Karnataka High Court
Smt. S K Lakshmi vs State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.16488 OF 2024 (GM - RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. S.K.LAKSHMI
W/O KRISHNA H.H.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT AVALAHALLI
GIRINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 085.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.ABHINAYA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KUSHALANAGAR POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MR.KUBERA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.918, MAGADI ROAD
POLICE COLONY
BENGALURU - 560 023.
2
3. SMT.ASHA
W/O NAGESH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
4. SMT.RESHMA
W/O MOORTHY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
5. MR. NAGESH S.R.,
S/O LATE RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE
RESIDING AT PETE BEEDI
SHIRANGALA VILLAGE
KODAGU - 571 232.
6. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT
KARNATAKA POLICE
(REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 001)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R1 AND R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
DIRECTION TO CID, KARNATAKA STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
BENGALURU (RESPONDENT NO.6) TO REOPEN AND RE
INVESTIGATE IN CR.NO.99/2018 REGISTERED WITH THE
KUSHALANAGAR POLICE STATION, KODAGU DISTRICT FOR THE
MURDER OF THE PETITIONERS MOTHER.
3
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner/complainant is before this Court seeking a
direction at the hands of this Court to reopen and reinvestigate the
crime in Crime No.99 of 2018 for the alleged offence of murder of
the mother of the petitioner.
2. Heard Smt. Abhinaya K., learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 6.
3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:-
3.1. On 14-04-2018 at 12.05 p.m. one Raghu S.K. S/o late
Kalappa registers a complaint which becomes a crime in Crime
No.99 of 2018 for offences punishable under Section 302 read with
4
34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the
Act' for short) against three accused viz., respondents 3 to 5. The
complaint was that, on 12-04-2018, the complainant had been to
his masonry work and thereafter to the Chicken shop belonging to
one Sandeep at Shirangala Gate and returned home at about 9.30
p.m. By then his mother Akkamma had already slept and when he
enquired with her, she told him that neighbours Smt. Asha, Smt.
Reshma and Sri. Nagesh had picked up a fight with her around 9-00
p.m. due to subsisting vengeance. They had assaulted with stones
on her head and body. One Ms. Soundharaya had intervened and
saved her from being assaulted. When the de-facto
complainant/Raghu S.K. asked her to come along with him to the
hospital, his mother is said to have denied at that point in time and
told him that she would go in the next morning. The next morning
when the de-facto complainant requested to go with him to the
hospital, she insisted on going to the hospital in the evening. Then
de-facto complainant goes to the work. At about 2.30 p.m, one
Sathish is said to have informed him that his mother had passed
away. The de-facto complainant is said to have rushed home and
5
found that the mother had succumbed to the injuries sustained in
the fight on previous day. It is then he registers the complaint
against three accused who had picked up quarrel and assaulted his
mother. This becomes a crime in Crime No.99 of 2018.
Respondents 3 to 5 were taken into custody and their voluntary
statements were recorded and stones that they used for
commission of offence were recovered at their instance. The three
were remanded to judicial custody.
3.2. When the investigation was on, on 02-06-2018, one Sri.
Kubera, respondent No.2, brother of accused No.3 appears before
the jurisdictional police and submits a written complaint alleging
that the de-facto complainant/Raghu S.K. and he were childhood
friends and Raghu, S.K. had confessed that he had assaulted his
mother Akkamma with a sickle and committed her murder which
the 2nd respondent had recorded on his mobile phone and sought
action against Raghu S.K. for killing his own mother. Based on the
said requisition, the 1st respondent takes the de-facto complainant
in Crime No.99 of 2018 into custody arraigning him as accused
No.1. Therefore, the earlier de-facto complainant is now transposed
6
as accused No.1. The investigation then continues. The
Investigating Officer on completion of investigation files a final
report before the concerned Court. In the final report, the earlier
de-facto complainant who stood transposed as accused No.1 was
the only accused. The other accused persons 2 to 4 were dropped
from the array of accused and were treated as witnesses. The
concerned Court committed the matter only against the sole
accused, the de-facto complainant, to the Court of Session in
S.C.No.2 of 2019. During subsistence of trial, Raghu S.K. dies on
22-02-2021 and an unnatural death report was registered. Being
suspicious of the mysterious death of Raghu S.K., the sister of the
deceased i.e., Raghu S.K., the present petitioner registers a
complaint, suspecting the hands of the 2nd respondent and three
other accused, who were transposed as witnesses for the death of
Raghu S.K., which happened in mysterious circumstances. The
petitioner, therefore, prayed justice for the death of her mother and
brother.
3.3. Since Raghu S.K., the sole accused in S.C.No.2 of 2019
died, the proceedings stood abated and closed. Therefore, Crime
7
No.99 of 2018 which was pending before the concerned Court in
S.C.No.2 of 2019 gets closed. The petitioner, the sister of the
de-facto complainant/accused and daughter of deceased Akkamma,
is now before this Court seeking reopening of the crime in Crime
No.99 of 2018 and conduct of re-investigation into the matter.
4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Smt.
Abhinaya K. would take this Court through several discrepancies in
the conduct of investigation. The learned counsel would contend
that Raghu S.K. was a de-facto complainant. The remand
applications dated 14-04-2018 and 24-08-2018 were against
respondents 3 to 5 when they were accused. The remand
application concerning Raghu does not absolve the other accused.
Time was extended for filing charge sheet against all the accused.
The charge sheet was finally filed on 19-09-2018 where all the
accused were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 4 including Raghu S.K.
The learned counsel would submit that Raghu S.K. dies in the year
2021 in mysterious circumstances. The complaint is registered by
the petitioner on the suspicion of murder of her brother Raghu who
was accused No.1.
8
4.2. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner moved
from pillar to post for transfer of investigation to another
Investigating Agency by reopening the crime, all of which go
unheeded. The learned counsel submits that if CCTV footages are
noticed, it would be clear that Raghu S.K. did not die of natural
death. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the matter has
to be reinvestigated into. She would seek to place reliance upon
plethora of judgments of the Apex Court on the issue.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
would vehemently contend that investigation has been properly
done. Raghu S.K has died due to heart attack. If he has died of
heart attack, it cannot be said that it is under mysterious
circumstances. Raghu S.K., who had killed his mother was the
prime accused in Crime No.99 of 2018. Therefore, on the mere say
of the petitioner that there are circumstances to doubt the death of
her brother and the mother, investigation cannot be reopened, as it
is stood closed on account of death of S.K.Raghu. He would submit
9
that the petition be dismissed, as there is no warrant to reopen and
conduct further investigation into the matter.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of
events are all a matter of record. The mother of the petitioner
Akkamma and respondents 3 to 5 appear to have had a squabble.
In the squabble, the narration is, the mother of the petitioner gets
injured on her head, but was not taken to the hospital. It is the
averment that she refused to go to the hospital and Raghu S.K.
leaves the mother and goes to his work. The mother succumbed to
injuries that she had sustained two days prior to registration of
crime. Raghu S.K., the son of the deceased registers a complaint on
14-04-2018 of an incident that happened on 12-04-2018 which
becomes a crime for offence punishable under Section 302 read
with 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. This crime was
being investigated into. Three persons, respondents 3 to 5 herein
10
were termed as accused Nos. 1 to 3. They were Smt. Asha, Smt.
Reshma and Sri. Nagesh S.R. who are said to have assaulted the
mother of the petitioner with stones on the head. The Police
conduct investigation. During the investigation, remand
applications are filed by the Police against respondents 3 to 5. The
remand applications assume certain significance, one of which
reads as follows:
ಾ ಆ ೋ ಗಳ
ರಘ ಎ . ೆ. 1. ೕಮ ಆ ಾ ಗಂಡ ಾ ೇ ,
ತಂ!ೆ "ೌ ಾಳಪ%, &ಾ ಯ 32 ವಷ , &ಾ ಯ 37 ವಷ , &ೇ*ೆ
&ೇ*ೆ +ೕ ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮ, 2 ೕಮ ೇಷ-, ಗಂಡ ಮೂ
&ಾ ಯ 35 ವಷ ,
3) ಾ ೇ , ಎ . ಆ.. ತಂ!ೆ
&ೌ ರಂಗ/ಾ01, &ಾ ಯ 42 ವಷ
2ಾಸ ಎ4ಾ5ರೂ &ೇ*ೆ +ೕ
ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮ,
6ಷಯ:- ಈ 8ೕಲ9ಂಡ ಆ ೋ ಗಳ ಾ: ಾಂಗ ಬಂದನವನು? ಾಂಕ 28-04-
2018 Aಂದ ಾಂಕ 11-05-2018 ರವ ೆ ೆ 14 ನಗಳ
ಮುಂದುವAಸುವಂBೆ ಘನ ಾ: ಾಲಯದC5 ೋA
ಉ4ೆ5ೕಖ:- 1)ಕು ಾಲನಗರ ಾ Fಾಂತರ GCೕ HಾIಾ J. ಸಂKೆ: 99/2018
ಕಲಂ:-302 ೆ/6 34 ಐ. .M ಮತುN 3 (2) (5) ಎ .M/ಎ .O ಾPQ
1989
******00******
ಈ 8ೕಲ9ಂಡ 6ಷಯ Rಾಗೂ ಉ4ೆ5ೕಖ ೆ9 ಸಂಬಂSMದಂBೆ ಘನ ನ: ಾಲಯದC5
T2ೇ M ೊಳ UವV!ೇ ೆಂದ ೆ ಈ 8ೕ4ೆ ಉ4ೆ5ೕಖದC5 ಪ ಕರಣದC5 ಾಂಕ 14-04-2018 ರಂದು ಘನ
ಾ: ಾಲಯ ೆ9 ಸC5Mದ AFಾ:ಂX ಅZ ಯನು? ಮುಂದುವAM ೊಂಡು ಈ ಪ ಕರಣ ತTKೆ
11
ಅಂತದC5ದುQ ಪ ಕರಣದ ಾ ಮತುN ಆ ೋ ಗಳ [ಾ ದೃ]ಕರಣ ಪತ ಬರಲು ^ಾ_`ರುತN!ೆ,
Rಾಗೂ ಈ ಪ ಕರಣ ೆ9 ಸಂಬಂSMದ ಇತರ /ಾb!ಾರರನು? 6"ಾರIೆ Fಾ] Rೇc ೆಗಳನು? ಪdೆಯಲು
^ಾ_`ರುತN!ೆ. ಆದQAಂದ ಆ ೋ ಗಳನು? ಘನ ಾ: ಾಲಯವV [ಾ1ೕನು 8ೕ4ೆ +ಟfC5 ಪ ಕರಣದ
ತTKೆಯC5 ಸಂಗ gMರುವ /ಾhಾijಾರಗಳನು? ಾಶಪ]ಸುವ /ಾದ:Bೆ ಇರುತN!ೆ.Rಾಗೂ
ಾ: ಾಲಯದ ಾಯ ಕ4ಾಪಗc ೆ Rಾಜ ಾಗ!ೆ ೈರು Rಾಜ ಾಗುವ ಸಂದಭ ಇರುತN!ೆ.ಆದQAಂದ
ಆ ೋ ಗಳ ಾ: ಾಂಗ ಬಂದನವನು? ಾಂಕ 28-04-2018 Aಂದ ಾಂಕ 11-05-2018 ರವ ೆ ೆ
14 ನಗಳ ಾಲ ಮುಂದುವAಸುವಂBೆ ಘನ ಾ: ಾಲಯದC5 T2ೇ M ೊಳU4ಾo!ೆ."
