Afr Bibhuranjan Dalai And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... Opp. ... on 16 November, 2020

[Cites 35, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Afr Bibhuranjan Dalai And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... Opp. ... on 16 November, 2020

The petitioners, who are villagers of village Duadia and the members of Bajarangbali Gramya Paribes and Banasurakhya Samiti, by way of public interest 2 litigation filed this writ petition challenging the action/inaction of the opposite parties, particularly opposite party no.5- Inspector in-charge of Kujanga Police Station, who has not properly investigated into Kujanga P.S. U.D. Case No. 10/2020 dated 01.07.2020, as a result of which the death of the lovers, namely, Tushar Palai (19 years), son of Adikanda Palai and Bebina Das (27 years), daughter of Pandaba Das of village Duadia has been shown as suicidal hanging instead of an "Honour Killing"

based on a pre-planned and brutal murder executed by the blood relations in connivance with the law enforcing agencies, as would be available from the circumstantial evidences, nature of injuries sustained, the materials used for the death of the lovers and the captured photographs, which is clear violation of Articles 14 , 15(1) and (3), 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore seek for a direction to opposite party no.4- Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur to handover the case to a competent officer of the impartial agencies like CBI or Crime Branch of 3 Odisha Police to investigate into the allegations made by the petitioners and to take action against the erring officials involved during the investigation of the case in accordance with law.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioners are the president, secretary and members of Bajarangbali Gramya Paribes and Banasurakhya Samiti, Duadia having registration no. 1994/52/2013-14 and also residents of the said village. On 01.07.2020 (Wednesday), the present petitioners and other villagers of village Duadia found two lovers, namely, Tushar Palai (19 years), son of Adikanda Palai and Bebina Das (27 years), daughter of Pandaba Das of village Duadia dead in a hanging condition on the branches of Dimiri tree and the said incident was intimated to IIC, Kujanga Police Station immediately. The elder brother of the deceased Bebina Das, namely, Ranjan Kumar Das, son of Pandaba Das had lodged an information before the IIC, Kujanga Police Station alleging therein that on 30.06.2020 his younger 4 sister Bebina Das was missing and that on 01.07.2020 he and his family members searched her and found her hanging in a Dimiri tree, along with one Tushar Palai (20 years), S/o- Adikanda Palai of his village, in the backside of Basudev Primary School, and both had died. Having received information, the IIC, Kujanga Police Station registered Kujanga P.S.U.D. Case No. 10/2020 on 01.07.2020 at about 08.15 p.m. and directed A.S.I. D.K. Sahoo to take up enquiry into the U.D. Case. 2.1 The present petitioners submitted representations on 06.07.2020 to opposite parties no.3 to 5 by meeting them personally, as well as to all the opposite parties on 29.07.2020 by registered post with A.D. highlighting their grievance, but till date no action has been taken. The IIC, Kujanga P.S.- opposite party no.5 and the Investigating Officer had sat over the matter silently as if the real truth has come out. The petitioners time and again approached the parents of the deceased persons to take prompt steps to find out the cause of the death of 5 their children but it was seen that they had only lodged the information as per the instruction of the opposite party no.5 as if their duties are over and their reaction revealed that they were sitting silently by concealing something under pressure or else they were feeling guilty for the commission of the murder of their children out of anger or on the name of honour. The ring ceremony (nirbandha) of the deceased Bebina Das was scheduled to be held on 02.07.2020 and having heard that Bebina fled away from the village with Tushar on 30.06.2020, parents of the deceased persons contacted the lovers over mobile phones and called them to the place of occurrence. On the intervening night i.e. on 30.06.2020, steps were taken to burn down Tushar by using petroleum products and to kill both the lovers pressing the necks by means of rope. At the time of recovery of the dead bodies, it was found that the legs and hands of Tushar were burnt down which reveals that in the event Tushar commits suicide by hanging then why the legs and hands of Tushar were 6 burnt. The opposite party no.5 seized some amount as well as a mobile phone from the dead body of Tushar and the I.O. could have found out the real cause of death from the call details of the seized mobile phone of Tushar. The parents of the deceased persons were unhappy with their love relationship, because Tushar was younger than Bebina and the parents of the deceased Bebina fixed "Nirbandha" after arranging the marriage of Bebina with another person except Tushar on 02.07.2020. Even though such grievance was made by the villagers, there was inaction on the part of the opposite parties no. 4 and

