascertain the circumstances leading to the death of Jagdev Singh Khudian and to find out the cause of his death
The Khudian Commission of Enquiry submitted its findings in April 1990 and held that there was nothing to substantiate the police theory of suicide. “Even if the investigating agency had initially got such an impression regarding suicide it was incumbent upon it to exclude all other possible theories like murder culpable homicide etc. But in this case no serious efforts were made” the enquiry report said. The enquiry report further said. “It is not easy to give a finding as 10 what Jed to the death of Jagdev Singh Khudian and under what circumstances he died. The atmosphere in the state of Punjab is full of suspicion. Members of the family of Jagdev Singh Khudian and Simranjit Singh Mann suggested that his political opponents had eliminated him. No evidence was led before me to suggest this nor had any circumstances come to my notice which may enable me to give a clear finding in this regard.
“Whatever may be the circumstances leading to the death of Jagdev Singh Khudian are not known but one fact which left me very sad was the conduct of Punjab police. An elected member of Parliament had disappeared. His family members are suspecting foul play but somehow the investigating agency for reasons best known to it adopted a Tine which was not very much justified by the situation even if the investigating officer or somebody higher than he was of the view that Jagdev Singh Khudian committed suicide the other possibility that the might have been murdered should not have been ignored. The Enquiry Commission held that since the “medical evidence had excluded wet drowning and the circumstances excluded dry drowning it can be safely held that he did not commit suicide. The presence of anti-mortem injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature establishes that he died of violence. So lam of the view that Jagdev Singh Khudian was killed.”
The Commission report further said that “inaction on the part of the investigating agency might have led to the evaporation of material clues in solving the crime. The inaction of the police was due to inefficiency or willful. I do not have any material to give my finding in that regard but I am of the view that the death of Jagdev Singh Khudian along with the conduct of the investigating officer should be investigated and enquired into by some independent agency”.
Subsequently the case was referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBD) which deputed special team headed by a Superintendent of Police. The team camped in Faridkot for almost a year and recently submitted its report in complete contradiction of the findings of the Khudian Commission of Enquiry. The report held that on the basis of the facts and circumstances brought out during investigation of the case together with expert opinions lead to the only conclusion that the death of Jagdev Singh Khudian was due to asphyxia as a result of suicidal drowning. There is no evidence to show that the drowning was homicidal or accidental. Further the independent agency held that there was nothing to indicate that “any Punjab police was negligent in the discharge of his duties.
The independent agency CBI in this case based its finding basically on one aspect the shoe slip theory. It held that Jagdev Singh Khudian “had a fall on the elevated mound of earth on the embankment of Rajasthan canal while climbing up the rough surface from the village side. There is evidence of a shoe slip by the deceased. A sample soil from the spot of the canal embankment was collected by the CBI and compared with the soil sticking to the footwear of the deceased by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory experts. The CFSL experts found similarity between the sample soil and the soil sticking to the footwear. As a result of the fall the belly of the deceased could have hit a said elevated mound of earth while climbing. The forensic expert of the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences Dr-T.D. Dogra has analyzed this aspect and confirmed that if there was any blunt trauma present in the distal pant of the small intestine it could have been caused by the probable fall of the deceased while climbing up the canal. Dr. Dogra also opined that the deceased was alive before centering the water”.
The second report has literally brought to a naught any further investigation in the case which after more than two years remains: a mystery. The enquiry also did not give any idea as to why Jagdev; Singh Khudian was a suicide cause the Commission of Enquiry held that he was hale and hearty and in a good mood on the eve of his disappearance. The Enquiry Commission had even met the Speaker of the Lok Sabha besides talking to his family members and friends to find out the state of mind of the deceased before his sudden disappearance.
Whatever be the ease the public of Punjab must be given a satisfactory explanation about the circumstances leading to the death of a sitting MP.
Article extracted from this publication >> January 24, 1992