Accused 3 to 5 were in judicial custody and therefore, their bail
applications come to be rejected. 2 months passed by.
Investigation was in progress. One Kubera S.R, brother of accused
No.3 appears before the jurisdictional police and narrates that
Raghu S.K., brother of the petitioner/de-facto complainant was
himself the assailant with a sickle and had committed the murder of
his mother Akkamma. He is said to have produced a video which
was recorded on his mobile phone. The recording leads the police
filing a remand application against Raghu S.K. arraigning him as
accused along with respondents 3 to 5. The remand application
insofar as Raghu S.K is concerned is as follows:
"6ಷಯ:- ಈ 8ೕ4ಾ9qMದ 1 ೇ ಆ ೋ ಯ ಾ: ಾಂಗ ಬಂದನವನು? ಾಂಕ 27--06-
2018 Aಂದ ಾಂಕ 11-07-2018 ರವ ೆ ೆ ಮುಂದುವAಸುವಂBೆ ಘನ
ಾ: ಾಲಯದC5 ೋA.
ಉ4ೆ5ೕಖ :- ಕು ಾಲನಗರ GCೕ HಾIೆ J. ಸಂKೆ: 99/2018 ಕಲಂ:307, 302, ೆ/6
34,ಐ. .M ಮತುN 3 (2) (5) ಎ .M/ಎ .O ಾPQ 1989
12
<<0>>
ಈ 8ೕಲ9ಂಡ 6ಷಯ Rಾಗೂ ಉ4ೆ5ೕಖ ೆ9 ಸಂಬಂSMದಂBೆ ಘನ ಾ: ಾಲಯದC5
T2ೇ M ೊಳ UವV!ೇ ೆಂದ ೆ ಈ 8ೕ4ೆ ಉ4ೆ5ೕಖದC5 ನಮೂ Mದ ಪ ಕರಣವV ತTKೆ ಅಂತದC5ದುQ
ಪ ಕರಣದC5 ಮೃBೆ ಅಕ9ಮ- Rಾಗೂ ಆ ೋ ಗrಾದ ರಘ , ಆ ಾ,, ೇಷ- ಮತುN ಾ ೇ ಇವರುಗಳ
[ಾ ದೃ]ಖರಣ ಪತ !ೊ ೆಯಲು ^ಾ_`ರುತN!ೆ. Rಾಗೂ ಪ ಕರಣದ ತTKೆಯ 2ೇrೆ
ವಶಪ]M ೊಂಡ J^ೈs GೕtನC5ರುವ 6ೕ]uೕ v ಕರಣದ ಬ ೆw ತxರ ಅy&ಾ ಯ ಪdೆಯಲು
ಪ uೕ ಾಲಯ ೆ9 ಕಳ gMಲು ^ಾ_`ರುತN!ೆ. ಅಲ5!ೇ ಈ ಪ ಕರಣದC5 ದಸNoA ಾದ ಆ ೋ ಯನು?
[ಾ1ೕನು 8ೕ4ೆ +ಟfC5 ಪ ಕರಣದ ಮುಂ ನ 6"ಾರIೆ ೆ ಸಂಬಂSMದಂBೆ ಘನ ಾ: ಾಲಯ ೆ9
Rಾಜ ಾಗ!ೇ ತ4ೆ ಮ ೆM ೊಳ Uವ /ಾದ:Bೆ ಇರುತN!ೆ. Rಾಗೂ ಪ ಕರಣದ /ಾb!ಾರA ೆ ^ೆದA ೆ Rಾ_
/ಾzijಾರಗಳನು? ಾಶಪ]ಸುವ /ಾದ:Bೆ ಇರುತN!ೆ.
ಆದQAಂದ ಈ ಪ ಕರಣದC5 ದಸNoA ಾo RಾC ಾ: ಾಂಗ ಬಂದನದC5ರುವ 1 ೇ
ಆ ೋ ಯ ಾ: ಾಂಗ ಬಂದನವನು? ಾಂಕ 27-06-2018 Aಂದ ಾಂಕ 11-07-2018ರ ವ ೆ ೆ
15 ನಗಳ ಾಲ ಮುಂದುವAಸುವಂBೆ ಘನ ಾ: ಾಲಯದC5 T2ೇ M ೊಳU4ಾo!ೆ."
Here Raghu is arrayed as accused No.1 and Smt. Asha, Smt.
Reshma and Sri. Nagesh S.R. as accused Nos. 2 to 4. The
complainant in the said remand application is Kubera S.R.
Requisition is made before the concerned Court seeking extension
of time to file charge sheet. The charge sheet is finally filed on 19-
09-2018. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column
No.17 reads as follows:
"17. ೇMನ ಸಂbಪN /ಾ ಾಂಶ
ಾಂಕ 12-04-2018ರಂದು ಾ ಸಮಯ 08.30 ಗಂ*ೆ ೆ ಕು ಾಲನಗರ ಾ Fಾಂತರ GCೕ
HಾIಾ ಸರಹದುQ ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮದ &ೇ*ೆ +ೕ ಾ4ೋTಯ 2ಾM ಮೃBೆ ಅಕ9ಮ-ಳ ತನ? ಮ ೆಯ
ಮುಂ!ೆ ಮೂತ Fಾ] ಗCೕಜು Fಾಡು NದುQದನು? ಈ !ೋ|ಾ ೋಪIಾ ಪತ ದ ಾಲಂ 13 ರC5,,
ನಮೂ Mದ 1, 2 ಮತುN 3 ರವರು ೇc ಕC5Tಂದ Rೊdೆದು ೊ4ೆ Fಾ]ರುBಾN ೆಂದು, ಈ
13
!ೋ|ಾ ೋಪIಾ ಪತ ದ ಾಲಂ 12 ರC5, ನಮೂ Mದ ಆ ೋ ಯು ಾಂಕ: 14-04-2018 ರಂದು
ದೂರು Tೕ]ರುBಾN ೆ. ನಂತರ ಈ !ೋ|ಾ ೋಪIಾ ಪತ ದ ಾಲಂ 14 ರC5 ನಮೂ Mದ /ಾb 1
ರವರು Rಾಜ ಾo !ೋ|ಾ ೋಪIಾ ಪOfಯ ಾಲಂ 12 ರC5 ಾqMದ ಆ ೋ ಮೃBೆ ಅಕ9ಮ-c ೆ
Bಾ ೆ ಕುಡು ೋCTಂದ Rೊdೆದು ೊ4ೆ Fಾ]ರುವV!ಾo Tೕ]ದ Rೇc ೆಯನು? J^ೈs ನC5
6ೕ]uೕ Fಾ] ೊಂ]ರುವV!ಾo J^ೈs /ೆಟfನು? Rಾಗೂ ಅದ ೊಂ ೆ Tೕ]ದ ದೂರನು?
M0ೕಕA ೊಂಡು ಾಂಕ: 05-06-2018 ರಂದು ಾಲಂ 12 ರC5 ಆ ೋ ಯನು? J^ೈs ನC5ದQ
6ೕ]uೕ v ೕಕರಣ ಮತುN ಅವರC5ದ ಅ]uೕ ಬ ೆw, 6"ಾರIೆ ೆ ಒಳಪ]Mದಲೂ ಾಂಕ: 12-04-
2018 ರಂದು ಸಮಯ ಾ 9-30 ಗಂ*ೆ ೆ ತನ? ಮ ೆಯ ಒಳಗdೆ ಕುಡು ೋCTಂದ ಮೃBೆ ಅಕ ಮ-ಳ
ತ4ೆ Rಾಗೂ ಹIೆಯ ~ಾಗ ೆ9 Rೊdೆದು ಾಯ Rಾಗೂ ೋವVಪ]Mರುವ ಬUÉÎ ಒ % ೊಂ]ರುವV!ಾo!ೆ.
ನಂತರ ಾಂಕ: 26-07-2018ರಂದು ಈ !ೋ|ಾ ೋಪIಾ ಪOfಯ ಾಲಂ 14ರC5 ನಮೂ Mದ
ಪ Bೇz /ಾb!ಾರ ಾದ 2, 3, 5, 6, 20 ಮತುN 21 ರವರನು? ಆ ೋ ಯ 6ೕ]uೕ ಮತುN ಆ]uೕ
v ೕಕರಣ ೆ9 ಪ•ವ ಕ2ಾo Rೇc ೆಯನು? Tೕ]ದುQ ಅದರಂBೆ /ಾb!ಾರರನು? Tೕಡುವ Rೇc ೆ
ಪdೆಯಲು ಾ: ಾಲಯ ೆ9 Rಾಜರುಪ]ಸ4ಾo ಾ: ಾSೕಶರ ಮುಂ!ೆಯು ಆ ೋ ಯು 6ೕ]uೕ
v ೕಕರಣದ Rೇc ೆ ೆ ಪ•ರಕ2ಾo Rೇc ೆ Tೕ]ರುBಾN ೆ.
ಈ ಪ ಕರಣದC5 ನdೆMದ ತTKೆ`ಂದಲೂ,
ತTKೆ`ಂದಲೂ /ಾb!ಾರರ Rೇc ೆಗcಂದಲೂ ಸಂಗ gMದ
/ಾzijಾರಗcಂದಲೂ : 12-04-2018 ರಂದು ಾ ಸಮಯ 8-30 ಗಂ*ೆ ೆ ಕು ಾಲನಗರ
ಾ Fಾಂತರ GCೕ HಾIಾ ಸರಹದುQ ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮದ &ೇ*ೆ +ೕ ಾ4ೋTಯ 2ಾM ಮೃBೆ
ಆಕ9ಮ-ಳ ಮ ೆಯ ಮುಂ!ೆ ಮೂತ 6ಸಜ ೆ Fಾ] ಗCೕಜು Fಾಡು ದ
N ನ
Q ು? ೋ]ದ ಅಕ9ಮ-ಳ
ಎದುರು ಮ ೆಯವ ಾದ ಈ !ೋ|ಾ ೋಪIಾ ಪOfಯ ಾಲಂ 13 ರC5 ನಮೂ Mದ 1 ಮತುN 2 ರವರು
ಅಕ9ಮ-ಳನು? ೇಳ !
