Despite conceding negligence and lapse on the part of its officials,the Chandigarh Police has chosen not to respond to the High Court’s query on the amount of compensation to be given to the kin of Sharmila Gupta.
The 33-year-old woman was crushed under a CTU bus on May 7. Taking suo motu cognisance of the “very unfortunate” incident,a division bench headed by acting Chief Justice Jasbir Singh had last week directed the Chandigarh Police to decide compensation to be given to the kin of the deceased.
Surprisingly,the inquiry report prepared by the Chandigarh Police is completely silent on this issue. When asked,Deputy Inspector General of Police Alok Kumar said “there is nothing in writing in the High Court order. Since we have not received anything in writing,we have not decided anything in this regard”.
Terming the attitude of Chandigarh Police “highly regrettable”,Nirmala,sister of the deceased,said: “It is shameful. The fact that six police officials have been transferred to Police Lines and a departmental inquiry has been recommended against them proves that there was negligence on the part of police officials.”
She added,“The administration should take complete responsibility for Sharmila’s two sons. The administration must ensure that it bears expenditure of the education of the two and grant adequate compensation so that their future is secure.”
Meanwhile,lawyers on Tuesday questioned the “clean chit” given to SHO Shri Prakash by DIG Alok Kumar. In an inquiry report prepared by Arun Kampani,SSP (IRB and Headquarters),seven police officers,including Sector 3 SHO Shri Prakash,were held grossly negligent. However,DIG Alok Kumar let Shri Prakash off the hook by reducing his indictment to a mere censure notice. No reason was given by the DIG in turning down Kampani’s recommendation against the SHO.
Questioning the “preferential treatment”,advocate H C Arora said,“There are a number of apex court judgments which hold that in suchlike cases,senior police officers should be given even harsher punishment than junior police officers. It is the senior police officer who is more responsible than a junior officer.”
Senior lawyer M L Sarin said “the findings given by an SSP-level officer should have been respected. If the senior officer (DIG) had to differ,he should have at least given some reasons”.
Share
