AHMEDABAD: There has been an eight-year dispute between the authorities and an Anand family who say that an unidentified body cremated by police was a family member, while the state government rejected this claim saying a DNA test with the missing person’s son did not match.
Last week marked the fourth time that the Gujarat high court refused to intervene in the case, when the missing person’s son sought directions to the local authorities to issue a death certificate.
A Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation driver, Chhotabhai Parekh, went missing on September 23, 2015.
His kin lodged a missing person’s complaint at Virsad police station on September 28, 2015. One day earlier, on September 27, an unidentified body was found in a rivulet in the jurisdiction of Khambhat rural police station.
Khambhat police disposed of the body on September 29, but as the missing person’s complaint for Parekh had been registered in the district, his family members were summoned, and a photograph of the deceased person was shown to them. His widow, Meena, said the person in the photograph was her husband.
As the body was decomposed and no legal heir had claimed it, a postmortem was conducted, and DNA samples were preserved. After the Parekh family made their claim, an FSL report was called for, but it emerged that the DNA of the deceased person did not match that of Parekh’s son.
The family continued their legal battle and moved the high court thrice in the first two years, seeking directions to the authorities to either produce Chhotabhai alive or declare him dead and issue a death certificate for the body found on September 27, 2015, which Meena had identified as her husband.
Parekh’s son moved the HC again in February, complaining that his mother had thrice asserted before the sub-divisional magistrate that the body found was that of his father, who had been murdered.
The state government reiterated its stand based on the DNA test and submitted that the family could file a suit for declaration of the missing person’s death.
After hearing the case, Justice V D Nanavati said the high court could not exercise its discretion and conclude that the body was Parekh’s in the absence of any evidence.
Last week marked the fourth time that the Gujarat high court refused to intervene in the case, when the missing person’s son sought directions to the local authorities to issue a death certificate.
A Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation driver, Chhotabhai Parekh, went missing on September 23, 2015.
His kin lodged a missing person’s complaint at Virsad police station on September 28, 2015. One day earlier, on September 27, an unidentified body was found in a rivulet in the jurisdiction of Khambhat rural police station.
Khambhat police disposed of the body on September 29, but as the missing person’s complaint for Parekh had been registered in the district, his family members were summoned, and a photograph of the deceased person was shown to them. His widow, Meena, said the person in the photograph was her husband.
As the body was decomposed and no legal heir had claimed it, a postmortem was conducted, and DNA samples were preserved. After the Parekh family made their claim, an FSL report was called for, but it emerged that the DNA of the deceased person did not match that of Parekh’s son.
The family continued their legal battle and moved the high court thrice in the first two years, seeking directions to the authorities to either produce Chhotabhai alive or declare him dead and issue a death certificate for the body found on September 27, 2015, which Meena had identified as her husband.
Parekh’s son moved the HC again in February, complaining that his mother had thrice asserted before the sub-divisional magistrate that the body found was that of his father, who had been murdered.
The state government reiterated its stand based on the DNA test and submitted that the family could file a suit for declaration of the missing person’s death.
After hearing the case, Justice V D Nanavati said the high court could not exercise its discretion and conclude that the body was Parekh’s in the absence of any evidence.
About The Author