N ಾQಗ ಅC5 ೆ ಬಂದ ಾಲು 13 ರC5 ಾqMದ 3ರವರು
ರವರು ಅಕ9ಮ-c ೆ Tೕನು
ಾವಗಲೂ ಮ ೆಯ ಮುಂ!ೆ ಗCೕಜು Fಾಡು N ಾ ಎಂದು Rೇc!ಾಗ,
Rೇc!ಾಗ ಅಕ9ಮ-ಳ ಅ4ೆPೕ + ದ
Q Q
ಒಂದು ಕಲ5ನು? Bೆ ೆದು ಾಲಂ 13 ರ 3 ರವರ ಹIೆಯ ~ಾಗ ೆ9 ಹ4ೆ5 Fಾ] ರಕN ಾಯ ಪ]M!ಾQoಯೂ,
ಯೂ
ಈ 6"ಾರವನು? !ೋ|ಾ ೋಪIಾ ಪOfಯ ಾಲಂ 13 ರC5 ನಮೂ Mದ 1 ಮತುN 2 ರವರು ಾ
ಸಮಯ 9-30 ಗಂ*ೆ ೆ ಅC5 ೆ ಬಂದ ಈ ಅ&ಾದ ೆ ಪOfಯ ಾಲಂ 12 ರC5 ನಮೂ Mದ ಆ ೋ ೆ
Tನ? Bಾ` ಅಕ9ಮ-ಳ ಾಲಂ 13 ರ 3 ರವA ೆ ಕC5Tಂದ
Tಂದ ಹ4ೆ5 Fಾ] ಹIೆಯ ^ಾಗ ೆ9 ರಕN ಾಯ
ಪ]Mದ 6"ಾರವನು? cM!ಾಗ,
cM!ಾಗ ಾಲಂ,
ಾಲಂ 12 ರC5, ನಮೂ Mದ ಆ ೋ ಯು ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮದ
&ೇ*ೆ +ೕ ಾ4ೋTಯ ಅಕ9ಮ-ಳ ಮ ೆಯ ಒಳ ೆ Bಾ` ಅಕ9ಮ-ಳ [ೊBೆ ಎದುರು
ಮ ೆಯವ ೊಂ ೆ ಾ2ಾಗಲೂ ಜಗಳ Fಾಡು ರ
N ುBಾNr ೆ ಎಂದು Bಾ` ಅಕ9ಮ-rೆ€ ಂ ೆ ಜಗಳ
Bೆ ೆದು ಕ+•ಣದ ಕುಡು ೋCTಂದ ಅಕ9ಮ-ಳ ತ4ೆ ಮತುN ಹIೆ ೆ Rೊdೆದು ಾಯ Rಾಗೂ ೋವVಪ]M
ೊ4ೆ Fಾ]ರುವVದು Rಾಗೂ ಈ ಪ ಕರಣದ ಾಲಂ 12ರC5
ರC5 ನಮೂ Mದ ಆ ೋ ಯು Bಾನು Fಾ]ದ
ಕೃತ:ವನು? ಮ ೆ Fಾಚುವ ಉ!ೆQೕಶ ಂದ :12-04-2018 ರಂದು ಾ ಸಮಯ 8-30 ಗಂ*ೆ ೆ ಈ
14
!ೋ|ಾ ೋಪIಾ ಪOfಯ ಾಲಂ 13 ರC5 ನಮೂ Mದ 1,2 ಮತುN 3 ರವರು /ೇA ಆತನ Bಾ`
ಅಕ9ಮ-c ೆ ಕಲು5ಗcಂದ ತ4ೆ Rಾಗೂ ಹIೆಯ ~ಾಗ ೆ9 Rೊdೆದು ಾಯ Rಾಗೂ ೋವV ಪ]M Bಾ`
ಅಕ9ಮ-ಳನು? ೊ4ೆ Fಾ]ರುBಾN ೆಂದು ತನ? 8ೕCನ ಆ&ಾದ ೆಯನು? ತ %ಸುವ ಉ!ೆQೕಶ ಂದ :14-
04-2018 ರಂದು ಸುಳ U,U ದೂರು Tೕ]ರುವVದು ತTKೆ`ಂದ ಕಂಡು ಬಂ ರುತN!ೆ.ೆ
ಅಲ5!ೆ 2ೈ!ಾ:S ಾAಯವರು ಮೃBೆ ಅಕ9ಮ-ಳ ತ4ೆ ೆ ಆದ ಾಯವV ಕುಡು ೋCTಂದ Rೊdೆದ
ಾಯ2ಾoರುತN!ೆ ಎಂದು Tೕ]ದ ಅy&ಾ ಯದ 8ೕ ೆ ೆ,ೆ ಈ !ೋ|ಾ ೋಪIಾ ಪOfಯ ಾಲಂ 12 ರC5
ನಮೂ Mದ ಆ ೋ ಯು ಕುಡು ೋCTಂದ Rೊdೆದ ಾಯ ಂದ ಅಕ9ಮ- ಮೃತಪOfರುವVದು
ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುವVದAಂದ ಸದA ಆ ೋ ಯ 6ರುದƒ ಕಲಂ 302, 201 ಐ M Aೕ ಸC5Mದ
!ೋ|ಾ ೋಪನ ಪOf."
ಪOf."
While filing the charge sheet, accused 2 to 4, Smt. Asha, Smt.
Reshma and Sri. Nagesh S.R. are dropped from the array of
accused and are transposed as prosecution witnesses Nos. 7, 8 and
9. The concerned Court then commits the matter to the Court of
Session, wherein the sole accused was S.K. Raghu. But, the head of
the charge sheet shows Smt. Asha, Smt. Reshma and Sri. Nagesh
S.R. as accused as also as witnesses, and Kubera as the de-facto
complainant. Raghu S.K. is denied default bail which is affirmed by
the Court of Session. This is challenged by Raghu S.K.before this
Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.1344 of 2018. A coordinate
Bench allows the petition and remands the matter back to the
hands of the concerned Court to reconsider the bail application
under Section 167(2) i.e., for grant of default bail. The bail was
15
then granted. Immediately thereafter, it appears, that S.K.Raghu
dies. On the death of S.K. Raghu, an unnatural death report is
made by the Police in UDR report 6/2021 which reads as follows:
"Kodagu Z4ೆ5ಯ Kushalanagar Rural PS GCೕಸು HಾIೆಯC5 22/02/2021 21:50:00
ನದಂದು M0ೕಕAMದ ಅಪ†ತ ಅಥ2ಾ ಅ/ಾ0~ಾ6ಕ /ಾ6ನ ಬ ೆoನ Jದಲ ಗುಪN2ಾBೆ ಯ
(ದಂಡ _ ಾ ಸಂgBೆಯ 174 ೇ ಕರಣ)
1. ವರ ಯ ೋಂದq / ಯು.].ಆ. ಸಂKೆ: : 0006/2021
2. ಾPQ ಮತುN ಕಲಂಗಳ : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
1973 (U/s-174(3)&(iv))
3. ವರ ಾರ ಅಥ2ಾ ^ಾ ˆ!ಾರರ Rೆಸರು : LAKSHMI S K, SHIRANGALA
ಮತುN 6rಾಸ VILLAGE KUSHALNAGARA Kodagu,
Karnataka
4. ಘಟ ೆ ಸಂಭ6Mದ ಾಂಕ ಮತುN GCೕ From: 19/02/2021 12:00 A.M.
-----HಾIೆ`ಂದ ಇರುವ --:22/02/2021 10:30AM, SHIRANGALA
VILLAGE KUSHALNAGARA,Kodagu,
Karnataka 15 KM TOWARDS
5. Jದಲ ಗೂಡ 2ಾBೆ ಯನು? ಾ2ಾಗ ( ನ : 22/02/2021 9:50PM.
ಮತುN ಸನುಯು ಮತುN Rೇ ೆ ಮತುN ಾವ Written Kushalanagar Rural PS
GCೕ HಾIೆಯC5 M0ೕಕAಸ4ಾಯುN.
6. Fಾ:Z/ೆ‹ೕಟA ೆ Jದಲ Fಾg ಯನು? : 22/02/2021 22:15:00
ಕcMದ ಾಂಶ ಮತುN ಸಮಯ Taluk Magistrate,
Somawarpet, Kodagu Dist.
7. ಾ: ಾಲಯ ೆ9 Bೆ ೆದು ೊಂದು Rೋದ M/ : ಹŒ.M ರವರ Rೆಸರು
: PRAVEEN B V. 56, HC
8. ವರ ಾದ ಆಕM-ಕ ಅಥ2ಾ ಅ/ಾ0~ಾ6ಕ /ಾ6ನ 6ವರ :
16
ಾಂಕ: 22-2-2021 ರಂದು ಸಮಯ ಾ 9:50 ಗಂ*ೆ ೆ ಾ ಯವರು HಾIೆ ೆ Rಾಜ ಾo
Tೕ]ದ CŽತ ತಕ ಾ ಾAನ /ಾ ಾಂಶ 2ೇ ೆಂದ ೆ ಾ ಯವರ ಅtÚ ರಘ ರವರು ಾಂಕ: 19-
2-2021 ರಂದು ಶುಕ 2ಾರ ^ೆಂಗಳ€ATಂದ ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮ ೆ9 ಬಂ ದುQ, ಾಂಕ: 22-2-2021
ರಂದು ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮದC5 ಒಂದು ಮರದ ೆಳ ೆ ( ಸಂBೋ• ^ಾ. ಪಕ9ದC,) ಸ NರುವVದು
ಅನುFಾ ಾಸ%ದ2ಾoರುತN!ೆ. ಈತನ /ಾ6 ೆ ೕಕು^ೇರ ಾ ೇಶ, ೇ|ಾ- ಆ ಾ ೕಥ ಮೂ
ಮಂಜು ಸ6ತರವರು ಾರಣ ಾoರಬಹ!ೆಂದು cಸಲು ಇv'ಸುBೆNೕ ೆ. 2 ವಷ ಗಳ gಂ!ೆ ೕ ಕು^ೇರ
ಎಂಬುವವನು ನನ? ಅಣ'T ೆ ಕು]M ಆ]uೕ ಮತುN 6]uೕ ೆ ಾX Fಾ]ರುBಾN ೆ ಈ ಾರಣ ಂದ
8ೕ4ೆ cMದ ವ:_Nಗಳ 8ೕ4ೆ ಅನುFಾನ 6ರುವVದAಂದ ಅವರನು? -- ತTKೆ ನdೆM ಕ ಮ ೈ ೊಂಡು
ೇಸು !ಾಖCM^ೇ ೆಂದು ೊಟf CŽತ ಪV ಾA ೆ ತ ಾAMದ ಪ ವ ನರ ವರ ."