5. Hence, this application.

3. Mr. B. Satpathy, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the death of both the lovers comes within the domain of "honour killing", which means and includes killing of a relative, especially a girl or woman, who is perceived to have brought dishonor on the family. It is a killing of a person on the name of honour and such a killing is done to save the prestige of a family or done in 7 order to make it an example for others or done out of rage and anger, reason can be many. It is a pre-planned, brutally executed more often than not within blood relations and that too in connivance with the law enforcing agencies. Therefore, the defence should not be made ordinarily available and are not ordinarily justified in the eyes of law. Honour killing in India occurs because of certain age old practices like casteism, religions, traditions, cultures etc., thereby, it violates articles 14 , 15(1) & (3), 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is mainly directed towards woman and thus gives rise to gender inequality. Thereby, the petitioners seek an independent investigation by handing over the case to a competent officer of impartial agency like CBI or Crime Branch of Orissa Police to find out the truth behind such death and to take action against the erring officers involved during investigation of the case in accordance with law. To substantiate his case, he has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in Lata singh v. State of 8 U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522; Jyoti @ Jannat v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 457; Krishna Master v. State of U.P., AIR 2010 SC 3071, Bhagaban Das v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2011) 6 SCC 396; and Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamilnadu, (2011) 6 SCC 405.

4. Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, learned Addl.

Government Advocate contended that on 01.07.2020 at about 8.15 pm, one Ranjan Kumar Das, son of Pandaba Das of village Duadia lodged a written report alleging therein that on 30.06.2020 he reported at police station regarding missing of his younger sister Bebina Das. On 01.07.2020, he along with his family members searched his sister Bebina Das and came to know that in the backside of Basudev Primary School in the middle point of pandanus bush, she had committed suicide by hanging in a sycamore tree with the help of a rope along with another co-villager Tushar Palai, son of Adikanda Palai, who also committed suicide by hanging in the same rope. Therefore, he requested for investigation. Accordingly on receipt of 9 said FIR, Kujanga P.S. U.D. Case No. 10 dated 01.07.2020 was registered by IIC, Kujanga P.S. and one Debendra Kumar Sahoo, ASI, Kujanga P.S. was appointed as I.O. in the case and directed to take the charge of investigation of the U.D. Case. Accordingly, the I.O. started investigation and immediately the commandant Prasant Kumar Das and Biswamitra Kanhar of Kujanga P.S. were directed to guard the dead bodies of both deceased Bebina Das and Tushar Palai and assist the I.O. during the time of investigation of the case. The I.O. recorded the statement of the informant- Ranjan Kumar Das under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and submitted a letter to the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur to depute one Executive Magistrate to the spot to remain present during the period of inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased persons. The I.O. also recorded the statements of fathers of both the deceased Bebina Das and Tushar Palai, namely, Pandaba Das and Adikanda Palai respectively under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He visited the spot, but inquest could not be conducted on the same day over 10 the dead bodies of both the deceased persons due to odd hours of night. On 02.07.2020, in presence of the Executive Magistrate and witnesses, inquest over the dead bodies of both the deceased persons was conducted and accordingly inquest report was prepared. The statements of the witnesses to the inquest and that of the Executive Magistrate were also recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the dead bodies of both the deceased persons were dispatched to the Medical Officer, Postmortem Centre, Kujanga for conducting autopsy over the dead bodies and opined the cause, nature and duration of the death. Besides, on 02.07.2020, the I.O. also seized a black colour mobile handset from the spot and prepared the seizure list and recorded the statement of the seizure witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In addition to the same, the I.O. recorded the statement of three witnesses of the same village who are also the relatives of the deceased persons, namely, Rohit Das, Khirod Palai and Chandrasekahr Das on the same day 11 during course of investigation of the case. After the postmortem examination, the dead bodies of the deceased persons were handed over to their family members for funeral with proper acknowledgement. The I.O. seized wearing apparels of deceased Tushar Palai and deceased Bebina Das, prepared seizure list and recorded the statement of seizure witnesses under Section 106 Cr.P.C. in furtherance to the investigation. On 05.07.2020, during course of investigation, the I.O. also recorded the statement of relatives and some villagers of the deceased persons, namely, Sarat Dalai, Gopinath Gochhayat and Nrusingha Palai. Besides, the I.O. also made a prayer to the S.P., Jatatsinghpur to provide CDR, SDR and location of the SIM (No. 6370338782) of the seized mobile from 01.06.2020 to 01.07.2020 for the purpose of enquiry. The postmortem report was received on 01.10.2020 of both the deceased persons. It is opined by the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies that cause of death was due to asphyxia by hanging, suicidal in nature. 12 It is also opined that the rope examined was capable to bear the weight of the deceased and can cause death. It is contended that investigation of the I.O. is fair and transparent and, therefore, there is no necessity to handover the case to the Crime Branch, Odisha for investigation.

