on duty at a railway-gate in bryana.He had closed the gate. as goods train was approaching. An M U and his gunman, however arrived at the gate in a Marutivehicle and asked the gateman to open the gate. On his refusal, he was assaulted severely and his body was thrown on the railway track. He died due to a cdlisbn with the train. The complainant alleged that, though a case had been registered, no action.was taken by the local police awing to political influence and pressure. The Commission sought a report from the DIG Railways, Haryana.The report disclosed that there were three eyewitnesses l n the case and they gave almost the same version as given by the cumplainant.The report further revealed that, according to the post-mortem report, shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries caused the death.The Commission, thereafter, directed its own Investigation Wing to conduct an independent enquiry. The report disclosed that the life of the deceased was tragically cut short, as maintained by his widow. The gunman of the MLA was arrested, but released on bail and the sections invoked in his case were 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 352 (Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation), and 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code. The Inveaigation Wing found that the police had deliberately left loopholes in the case against the M U and only implicated his gunman. Serious lapses, indicating political pressure on the police, were disclosed. The police did not get the accused identified by the witnesses and they were not approached for six months despite the fact that the police had known the car number right from the very beginning. The MLA deposed before the investigation team that he came to know about the incident only from the newspapers, whereas before the police he had awibuted the whole occurrence to his gunman. During the period of six months before the arrest of the gunman and examination of the MLA, it appears that political pressure was brought to bear on the witnesses, as one eyewitness changed his statement substantially.Another witness deposed that he was pressurised to change his version, or he would receive the same treatment as the deceased; this witness, however, maintained his stand firmly. The photographs of the deceesed reveal that his belongings were scattered over the place of the incident, confirming that he was actually dragged to the rallway track. The Commksion stressed the need for a fresh, fair and impartial investigation. The Commission observed that it was surprising that though a case of 302 IPC (murder) was initially booked, no Investigation was carried through to its logical conclu8ion. The Commlssion directed thm Government of Haryana to entrust the investigation to