(sic)
The petitioner then registers a complaint that Raghu S.K., her
younger brother, accused in S.C.No.2 of 2019 has died in
mysterious circumstances and, therefore, investigation must be
conducted. The complaint reads as follows:
"ಇವAಂದ :
ಲb" ಎ . ೆ. ೋಂ ಕೃಷ' ಾಯ",
ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮ ಮತುN ಅಂ"ೆ,
ಕು ಾಲನಗರ Rೋಬc,
/ೋಮ2ಾರ&ೇ*ೆ Bಾಲೂ5ಕು,
ೊಡಗು Z4ೆ5.
RಾC 2ಾಸ6ರುವ 6rಾಸ :
# 22/2, ಈ ಾ , 5 ೇ ಮುಖ: ರ/ೆN,
ಆವಲಹcU, ^ೆಂಗಳ€ರು - 560026.
mob. No. 6361009396 ಲb" S.K
9972229311 KRISHNA.
6ಷಯ : ವಂಗತ ರಘ ಎ . ೆ., ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮ, /ೋಮ2ಾರ&ೇ*ೆ
Bಾಲೂ5ಕು, ಮ] ೇA Z4ೆ5 ಇವರ ತಂo ಾದ ಲb" ಎ . ೆ., ಆದ ಾನು
17
ನನ? ಅಣ'ನ /ಾ6ನ ಬ ೆw ಅನುFಾನ6ದುQ, ಇದರ ಬ ೆw ೕ ಕು^ೇರ,
&ೇ!ೆ, vಕ9&ೇ*ೆ *ಾ " GೕCೕ HಾIೆ, ^ೆಂಗಳ€ರು, ಇವರನು?
ಕೂಲಂಕುಷ2ಾo ತಮ- ಇ4ಾKೆ`ಂದ ಸೂಕN 6"ಾರIೆ ನdೆM, ಾ:ಯ
ೊ]M ೊಡ^ೇ ೆಂದು ೋರುವ ಬ ೆw.
8ೕಲ9ಂಡ 6ಷಯ ೆ9 ಸಂಬಂSMದಂBೆ, ಾಂಕ, 22-02-2021ರಂದು ಇ!ೇ ೊಡಗು Z4ೆ5,
/ೋಮ2ಾರ&ೇ*ೆ Bಾಲೂ5ಕು, ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮದC5 ಮೃತಪಟf ಎ . ೆ. ರಘ +t ಾಳಪ% ಾಯಕ,
ಅವರ ತಂo ಾದ ಲb" ಎ . ೆ. +t ಾಳಪ% ಾಯಕ, ವಯಸು• ಸುFಾರು 35 ವಷ , ಾಯಕ
ಜ ಾಂಗದವrಾದ ಾನು ತಮ-C5 ಅA ೆ Fಾ] ೊಳ UವV!ೇ ೆಂದ ೆ, ನನ? ಅಣ' ರಘ ಎ . ೆ 2
ವಷ ಗcಂದ 8ೕ4ಾ9qMದ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À £ÀªÀÄä ºÁ° «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ ªÁ¸À«gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
ಾಂಕ 19-02-2021ರಂದು ೊಡಗು Z4ೆ5, /ೋಮ2ಾರ&ೇ*ೆ Bಾಲೂ5_ನ ನಮ- ಊ ಾದ
ರಂ ಾಲ ೆ9 Rೋo ಬರುBೆNೕ ೆಂದು ನನ? ಅಣ' ನನ ೆ cM ^ೆc ೆw 9-30ರ ಸಮಯದC5 ಊA ೆ
RೋoರುBಾN ೆ. ನಂತರ ನಮ ೆ ಊATಂದ ನ ೊ98- ಕ ೆFಾ] ನಮ- uೕಗhೇಮ
6"ಾAಸು NದQನು. ಾಂಕ 21-02-2021ರಂದು ನಮ ೆ ಅವTಂದ ಾವV!ೇ ಕ ೆ ~ಾರದ ಾರಣ
ಆತಂಕ ೊಂ]ರುBೆNೕ2ೆ.
ಾಂಕ : 22-02-2021ರಂದು
ರಂದು ^ೆc ೆw 9-30ರ
ರ ಸಮಯದC5 ನನ? !ೊಡ--ಪ%ನ ಮಗ ಮಂಜು,
ಮಂಜು
ನನ? vಕ9ಪ%ನ ಮಗಳ /ೌಂದಯ ಮತುN ಇತ ೆ ಸಂಬಂSಕರು ಕ ೆ Fಾ] Tನ? ಅಣ' ರಘ ರಂ ಾಲದ
ಸಂBೋ• ^ಾ. ಪಕ9ದC5 ಒಂದು ಮರದ ೆಳ ೆ ಶವ2ಾo ಪBೆN ಾoರುBಾN ೆಂದು cMದರು.
cMದರು ಈ
6ಷಯ cದ ತzಣ2ೇ ಊA ೆ Bೆರಳ 2ಾಗ ಆ ೋಗ: ಂದ4ೇ ಇದQ ನನ? ಅಣ' ಏ ಾಏ_ ಮರಣ
Rೊಂ ರುವVದು ೊ4ೆ`ಂ!ಾoPೕ ಎಂದು ಶಂŽM,
ಶಂŽM ಾನು ಮತುN ನನ? ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು
^ೆಂಗಳ€ATಂದ ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮ ೆ9 Rೋಗುವ !ಾAಯC5 ಕೂಡುಮಂಗಳ€ರು ಎಂಬ ಾ ಮದC5
ಮದC5ರುವ
ಕು ಾಲನಗರ ಾ Fಾಂತರ GೕCೕ HಾIೆ ೆ ಸಂ[ೆ ಸುFಾರು 6-30 ಗಂ*ೆ ೆ ~ೇO ೊಟುf, ನನ? ಅಣ'
ಮೃತಪಟf ಬ ೆw ದೂರು ಸC5M ಇದರ M0ೕಕೃ ಪ Tೕಡಲು ೇc!ಾಗ HಾIಾS ಾAಗಳ
T ಾಕAMರುBಾN ೆ.ೆ ಅ!ಾದ ನಂತರ ಾನು ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮದC5 ನನ? ಅಣ' ರಘ 6ನ ಮೃತ!ೇಹ
!ೊ ೆತ ಸ™ಳ ೆ9 Rೋo
Rೋo ೋ]!ಾಗ !ೇಹದ ~ಾಗಗಳC5 ರಕN ಸುA ರುವVದು,
ರುವVದು ^ಾಯC5, ಹIೆಯC5 ಮತುN
ಬಲ~ಾಗದ ಕಂಕುಳC5 ರಕN /ೋAರುವVದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂ ರುತN!ೆ.ೆ ಆದQAಂದ ನನ? ಅಣ'ನ /ಾವV
ೊ4ೆ`ಂದ ಸಂಭ6MರುತN!ೆ ಎಂದು 8ೕ4ೊ?ೕಟ ೆ9 ಕಂಡುಬರುತN!ೆ.ೆ
ಈ ೆw 2 ವಷ ಗಳ gಂ!ೆ ಇ!ೇ ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮದ ಕು^ೇರ, GCೕ &ೇ!ೆ, vಕ9&ೇ*ೆ
*ಾ " GೕCೕ HಾIೆ, ^ೆಂಗಳ€ರು, ಇವರ ರಂ ಾಲದ ಮ ೆಯC5 8ೕ ೆ ಕಳ 2ಾoದುQ, ನನ?
ತಂ!ೆ ಾದ ಾಳಪ% ಕಳ ವV Fಾ]ರುBಾN ೆಂದು ಕು^ೇರನ ಮ ೆಯವAಗೂ ನಮ- Bಾ`ಯ ನಡು2ೆ
ಆ ಾ ೆw ಜಗಳ ನdೆಯು NರುತN!ೆ. ಈ !ೆ0ೕಷ ೆ9 ಾಂಕ 14-04-2018ರಂದು ಕು^ೇರನ ಅಣ' ಾ ೇಶ,
18
ಕು^ೇರನ ಅ N ೆ ೇಷ- ಮತುN ಕು^ೇರನ ಾ T ಆಶ ಇವರುಗಳ ನಮ- Bಾ`ಯ ತ4ೆಯ ಮುಂ~ಾಗ
ಮತುN ತ4ೆಯ gಂ~ಾಗ ಕC5Tಂದ ಜZš ೊಂ ದುQ, ಸದA ಪ ಕರಣದC5 ನನ? ತಂo /ೌಂದಯ ಮುಖ:
/ಾb ಾoದುQ, ಈ ಬ ೆw ಮ] ೇA ಾ: ಾಲಯದC5 JಕದQ8 ಸಂKೆ: : 99/2019ರC5 ಪ ಕರಣವV
!ಾಖ4ಾoದುQ, 8ೕ4ಾ9qMದ ಆ ಾ, ೇಷ- ಮತುN ಾ ೇಶ ಇವರುಗಳ ಅಪ ಾSಗrಾoದುQ,
ಬಂಧನ ೊ9ಳ ಾo ಾ ಾಗೃಹದC5ರುBಾN ೆ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ಕು^ೇರ,ಎಂಬುವವನು
ಕು^ೇರ ಎಂಬುವವನು ಬಂಧನ ೊ9ಳ ಾoರುವ ತನ?
ಅಣ' ಾ ೇಶ,
ೇಶ ತನ? ಅ N ೆ ೇಷ-,
ೇಷ- ತನ? ಾ T ಆಶ,
ಆಶ ಇವರುಗಳನು? ಬಂಧಮುಕN ೊcಸುವ
ದುರು!ೆQೕಶ ಂದ ಇ!ೇ ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮದ Kಾಸo ಾo "ಾಲಕ
"ಾಲಕ ವೃ N Tವ gಸು ದ
N Q Rೇಮಂತ
ಎಂಬುವವನ ಸRಾಯ ಂದ ನನ? ಅಣ'ನನು? ^ೆಂಗಳ€Aನ ಾವV!ೋ ಒಂದು ಅœಾತ ಸ™ಳ ೆ9 ಕ ೆM,
ೆM
ನನ? ಅಣ'Tಂದ ನನ? Bಾ`ಯನು? ನನ? ಅಣ' ೇ ಕುಡು ೋCTಂದ ೊv• ೊಂ ರುವV!ಾo Rೇc ೆ
Tೕಡ ದQ ೆ Tನ? ತಂo ಲb" ಮತುN Tನ? ತಂoಯ ಗಂಡ ^ಾವ ಕೃಷ' ಮತುN ತಂoಯ ಮಗ Bೇಜು
ಎ . ೆ.,
ೆ ಇವರನು? ೊಲು5ವV!ಾo ^ೆದAM ನನ? ಅಣ' ೇ ನನ? Bಾ`ಯನು? ೊ4ೆ Fಾ]ರುವV!ಾo
Rೇc ೆ ಪdೆದು 6ೕ]u ಮತುN ಆ]u ೆ ಾX Fಾ] ಸದA ಆ]u,
ಆ]u 6ೕ]uೕ /ಾbಯ ಾ?oM
ಕು ಾಲನಗರ GೕCೕ HಾIೆ ೆ ನನ? Bಾ`ಯನು? ನನ? ಅಣ' ೇ ೊಂ ರುವV!ಾo ದೂರು Tೕ],
Tೕ] ನನ?