5. This Court heard Mr. B.N. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State through virtual mode. Pleadings having been exchanged, taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations made in the writ petition and urgency in the matter, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

6. The factual matrix, as mentioned above, clearly reveals that Bebina Das, daughter of Pandaba Das fell in love with Tushar Palai, younger son of Adikanda Palai, who admittedly five years younger than her and they have 13 got distant relationship as aunt and nephew and it was not appreciated by both the family members and as such, the family members of Bebina Das arranged her marriage with one Bruhaspati Das, S/o- Babaji Das of village- Gadaromita, P.S.- Marsaghai, Dist- Kendrapara on the mediatorship of Babuli @ Alekh Choudhury of village Gadaromita. Tushar Palai developed possessiveness with his aunt Bebina Das and both orchestrated to marry each other. But the societal hazards got birthed on two reasons i.e. Bebina Das was five years older than Tushar Palai and also happens to be his aunt. None of their family members acquiesced with such proposal. Being cognizant of the fact and being unable to face the societal barriers both Bebina Das and Tushar Palai eloped from their houses on 30.06.2020 morning. In this connection, Kujanga P.S. Man Missing entry no. 36/2020 and GD No. 08 dated 30.06.2020 got featured on the report of the informant Ranjan Kumar Das towards missing of his sister Bebina Das. Both Bebina Das and Tushar Palai, being unable to 14 bear the wear and tear of life, decided and committed suicide. Ultimately on search being made by family members, their dead bodies were found in the branch of one sycamore tree situated behind the Primary School of village Duadia, at the outskirt of village at a distance of 4 KMs east to Kujang PS being surrounded by wild pandanus bush. The branch of suicide stands at height of about 6'4" from the ground. On the basis of the FIR lodged by Ranjan Das, U.D. case was registered and investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer.

7. On the above background, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this PIL. While issuing notice, on 30.09.2020, this Court directed to serve five extra copies of the writ petition on the learned Addl. Government Advocate to enable him to obtain instructions in the matter. When the matter was listed on 05.10.2020, Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties prayed for time to file counter affidavit and also inform the Court about 15 progress of the investigation. On 14.10.2020, this Court passed the following order.

"The Court is convened through Video Conferencing."

Mr. S. Palit, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties submits that counter affidavit in this case has already been filed by opposite party no.5. He further submits that investigation in the matter is still pending.