ಅಣ'Tಂದ ಬಲವಂತ2ಾo Rೇc ೆ ಪdೆದು,
ಪdೆದು ಾ ದುವನು? ಆ ೋ Fಾ],
Fಾ] ಆ ೋ ತರನು?
ಾ ದು!ಾರ ಾ?o Fಾ],
Fಾ] ಅಂದ ೆ ^ೆಂಗಳ€Aನ vಕ9&ೇ*ೆ *ಾ " GೕCೕ HಾIಾ
&ೇ!ೆ ಾoದQ ಕು^ೇರ ೇ ಾ ದು ಆಗುBಾN ೆ.ೆ ನಂತರ ತನ? ಅಣ' ಾ ೇಶ,
ೇಶ ತನ? ಅ N ೆ ೇಷ-,
ೇಷ- ತನ?
ಾ T ಆ ಾರವರನು ಬಂಧಮುಕN ೊcM ನನ? ಅಣ' ಾದ ರಘ ವನು? ಆ ೋ ಯ ಾ?o Fಾ]
ಬಂಧನ ೊ9ಳ ಾಗುವಂBೆ Fಾ]ರುBಾN ೆ.ೆ ನಂತರ ನನ? ಅಣ'ನನು? ಾವV [ಾ1ೕನು ಆjಾರದ 8ೕ4ೆ
+ಡುಗdೆ ೊcMರುBೆNೕ2ೆ.
2ೆ
ನಂತರ ಾವV ನನ? ಅಣ'Tಂದ ಬಲವಂತ2ಾo ತನ? Bಾ`ಯನು? Bಾ ೇ ೊಂ !ಾQo Rೇc ೆ
ಪdೆ ರುವV!ಾo ಮತುN ಈ ಬ ೆw 6"ಾರIೆ ನdೆM ಾ:ಯ ಒದoಸ^ೇ ಾo ಾವV ಕು ಾಲನಗರ
GCೕ HಾIೆಯC5 ದೂರು !ಾಖCMರುBೆNೕ2ೆ.
2ೆ ಪ ಸುNತ ಪ ಕರಣ ಮ] ೇA
ೇA /ೆಷt•
ಾ: ಾಲಯದC5ದುQ, 6"ಾರIಾ ಹಂತದC5ರುತN!ೆ.ೆ
ಾಂಕ: 21-02-2021 ರಂದು Rಾಸನ Z4ೆ5, ಸಕ4ೇಶಪVರ GCೕ HಾIಾ 2ಾ: NಯC5
ನನ? Bಾ`ಯನು? ನನ? ಅಣ' ೇ /ಾ`M!ಾQo Rೇc ೆ ಪdೆಯಲು 6]uೕ v ೕಕರಣ Fಾಡಲು
8ೕ4ಾ9qMದ. ಕು^ೇರT ೆ ಸಹಕAMದ ಸುFಾರು 45 ವಷ ವಯM•ನ Rೇಮಂತ ಆತ-ಹBೆ:
Fಾ] ೊಂಡ M™ ಯC5 ಶವ ಪBೆN ಾoದುQ, ಮೃತನ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು ಶವ ಸಂ/ಾ9ರ ೆರ2ೇAMರುBಾN ೆ.
ಈ ಶವ ಸಂ/ಾ9ರ ೆ9 ^ೆಂಗಳ€ATಂದ ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮ ೆ9 ^ೆಂಗಳ€ರು vಕ9&ೇ*ೆ *ಾ " &ೇ!ೆ ಾದ
ಕು^ೇರನು ಬಂ ರುBಾN ೆ.
19
ಈ ಘಟ ೆ ನdೆದ Fಾರ ೇ ನ2ಾದ ಾಂಕ: ರಂದು ನನ? ಅಣ' ರಘ 6ನ
ಾಂಕ 22-02-2021ರಂದು
ಶವ ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮದ ಸಂBೋ• ^ಾ. ಪಕ9ದC5 ಪBೆN ಾoದುQ, ಇದು ೊ4ೆ ಎಂಬ ಬಲ2ಾದ ಶಂ ೆ
ನಮ ೆ ವ:ಕN2ಾಗು ರ
N ುತN!ೆ.ೆ ಆದQAಂದ ಾವV ೊ4ೆ ಶಂ ೆ`ಂದ ಾವV ತಹMೕ4ಾQರರ ಸಮು-ಖದ4ೆ5ೕ
ಶವ ಪಂಚ ಾ8 ಆಗ^ೇ ೆಂದು ಇBಾN`Mದರೂ ಸಹ GCೕಸರು ನಮ-ನು? ಗದAM Bಾ2ೇ ಸ ಾ A
ಆಸ%Bೆ ೆ ಕಳ gMರುBಾN ೆ.ೆ TಯFಾನು/ಾರ ಸಂಬಂSMದ Bಾಲೂ5ಕು ತಹMೕ4ಾQ.ರವAಂದ
ಪಂಚ ಾ8ಯನು? Fಾ]ಸ!ೆ,
Fಾ]ಸ!ೆ GCೕಸ ೇ ಪಂಚ ಾ8ಯನು? Fಾ] ನನ? ಅಣ'ನ ಮೃತ !ೇಹವನು?
ಮ] ೇAಯ
ೇAಯ ಆಸ%Bೆ ೆ ಶವ ಪAೕhೆ ೆ ಕಳ gMರುBಾN ೆ.ೆ ಆ!ಾದ ನಂತರ ನಮ-ನು? HಾIೆ ೆ ೆರM ೊಂಡು
Jದ4ೇ ೊಟf ದೂರನು? T ಾಕAM ^ೇ ೆಯವರ ಒತNಡ ೆ9 ಮqದು ^ೇ ೆ Aೕ ಯC5 ಅಂದ ೆ ಅಸಹಜ
/ಾ2ೆಂದು +ಂ+ಸುವ ದೂರನು? ನ1-ಂದ ಪdೆದು ೊಂಡು ನಮ ೆ ಒಂದು M0ೕಕೃ ಪ Tೕ]ರುBಾN ೆ.ೆ
ನಂತರ ಾಂಕ:
ಾಂಕ 23-02-2021 ರಂದು ಾವV ದೂರನು? Tೕ] ಒಂದು 2ಾರ ಕrೆದರೂ ಕೂಡ
GCೕಸರು ಇC5ಯವ ೆಗೂ,
ೆಗೂ ಮರIಾಂತರ ವರ ಯನು? ೊOfರುವV ಲ5 Rಾಗೂ ಾವV!ೇ ತTKೆಯನು?
Fಾಡ!ೆ /ಾbಗಳನು? ಸಂಗ ಹ Fಾಡ!ೆ ಇರುವVದನು? ಗಮTMದ ೆ ನನ? ಅಣ'ನನು? ಪ ~ಾ6 ವ:_Nಗಳ
ೊ4ೆ Fಾ]ದುQ, ಅಥ2ಾ Fಾ]MದುQ, ಪ ~ಾವ
~ಾವ +ೕA ಮುv•Rಾಕಲು ಪ ಯ ?ಸು NರುವVದು 8ೕ4ೊ?ೕಟ ೆ9
ಕಂಡುಬರುತN!ೆ.ೆ
ನನ? Bಾ` ಾದ ಅಕ9ಮ-ನವರ /ಾ6ನ ಮರIಾನಂತರ ಪAೕhಾ ವರ ಯC5 ನನ?
Bಾ`ಯ /ಾವV ಕC5Tಂದ ತ4ೆಯ ಮುಂ~ಾಗ ೆ9 ಮತುN ತ4ೆಯ gಂ~ಾಗ ೆ9 ಜZš, Rೊdೆದು ೊ4ೆ
Fಾ]ರುವV!ಾo ಉ4ೆ5ೕŽಸ4ಾoರುತN!ೆ.ೆ ಇ!ಾದ 2 ಂಗಳ ಕrೆದ ನಂತರ ನನ? Bಾ`ಯನು?
ಕುಡು ೋCTಂದ Rೊdೆದು ೊ4ೆ Fಾಡ4ಾoರುತN!ೆ ಎಂದು 2 ೇ ಮರIಾನಂತರ ಪAೕhಾ
ವರ ಯನು? ಾ: ಾಲಯ ೆ9 ಸC5MರುBಾN ೆ.ೆ ಇ2ೆಲ5ದರ gಂ!ೆ ಈ *ಾ " GCೕ ಕು^ೇರನ
ತೂA`ರುವ ಶಂ ೆ ವ:ಕN2ಾಗುತN!ೆ.ೆ
ನಮ- Bಾ`ಯ /ಾ6ನ ಬ ೆw ಹಲ2ಾರು ^ಾA ಮನ6 Fಾ] ೊಂಡರೂ ಸಹ ಈ ೊ4ೆಯನು?
8ೕಲ9ಂಡ ವ:_Nಗಳ Fಾ]ರುವV ಲ5. ನನ? ಅಣ' ರಘ 2ೇ Fಾ]ರುBಾN ೆ ಎಂಬು!ಾo ಾಂಕ 07-12-
2018ರಂದು GೕCೕಸರು gಂಬರಹ Tೕ]ರುBಾN ೆ. 8ೕ4ಾ9qMದ ಆಶ, ೇಷ-, ಮತುN ಾ ೇಶ
ಇವರುಗಳ ಮುಂ!ೆ ಪ ಕರಣವV ಸೂಕN ತTKೆ ನdೆದC5 ಅಪ ಾSಗrಾಗುBಾN ೆ ಎಂದು cದು, ಊA ೆ
BೆರcದQ ನನ? ಅಣ'ನನು? 8ೕ4ಾ9qMದ ಕು^ೇರ, ಆಶ, ಾ ೇಶ, ೇಷ- ಮತುN ಇವರ ಕುಟುಂಬ ೆ9
/ೇAರುವ ೕಥ , ಮೂ , ಮಂಜು, ಸ6ತ, ಇವರುಗಳ ೊ4ೆ Fಾ] ಇಲ52ೆ Fಾ]M, ಶವವನು? ^ಾ.
ಮುಂ!ೆ Rಾ_ರುವ ಬ ೆw ಅನುFಾನ6ದುQ, ಕು^ೇರನು GೕCೕ ಇ4ಾKೆಯನು? ದುಬ ಳ ೆ Fಾ] ೊಂಡು
ೇಸನು? ಮುv• Rಾಕಲು ಪ ಯ ?MರುವVದು 8ೕ4ೊ?ೕಟ ೆ9 ಕಂಡುಬರುತN!ೆ. ಾವV ಪA ಷf ಪಂಗಡ ೆ9
/ೇAದವ ಾoದQAಂದ 8ೕCನ ಪ ಕರಣವV !ೌಜ ನ: ಪ ಕರಣ2ೆಂದು ೊ NದQರೂ ಸಹ !ೌಜ ನ: ಾPQ
1989ರ]ಯC5 ಪ ಕರಣ !ಾಖCಸ!ೆ GೕCೕಸರು ಪ ಕರಣದC5 8ೕಲ9ಂಡವA ೆ ಪ ೋz2ಾo
ಅನುಕೂಲ ಕC%ಸುವ ಉ!ೆQೕಶ ಂದ ಸಹಕAಸು NರುವVದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತN!ೆ. ಆದQAಂದ ಸದA ಪ ಕರಣವನು?
20
ಪA ಷf [ಾ ಮತುN ಪA ಷf ಪಂಗಡಗಳ !ೌಜ ನ: ಾPQಯ] ಪ ಕರಣ !ಾಖCM ಉನ?ತ
ಅS ಾAಗcಂದ 6"ಾರIೆ ನdೆM ಈ ಾ ದುವನು? ೋಂದq Fಾ] ಸೂಕN ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ
ಜರುoM ನಮ ೆ ಾ:ಯ !ೊರ_M ೊಡ^ೇ ೆಂದು ತಮ-C5 ೋA ೊಳ UBೆNೕ ೆ.
ವಂದ ೆಗrೆ€ ಂ ೆ,
ಲb"S.K.
ಸg/-
ಇಂ ತಮ- 6 ಾ0M"
Since UDR was already registered, no investigation was taken up.
The petitioner then moves on from pillar to post seeking re-opening
of the crime in Crime No.99 of 2018 and conduct of further
investigation. The petitioner submits a requisition to the DGP and
IGP on 14-09-2021 which reads as follows:
"ಇವA ೆ,
Fಾನ: dೈ ೆಕf. ಜನರs ಆŸ GೕCೕ ರವರು,
ಾಗAೕಕ ಹಕು9 [ಾA Tjೇ ಶ ಾಲಯ,
^ೆಂಗಳ€ರು.
ಇಂದ:
ೕಮ ಲb"ೕ ಎ . ೆ. ೋಂ ಕೃಷ' ಾಯಕ, RಾC 2ಾಸ6ರುವ 6rಾಸ:-
PÀȵÀÚ PÉÃgÁ¥sï ²æÃ.gÀAUÀ¥Àà,
Kಾಯಂ 6rಾಸ: £ÀA.60, 2£Éà ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ,
ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮ ಮತುN ಅಂ"ೆ, 1 ೇ ಅಡ-- ರ/ೆN, ಆವಲಹcU,
ಕು ಾs ನಗರ Rೋಬc, 8ೖಸೂರು ರ/ೆN, ^ೆಂಗಳ€ರು-560026.
/ೋಮ2ಾರ&ೇ*ೆ Bಾಲೂ5ಕು, ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA.6361009396 (®QëöäÃ)
ೊಡಗು Z4ೆ5. ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA.9972229311(PÀȵÀÚ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ)
ಾ ದು:
21
ನನ? ಅಣ' ಾದ ರಘ ಎ . ೆ. ರವರನು? ತೂA ನdೆM ಸಂಚುರೂ M ಕು^ೇರಪ% ಎ .ಆ..
ಾ ೇಶ, ೇ|ಾ- ಮತುN ಆ ಾರವರುಗಳ /ೇA ೊಂಡು ಹತ: Fಾ]MದುQ, ಈ ಪ ಕರಣವನು? ರುv
ಮುv• Rಾ_ರುವVದAಂದ ಾ ದುವನು? !ಾಖCM ಇವರುಗಳ 8ೕ4ೆ ಎŸ.ಐ.ಆ.. !ಾಖCM
ಾನೂTನ Aೕತ: hೆ ೆ ಒಳಪ]M ನಮ ೆ ಾ:ಯ ೊ]M ೊಡ^ೇ ೆಂದು ತಮ-C5 ^ೇ] ೊಳ UBೆNೕ ೆ.
ಈ 8ೕಲ9ಂಡ ಾ ಯC5 cMರುವ ಾ ೇ , ೇ|ಾ-,
ೇ|ಾ- ಆ ಾ ಈ ಮೂವರುಗಳ 8ೕ4ೆ
ನನ? ಅಣ' ಾದ ರಘ .ಎ
ಎ . ೆ.ೆ ಇವರು ನನ? Bಾ`ಯನು? ಕC5Tಂದ Rೊdೆದು ಜZš /ಾ`M ಈ ಬ ೆw,
ನನ? ಅಣ' ಾದ ಎ . ೆ.ೆ ರಘ ಇವರು ಒಂದು ಾ ಯನು? Tೕ]ದುQ, ಈ 8ೕ4ೆ cMದ ಾ ೇಶ
ಮತುN ೇ|ಾ- ಮತುN ಆ ಾರವರ 6ರುದƒ ಮ] ೇA /ೆಷt• ಾ: ಾಲಯ ಎ .M
M. ಸಂKೆ::
ಸಂKೆ: 02/2019
ಪ ಕರಣವV ಈ ಘನ ಾ: ಾಲಯದC5 ನdೆಯು ದುQ, ಈ 8ೕ4ೆ cMದ 3 ಜನ ಆ ೋ ಗಳ
ಾ ಾಗೃಹದC5ದುQ, ಈ ಮೂವರುಗc ೆ ಘನ ಾ: ಾಲಯವV [ಾ1ೕನನು? ರಸ9AMರುತN!ೆ.ೆ
ಆ ೋ ಗಳ ಸ0ತಃ ತಮ- ಾದ ಕು^ೇರಪ% ಎಂಬುವವನು GೕC ಇ4ಾKೆಯC5 (vಕ9&ೇ*ೆ
vಕ9&ೇ*ೆ *ಾ "
GೕC HಾIೆಯC5 RೆX ಾt/ೆfೕಬs
ಾt/ೆfೕಬs RೆŒ.M
RೆŒ M.ನಂ
ನಂ.9245)
ನಂ ಾಯ Tವ gಸು ದ
N ುQ, ಈ ಪ ಕರಣ ೆ9
ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟfಂBೆ ಕು^ೇರನ ಅಣ' ಾ ೇಶ ಮತುN ಕು^ೇರನ ಅ N ೆಯವ ಾದ ೇ|ಾ- ಮತುN ಆ ಾ
ರವರನು? [ಾ1ೕTನ ಮೂಲಕ Rೊರ ತರುವ ಸಲು2ಾo Rಾಗೂ ಈ ಪ ಕರಣ ಂದ ಈ ಮೂವರನು?
ಖು4ಾ/ೆ ೊcಸಲು ಸಂಚು ರೂ M ಈ ಪ ಕರಣದC5 ಾದು!ಾರ ಾoದQ ನನ? ಅಣ' ಾದ ರಘ ಎ . ೆ.ೆ
ಇವರನು? ಪVಸ4ಾ`M ಸುಳ U Rೇc ೆಯನು? ೊ]M Rಾಗೂ ಇ!ೇ ಾ ಮದ ^ೆಂಗಳ€Aನ Kಾಸo
ಕಂಪTಯC5 "ಾಲಕ ಾo ೆಲಸ Tವ gಸು ದ
N Q Rೇಮಂತ (ಕು^ೇರಪ%
ಕು^ೇರಪ% ಮತುN ನನ? ಅಣ'ನ ಆಪN
/ೆ?ೕgತ)ನ
/ೆ?ೕgತ ನ ಮುKಾಂತರ ^ೆಂಗಳ€Aನ ಾವV!ೋ ಒಂದು
ಒಂದು ಅœಾತ ಸ™ಳ ೆ9 ಕ ೆM ೊಂಡು Rೋo
ಮಧ:&ಾನ Fಾ]M ನನ? ಅಣ'T ೆ cಯದಂBೆ ನನ? ಅಣ'ನ J^ೈs ಕMದು ೊಂಡು ನನ? ಅಣ'ನ
J^ೈs Tಂದ ಕು^ೇರನ J^ೈs ೆ ಕು^ೇರಪ% ೆ ಡಯs Fಾ] ೊಂಡು ಪVನಹ:
ಪVನಹ ನನ? ಅಣ'T ೆ
J^ೈs ೊಟುf (ಅಂದ
ಅಂದ ೆ ನನ? ಅಣ' ೇ Gೕt Fಾ] ಕು^ೇರಪ%ನನು? ಮಧ:&ಾನ Fಾಡುವ
Fಾಡುವ
[ಾಗ ೆ9/ಸ™
ೆ9 ಸ™ಳ ೆ9 ನನ? ಅಣ' ೇ ಕ ೆM ೊಂಡ Rಾ ೆ)
ೆ ಬಲವಂತ ಂದ ತನ? Bಾ`ಯನು? ಾ ೇ
ಕುಡು ೋCTಂದ Rೊdೆದು /ಾ`M!ೆ ಎಂದು Rೇc ೆಯನು? RೇcM ಆ Rೇc ೆಯನು? 6]uೕ ಮತುN
ಆ]ೕuೕ Fಾ]M ಕು^ೇರಪ% ೇ ಈ ಪ ಕರಣವನು? ರುಚುವ ಸಲು2ಾo ಕು^ೇರಪ% ೇ
ತTKಾS ಾAಯಂBೆ ವ M ಆ ೋ ಗಳನು?
ಗಳನು? /ಾbಗಳ ಾ?o ಪAವ M ಕು^ೇರಪ% ೇ ಸ0ತಹ:
ಸ0ತಹ
ಾ !ಾರ ಾo ಈ ಪ ಕರಣವನು? ಸಂಪ•ಣ 2ಾo ರುvರುBಾN ೆ.ೆ
ನಂತರ ನನ? ಅಣ'ನನು? ^ೆಂಗಳ€ATಂದ ಕು ಾಲನಗರ ಆರzಕ HಾIೆ ೆ ದಸNoA Fಾ]M
ಕು ಾಲನಗರ ಂದ ಾವV 2ಾಸ6ರುವ ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮದ ಬ /ಾfiಂ]Tಂದ ಾವV 2ಾಸ6ರುವ
ಮ ೆಯ ಮುಖ: ರ/ೆNಯ ಮುKಾಂತರ ಸುFಾರು 20 Aಂದ 30 ಜನ GೕCೕ Mಬ•ಂ uಂ ೆ, ನನ?