Considering the seriousness of allegations, we direct that the case in connection with Kujang P.S. U.D. Case No. 10 of 2020 be investigated under the supervision of Additional superintendent of Police, Paradeep and progress report thereof shall be produced before this Court along with copy of the up- to-date case diary on the next date.

The matter to come up on 11.11.2020."

In compliance thereof, the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Paradeep, Dist. Jagatsinghpur submitted a report on 25.10.2020, which was produced in a sealed cover and placed on record. At the time of hearing, the sealed cover was opened and it was found therein that he has simply endorsed the investigation conducted by the original investigating officer and ignored many such aspects which ought to have engaged his attention to investigate the matter all over again from a different perspective. We do not wish to discuss the conclusion recorded in that report 16 in detail, least it may prejudice the case of the parties. Suffice it to say that investigation so far been conducted in a lopsided and lackadaisical manner. The copy of the above mentioned report was not served on learned counsel for the petitioner. But, on the basis of the materials available on record, which were filed by opposite party no.5 in its counter affidavit, Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court and referring to the case diary contended that UD Case was registered on 01.07.2020 and accordingly investigation was conducted by the I.O. during course of which inquest was conducted and evidences were recorded. Subsequently, the dead body of deceased Bebina Das was dispatched at 10.20 a.m. with a request to conduct autopsy over her dead body and opine the cause, nature and duration of death at an early date. Similarly, in case of Tushar Palai, the body was dispatched at 10.50 am with a request to conduct autopsy over his dead body and opine the cause, nature and duration of death at an early 17 date. Though autopsy was conducted by the Medical Officer, Dr. P.K. Panda, Superintendent of CHC, Kujanga, Jagatsinghpur, but the postmortem reports in respect of deceased Bebina Das and deceased Tushar Palai were not made available till 16.08.2020. When the medical officer was contacted on the same day (16.08.2020), he contended that he was busy in medical work and would submit the same later on. Again on 19.09.2020, similar reply was given by the medical officer, and finally on 01.10.2020, the medical officer submitted his report opining that cause of death was due to asphyxia by hanging, suicidal in nature and time since death to post mortem was within 72 to 84 hours, and the ligature rope was capable to bear the weight of the deceased persons and can cause death.

8. Mr. S. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioners brings to the notice of this Court that the medical report also indicates that the rope was ½ inch thick and the death of both the deceased was caused by a 18 single rope of 6 feet length, and that the spot report reveals that height of the branch of the tree on which two dead bodies were found hanging was barely 6 feet and 4 inches from ground, therefore, it creates a suspicion and rather does not inspire confidence that their death was caused due to suicidal hanging. Referring to inquest reports of both the deceased Tushar Palai and Bebina Das, he submits that clause-5 of the inquest report of deceased Tushar Palai indicates that on examination of the body it was found that there were blisters in the entire body and a rope tied on the neck and, as such, under clause-9 the inquest witness Govinda Palai had opined that after causing death of his nephew the dead body was hanged. Such inquest report has been enclosed and placed on record at page 37 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party-State. Similarly, in the inquest report of deceased Bebina Das in clause-9 the opinion of the witnesses with regard to cause of death has been recorded that there was a doubt with regard to the death of the 19 deceased Bebina Das and its truthfulness should be unveiled.

9. The above sequence of events would clearly indicate that the investigation has been done in a casual and slipshod manner without giving any importance to the death of two young persons and, more so, the doctor, who conducted autopsy on 02.07.2020, submitted post- mortem report after three months, i.e. 01.10.2020 and that itself creates suspicion with regard to the functioning of the authority concerned. On perusal of the inquest report of both the deceased, it would be seen that the opinion of the inquest witnesses as to cause of death has been indicated differently. The police would have given more importance and, as such, recorded the evidence of such persons and given importance to such statements, but it reveals from the records available that in a routine manner the investigating officer has conducted the investigation and so also the medical officer submitted his post-mortem report in a mechanical manner. When a 20 direction was given by this Court, vide order dated 14.10.2020, the superior officer, namely, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Paradeep submitted his supervision report on 25.10.2020, without touching to the seriousness of the allegations made. A cumulative effect of all these clearly creates a suspicion with regard to the investigation conducted to the allegations made in the application itself. As such, till date the charge-sheet has not been submitted by the police. Meaning thereby, the investigation has not been concluded till date. The cavalry manner of investigation and the report submitted by the medical officer as well as the supervision report submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police enhanced the suspicion which requires further investigation by an agency other than the agency which has done the same.