ಅಣ'ನ ೈ, ಾಲುಗc ೆ ಕ+•ಣದ ಬrೆ Rಾ_ ೊಂಡು ನಮ- ಮ ೆಯ ಮುಖ: ^ಾoCನ ಮುKಾಂತರ ನನ?
ಅಣ'ನನು? ಅಡು ೆ ಮ ೆ ೆ ಕಳ gM, ಅಡು ೆ ಮ ೆಯ _ಟ_ಯ ಮುKಾಂತರ ಕು ಾಲನಗರ GೕCೕಸರು
22
ಕುಡು ೋಲು ಎ/ೆದು ನನ? ಅಣ'ನನು? Bೆ ೆದು ೊಳ UವಂBೆ Fಾ] ತನ? GೕCೕ ಪವ. BೋAM
ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮದ ಾಯಕ ಜ ಾಂಗ ೆ9 ಭಯ ಹುOfM, ಪ ಕರಣ ೆ9 ಸಂಬಂSMದಂBೆ ಾರೂ /ಾb
RೇಳದಂBೆ ಭಯ ಹುOfMರುBಾN ೆ.
ಮುಂದುವAದು ನನ? Bಾ`ಯ ಪ ಕರಣದC5 ಾ ದು!ಾರ ಾದ ನನ? ಅಣ' ಾದ
ಎ . ೆ.ರಘ
ೆ ರಘ ರವರ ೆ?ೕ ಆ ೋ ಯ ಾ?oM ತನ? ಇ4ಾKೆಯ ಅS ಾAಗಳ ಸRಾಯ ಂದ ಸುಳ U "ಾ¡
ೕಟನು? ಘನ ಾ: ಾಲಯ ೆ9 ಸಲ5ಸುವಂBೆ Fಾ] GೕC ಇ4ಾKೆಯನು?
ದುರುಪuೕಗಪ] ೊಂ]ರುBಾN ೆ.ೆ ಈ 8ೕCನ ಎ4ಾ5 ಪ ಕರಣಗಳ ಸಲು2ಾo ತದನಂತರ
ಎ . ೆ.ರಘ
ೆ ರಘ ರವರನು? ಮತುN ನನ? Bಾ`ಯ ಪ ಕರಣದC5 6]uೕ ಮತುN ಆ]uೕ Fಾಡಲು
ಸಹಕAMದ ಇ!ೇ ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮದ Rೇಮಂತನನು? ಮುoM+ಟf ೆ (ಹBೆ:
ಹBೆ: Fಾ]Mದ ೆ)
ೆ ಈ ಪ ಕರಣವV
ಘನ ಾ: ಾಲಯದC5 ಾವV!ೇ Bೊಂದ ೆ`ಲ5!ೆ ಮು ಾNಯ2ಾಗುತN!ೆ ಎನು?ವ ಅಂಶವನು? ಅAತು
ಕು^ೇರಪ% (*ಾ
*ಾ " RೆX ಾt•*ೇಬs
ಾt•*ೇಬs)
*ೇಬs ನನ? ಅಣ' ಾದ ಎ . ೆ.ೆ ರಘ Rಾಗೂ Rೇಮಂತ ಎಂಬುವರನು?
ೇವಲ ಒಂ!ೇ ನದ ಅಂತರದC5 (ಅಂದ
ಅಂದ ೆ ಾಂಕ 21/02/2021 ರಂದು Rೇಮಂತನನು? ಹBೆ:
Fಾ]M ಈತನ ಶವ ಸಂ/ಾ9ರ ೆ9 ಬಂ ದQ *ಾ " GೕC ಕು^ೇರಪ% ಾಂಕ 22/02/2021 ರಂದು
ನನ? ಅಣ' ಾದ ಎ . ೆ.ೆ ರಘ 6 ೆ ^ೇ ೆಯವರ ಮKಾಂತರ ಮದ:&ಾನ Fಾ]M ೊ4ೆ
Fಾ]MರುBಾN ೆ).
ೆ
ಆ!ಾಗೂ: ನನ? ಅಣ' ಾದ ಎ . ೆ.ರಘ
ೆ ರಘ ವರ ಹBೆ:ಯು ಸಹ ಸಂಚು ರೂ M ಸA ಾದ ತTKೆ
ನdೆಯದಂBೆ ಾವV!ೇ /ಾhಾijಾರಗಳ MಗದಂBೆ Rಾಗೂ ಮೃತನು ಬಳಸು ದ
N Q J^ೈs ಮತುN
M¢ ಾಡ ನು? ಸಹ ದಸNoA Fಾಡ!ೆ,
Fಾಡ!ೆ ದೂರನು? !ಾಖCಸ!ೆ ಮೃತ !ೇಹದ 8ೕ4ೆ ಹಲವV
ಾಯಗrಾoದುQ ಹIೆ,
ಹIೆ ^ಾ`,
^ಾ` ಮತುN !ೇಹದ ಬಲ~ಾಗದ ಕಂಕುc ೆ "ಾಕು6Tಂದ gAದು ರಕN
ಸುAಯು ದ
N ರ
Q ೂ ಸಹ ಇ!ಾ:ವVದನು? ಪAಗqಸ!ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟf ತಹ ೕ4ಾQರರ ೈರು RಾಜAಯC5
ಯು]ಆ. ಕಂ&ೆ5ೕಂ£ ಎಂದು ಪ ಕರಣ !ಾಖCM.
!ಾಖCM ಪ ಕರಣವನು? ಮುv• Rಾ_ರುBಾN ೆ.ೆ
ನನ? ಅಣ'ನ ಶವ ಪಂಚ ಾ8ಯ ನಂತರ ನನ? ಅಣ'ನ ಮೃತ !ೇಹವನು? ದಫt Fಾ]ದ ೆ
ಮಂ!ೆ ಶವವನು? RೊರBೆ ೆದ ೆ Bೊಂದ ೆ ಾಗಬಹು!ೆಂದು ದಫt FಾಡದಂBೆಯೂ, Rಾಗೂ
ಮೃತ!ೇಹವನು? ಸುಡುವಂBೆಯೂ ಾ ಮದ ಜನA ೆ &ೆ ೕ ೇ M ಗ4ಾ*ೆ ಾಗುವಂBೆ Fಾ]ರುBಾN ೆ.
ಸದA 8ೕಲ9ಂಡ ಆ ೋ ತರು ಾಂಕ 14/04/2018 ರಂದು ನನ? Bಾ` 4ೇ£
ಅಕ9ಮ-ನವರನು? ಸಹ ಈ ಾಲು9 ಜನ /ೇA ೊಂಡು ನನ? Bಾ` ಮತುN ನನ? ಅಣ'ನ 8ೕ4ೆ ಹರ ೆಯ
ಕುA 6"ಾರದC5 ನನ? Bಾ` ಮತುN ನನ? ಅಣ'T ೆ TೕವV ಾಯಕ [ಾ ಯ/_ೕಳ [ಾ ಯವರು Tಮ ೆ
Rೋ*ೆsನC5 ಆ"ೆ ಕdೆ ತ*ೆf 4ೋಟ ಇಟುf ಊಟ ಇಡುBಾN ೆಂದು [ಾ Tಂದ ೆ Fಾಡು ದQರು. ನನ?
23
Bಾ` ಮತುN ನನ? ಅಣ' ಮ ೆ`ಂದ Rೊರ ೆ ಬಂ!ಾಗ4ೆ4ಾ5 8ೕಲ9ಂಡ ಅ2ಾಚ: ಶಬQಗcಂದ ^ೈದು
[ಾ Tಂದ ೆ Fಾಡು ದQರು.
ಈ 8ೕCನ ಪ ಕರಣ ೆ9 ಸಂಬಂSMದಂBೆ
ಸಂಬಂSMದಂBೆ ನಮ ೆ ಆದ ಅ ಾ:ಯದ ಬ ೆw ಾಂಕ
ರಂದು ಮ] ೇA Z4ಾ5 GೕC
08/03/2021ರಂದು ವA|ಾ¥S ಾA,
ಾA ಮ] ೇA Z4ಾ5S ಾA ಮತುN Z4ಾ5ದ
ದಂdಾS ಾA,
ಾA ಮ] ೇA ಸFಾಜ ಕ4ಾ:ಣ ಉಪ T!ೇ ಶಕರವರ ಕ¦ೇA Rಾಗೂ ಪ ಾ ಪ ಕಟIೆ
Tೕ]ದುQ, ತದನಂತರ ].Z
Z. . & ಐ.Z
Z. . ^ೆಂಗಳ€ರು,
^ೆಂಗಳ€ರು ಐ.Z
Z. . 8ೖಸೂರು
8ೖಸೂರು,
ಸೂರು ಕ1ೕಷನ. ಆŸ
GೕC , ^ೆಂಗಳ€ರು ಇವರುಗc ೆ ದೂರನು? ಸC5MದQರೂ ಸಹ ಈವ ೆ ೆ ಾವV!ೇ Aೕ ಯ ಪ _ P
ಬರ!ೆ,
ಬರ!ೆ ಏನೂ ಪ _ P ಬಂ ರುವV ಲ5. ಈ 8ೕCನ ಾರಣಗcಂದ Rಾಗೂ ೋ6X-19
ೋ6X ಇದುQದA
Q ಂದ
ತಡ2ಾo ತಮ- ಕ¦ೇA ೆ ದೂರನು? ಸC5ಸಲು 6ಳಂಬ2ಾoರುತN!ೆ.ೆ
ಾವVಗಳ ( ೊ4ೆ ಾದ ªÀå_Nಗಳ ನನ? Bಾ` ಮತುN ನನ? ಅಣ' ರಘ ಎ . ೆ.)