10. The word "investigation" has been defined under Section 2(h) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as follows:-

"investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf."

11. Chapter-XII of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 deals with "information to the police and their powers to investigate", which includes Sections 154 to

176. For just and proper adjudication of the case, Sections 154, 156 and 174 are quoted below:-

154. Information in cognizable cases.--(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer incharge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant ; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if statisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer 22 subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer incharge of a police station in relation to that offence.

156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.--(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above- mentioned.

174. Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.--(1) When the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and 23 other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appear to have been inflicted.

(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub- divisional Magistrate.

[(3) When--

(i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years of her marriage; or

(ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an offence in relation to such woman; or

(iii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and any relative of the woman has made a request in this behalf ; or

(iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death; or

(v) the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do, he shall, subject to such rules as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the State Government, if the state of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless.

(4) The following Magistrates are empowered to hold inquests, namely, any District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate and any other Executive 24 Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or the District Magistrate."

12. The word "investigation", as defined under Section 2(h) of the Code mentioned supra, includes all the proceedings under the said Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in that behalf. This question has already been answered by the apex Court in Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, (2003) 6 SCC 195.

Therefore, it follows that there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own 25 function, always of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case.

13. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali, AIR 1959 SC 707, the apex Court held that the word "investigation" defined under Section 2(h) of the Code, which was in Section 4(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, defines investigation as to include all the proceedings under that Code for the collection of evidence conducted by the police officer or other persons other than a Magistrate in that behalf. Under the Code, investigation consists generally of the following steps (i) proceeding to the spot; (ii) ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case, (iii) discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, (iv) collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of (a) the examination of the various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of places of seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation 26 and to be produced at the trial, and (v) formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173.

14. In State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna and R.P. Singh v. J.A.C. Saldanna, (1980) 1 SCC 554 : AIR 1980 SC 326, the apex Court held that "investigation" of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the Police Department, the Superintendence over which vests in the State Government.

Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 : AIR 1992 SC 604, the apex Court held that the "investigation" of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in the field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling 27 under Chapter XII of Code of the Criminal Procedure and the Courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as aforementioned.

Therefore, the word "investigation" has been defined under Section 2(h) of the Code and the expression therefore is used with definite meaning in the strict legal sense and not in a loose or general sense.

15. In K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, 1991 (3) SCC 655, the apex Court held that investigation is a systematic minute and thorough attempt to learn the facts about something complex or hidden; it is often formal and official. "Investigation" consists of the following steps: (i) proceeding to the spot; (ii) ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case; (iii) discovery and arrest of the suspected offender; (iv) collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of the examination of various persons (including the accused) 28 and the reduction of their statement into writing, if the officer thinks fit; search of places and seizure of things considered necessary for investigation and for production at the trial; and (v) formation of the opinion as to whether on the materials collected there is a case to place the accused before the Magistrate for trial and, if so, taking necessary steps for the same by filing a charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C.. Thus the purpose of the investigation is to find out whether materials exist to place the accused before the Magistrate for trial.

Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, AIR 2003 SC 2612 and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India , AIR 2007 SC 1087 and by this Court in Smt. Sabita Praharaj v. Smt. Gitarani Praharaj, 2004 (2) Orissa LR

193.

16. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with information to the police and their power 29 to investigate. However, the provisions of the sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code empower the investigation either by the officer-in-charge of the Police Station or he may direct the investigation to be made by the Police Officer subordinate to him. If the investigation is done by the officer subordinate to the officer-in-charge of the Police Station at his direction, such subordinate officer as stipulated under Section 168 of the Code requires to report the final result of the investigation to the officer-in- charge of the Police Station. Reading of the provisions of Sections 157, 161, 165, 166A, 167 and 168 of the Code clearly demonstrate that, the investigation in respect of cognizable offence could be made either by the officer-in- charge of the Police Station or any other officer as provided.

17. An officer in charge of a police station and other police officers specially empowered in this behalf are required by Section 174 to make investigation into cases of suicides and other unnatural or suspicious deaths and 30 to report to the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

18. In Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188, the apex Court held that the object of the proceedings under Section 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The report prepared is indeed aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence, to the prosecution case. However, the details of the FIR and the gist of the statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report.

19. In George v. State of Kerala, (1998) 4 SCC 605, the apex Court held that reliance on the statements in the inquest report to the extent they relate to what the investigating officer saw and found is permissible but any statement made therein on the basis of what he heard from others would be hit by Section 162.

20. Though ordinarily investigation is undertaken on information received by a Police Officer, the receipt of information is not a condition precedent for investigation. Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedure in the matter of such an investigation which can be initiated either on information or otherwise.

21. In State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, AIR 1964 SC 221, the apex Court held that the provisions contained in Section 157 Cr.P.C. make it clear that an officer-in-charge of a police station can start investigation either on information or otherwise.

22. In Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517, the apex Court held that if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the Law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice.

Similar view has been reiterated in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 518. All these decisions have also been followed by the apex Court in Zahira Habibulla Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2006 SC 1367.

23. In Sasi Thomas v. State, (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 72, the apex Court held that proper and fair investigation on the part of the investigating officer is the backbone of the rule of law. A proper and effective investigation into a serious offence and particularly in a case where there is no direct evidence assumes great significance as collection of adequate materials to prove the circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Unfortunately, the applicant has not been treated fairly. When a death has occurred in suspicious circumstances and in particular when an attempt had been made to bury the dead body hurriedly and upon obtaining apparently an incorrect medical certificate, it was expected that upon exhumation of the 33 body, the investigating authorities of the State shall carry out their statutory duties fairly.

24. Now, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., the words "further investigation" in Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. are not linked with the words "the officer-in-charge of the police station by the word 'by'. The words "further investigation" are suffixed by the words "in respect of an offence". Therefore, further investigation by a different investigation agency is not ruled out under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

25. In view of the provisions of law, as discussed above, it clearly reveals that further investigation can be permissible in respect of an offence by different investigation agency, as prima facie this Court is of the considered view that the investigation in the instant case has been undertaken in a negligent and perfunctory manner and, as such, it requires further investigation by a 34 different investigating agency other than the local police authority.

26. In Lata Singh (supra), the apex Court held that the acts or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severally punished. Once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whomsoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage, the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or daughter, they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage. The Bench also said that there is nothing honorable in such killings and in fact they are nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal and feudal minded persons who deserve harsh punishment.

27. In Jyoti @ Jannat (supra), the apex Court held that the law deems that a major understands his/her welfare. Hence, a major can go wherever he/she likes and live with anybody. India is a free, democratic and welfare country. If a person is major even parents cannot interfere with that individual. Once a person becomes major that person cannot be restrained from going anywhere and live with anyone. Individual liberty under Article 21 has the highest place in the constitution.

The other judgments which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners may not have relevance to the present case.

28. Taking into consideration the facts and law, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that investigation of the above noted U.D. case should be handed over to the Crime Branch of Odisha Police to cause further investigation in accordance with law in order 36 to unearth the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the petitioners.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

As lock-down period is continuing for COVID- 19, learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft copy of this judgment available in the High Court's official website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI)                            (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)
     JUDGE                                     CHIEF JUSTICE

G.D.Samal, APS/
Alok Sethy, P.A.
A.K. Rana,Sr.Steno.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court