ಾಯಕ(ಎ .O.) ಜ ಾಂಗ ೆ9 /ೇAರುBೆNೕ2ೆ. ೊ4ೆ Fಾ]Mದವರು ಸವq ಯ ಾದ !ೇ2ಾಂಗ ೆOf
ಜ ಾಂಗ ೆ9 /ೇAದವ ಾoದQAಂದ ನನ? ಅಣ' ಾದ ಎ . ೆ. ರಘ ರವರ ಪ ಕರಣವನು? ಐ. .M. /ೆzt
302, R/W 34 ಮತುN Sec 3(2)(V), SC, ST Act 1989 gÀ Cr ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹zÀ 4 d£À
ಆ ೋ ಗrಾದ [1] ಕು^ೇರಪ% [2] ಾ ೇಶ [3] ೇ|ಾ- [4] ಆ ಾ ರವರುಗಳ 6ರುದƒ ೇಸು !ಾಖCM
ಸೂಕN ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ ೈ ೊಂಡು ಈ ಾ ಯನು? AZಸf. Fಾ] ನನ ೆ ಮತುN ನನ? ಕುಟುಂಬ ೆ9
ಏ ಾದರೂ ಅಡಚIೆ/Bೊಂದ ೆ ಾದ ೆ *ಾ " ಾt•*ೇಬs ಕು^ೇರಪ% ಮತುN ಈತನ ಕುಟುಂಬದವ ೆ
ಾರಣ ಾಗುBಾN ೆ ಎಂದು cಸುBಾN ನನ ೆ ಮತುN ನನ? ಕುಟುಂಬ ೆ9 ರzIೆ Tೕಡ^ೇ ೆಂದು ತಮ-C5
ಮನ6 Fಾ] ೊಳ UBೆNೕ ೆ."
The Member of Legislative Assembly of Kushalnagar constituency
also communicates to the Chief Secretary seeking transfer of
investigation to the hands of Crime Investigation Department. The
communication reads as follows:
"ಎಂ. . ಕುFಾರ/ಾ01 ಎಂ.ಎ.
ಾಸಕರು, ಮೂ] ೆ ೆ 6jಾನಸ~ಾ hೇತ
vಕ9ಮಗಳ€ರು Z4ೆ5 Rಾಗೂ
ಅಧ:zರು, ಅನುಸೂvತ [ಾ ಮತುN
ಅನುಸೂvತ ಪಂಗಡ ಕ4ಾ:ಣ ಸ1 ,
24
6jಾನ /ೌಧ, ^ೆಂಗಳ€ರು.
PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:JA.¦.PÉ/314/2021-22 ಾಂಕ: 18/02/202
ರವA ೆ
Fಾನ: ೕಮ FಾCT ಕೃಷ'ಮೂ ,ಐ ಎ
ಸ ಾ ರದ ಮುಖ: ಾಯ ದ ( Mಎಎ )
M¼ÁqÀ½ತ ಇ4ಾKೆ, 6jಾನ /ೌಧ, ^ೆಂಗಳ€ರು
«µÀAiÀÄ: ಕು ಾಲ ನಗರ ರೂರs GCೕ /ೆfೕಷt ( ೆ.ಆ.. .ಎ ) 2ಾ: NಯC5 ರಘ ಎ . ೆ.
ಎಂಬುವರ JಕದQ8 ಸಂKೆ: 0110/2021ರ ಅ]ಯC5 ಕಲಂ 301, 201 ೇ/ 6 34, ಐ M ಮತುN
ಎ M /ಎ .O !ೌಜ ನ: ತdೆ ಾPQ ಪ ಕರಣವನು? Mಒ] ತTKೆ ೆ ವgಸಲು §ಾರಸು Fಾಡುವ ಬ ೆw
ಈ 8ೕಲ9ಂಡ 6ಷಯ ೆ9 ಸಂಬಂSMದಂBೆ ಅZ !ಾರರ ಪ ಾದ ೕ.ಕೃಷ' ಾಯಕರವರು
^ೆಂಗಳ€Aನ Kಾಸo ಾ4ೆ ಮತುN ಾ4ೇಜುಗಳC5 ಗqತವನು? ^ೋSಸುತN ನನ ೆ
vರಪAvತ ಾoರುBಾN ೆ. ೊ4ೆ ಾದ ವ:_Nಗrಾದ ರಘ ಎ . ೆ ಮತುN ಇವನ Bಾ` ಅಕ9ಮ- (ಕೃಷ'
ಾಯಕರವರ ^ಾ8ೖದುನ Rಾಗೂ ಅಕ9ನ ಮಗ ಮತುN ಅಕ9) ಇವರುಗಳ ಾಂಕ 22.02.2021 ಮತುN
14.04.2018ರಂದು ೊ4ೆ ಾoರುBಾN ೆ.
ಾಂಕ 22.02.2021ರಂದು
ರಂದು ರಘ ಎ . ೆ ಾಯಕ(ಎ
ಾಯಕ ಎ .O
O) ಜ ಾಂಗ ೆ9 /ೇAದುQ, ೊ4ೆ ಾo!ಾQ ೆ.ೆ
ಈ ೊ4ೆಯನು? ಸವqೕ ಯ ಜ ಾಂಗ ೆ9 /ೇAದ ರಘ 6ನ ಎದುರು ಮ ೆಯ !ೇ2ಾಂಗ ೆOf
ಜ ಾಂಗದವ ಾದ ಕು^ೇರ A-1, ೇ|ಾ- A-2, ಆ ಾ A-3 ಮತುN ಾ ೇಶ A-4 ಇವರುಗಳ 8ೕ4ೆ
ೆ.ಆ.
ೆ ಆ.. ಎ
ಆ. .ಎ ನC5 ಎŸ ಐ ಆ. !ಾಖ4ಾo!ೆ
!ಾಖ4ಾo!ೆ.
!ೆ
8ೕ4ೆ cMದ JಕದQ8 ಸಂKೆ: 0110/2021 ರC5 A-1 ಆoರುವ ಕು^ೇರ ^ೆಂಗಳ€Aನ vಕ9&ೇ*ೆ
*ಾ " GCೕ /ೆfೕಷt ನC5 RೆX ಾt /ೆ%ೕಬs (ಎŒ
ಎŒ.M
ಎŒ M. 9245) ಆo ಾಯ
Tವ gಸು ರ
N ುವVದAಂದ ಇ4ಾKೆಯ 8ೕಲS ಾAಗಳ ಮತುN ಇ4ಾKೆಯ ತTKಾS ಾAಗಳ ಪ ~ಾವದ
ಒತNಡ ಂದ ಇವರುಗಳ 8ೕ4ೆ
8ೕ4ೆ ಸA ಾದ Aೕ ಈ ಪ ಕರಣದC5 ತTKೆ ನdೆಯ!ೆ ಈ ಪ ಕರಣ ೆ9
ಸಂಬಂSMದಂBೆ 2 ^ಾA ಮರIೋತNರ Rಾಗೂ ಮರು ಮರIೋತNರ ಪAೕhೆ ಆoದQರೂ ಸಹ
ಆ ೋ ಗಳ ತ %M ೊಳUಲು ಎ4ಾ5 Aೕ ಯ ಸಂಚನು? ರೂ MರುವVದAಂದ Rಾ ೆPೕ ಾಂಕ
ರಂದು ಇ!ೇ ಮೃತ ರಘ ಎ . ೆ ರವರ Bಾ` ಾದ ಅಕ9ಮ-ನನು? ಸಹ 8ೕ4ೆ
14.04.2018ರಂದು cMದ
ರಘ 6ನ ಎದುರು ಮ ೆಯ ಆ ೋ ಗrೇ ೊ4ೆ Fಾ] ಇವರುಗಳ 8ೕ4ೆ !ೌಜ ನ: ತdೆ ಾPQ ಅ]
ಪ ಕರಣ !ಾಖ4ಾoದQರೂ,
ೂ ನನ ೆ ಸC5Mರುವ ಅZ ಯC5 ಸA ಾದ Aೕ ಯC5 ತTKೆ ಆoರುವV ಲ5
ಎಂದು cMರುBಾN ೆ.ೆ gೕ ೆ ಒಂ!ೇ ಮ ೆಯ ದCತ ಾಯಕ ಕುಟುಂಬ ೆ9 /ೇAದ ಮಗ ಮತುN Bಾ`ಯ
25
2 ೊ4ೆಗಳ
ೊ4ೆಗಳ ಸBಾ:ಸತ:Bೆಯನು? cಯಲು ಮತುN ಈ ಕುಟುಂಬ ೆ9 ಾ:ಯ ಒದoಸ^ೇ ಾoರುವVದAಂದ
ಈ ತTKೆಯನು? Mಒ] ಸಂ/ೆ™ ೆ ವ ಾ `ಸುವVದು ಸೂಕN2ೆಂದು ಸಂಬಂಧ ಪಟfವರು cMರುವVದAಂದ
ಈ ಪ ಕರಣವನು? Mಒ] ತTKೆ ೆ ವgಸಲು ಈ ಪತ ದ ಮೂಲಕ §ಾರಸು Fಾಡ ಬಯಸುBೆNೕ ೆ."
ೆ
The petitioner then repeatedly requests the DGP & IGP to transfer
the investigation to the hands of the CID. Contemporaneously, the
petitioner also sought CCTV footage under the Right to Information
Act. The DGP & IGP communicates to the Commissioner of Police,
Mysore Range which observes defective investigation. The
communication reads as follows:
"ಸಂKೆ:: ಾ&ಸು (3)/215/2021-22 dೈ ೆಕf. ಜನರs ಮತುN ಇt•&ೆಕf.
ಅಡಕ : 1Aಂದ 110 ಪVಟಗಳ ಜನರs ಆŸ GCೕ ರವರ ಕ¦ೇA,
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಾಜ:, ^ೆಂಗಳ€ರು.
ಾಂಕ: 06.04.2022.
ಇವA ೆ:
GCೕ ಮRಾTAೕzಕರು,
ದbಣ ವಲಯ, 8ೖಸೂರು.
Fಾನ: ೆ,
6ಷಯ: ೊಡಗು Z4ೆ5, ಕು ಾಲನಗರ ಾ Fಾಂತರ GCೕ HಾIೆ ಅಪ ಾಧ
ಸಂKೆ:: 110/2021ರ ತTKೆಯನು? ಪA ೕCಸುವ ಕುAತು.
ಉ4ೆ5ೕಖ: ಸ ಾ ರದ ಅSೕನ ಾಯ ದ ಸFಾಜ ಕ4ಾ:ಣ ಇ4ಾKೆ ರವರ ಪತ
ಸಂKೆ:: ಸಕಇ 31 ಎ ಎ 2021, ಾಂಕ:21.02 .2022
*****
8ೕಲ9ಂಡ 6ಷಯ ೆ9 ಸಂಬಂSMದಂBೆ, ೊಡಗು Z4ೆ5 ರಂ ಾಲ ಾ ಮದ T2ಾM ಾದ
ಅಕ9ಮ- ರವರ ಮರಣದ ಕುAತು ಕು ಾಲನಗರ ಾ Fಾಂತರ GCೕ HಾIೆಯC5 !ಾಖ4ಾoರುವ
ಅಪ ಾಧ ಸಂKೆ:: 99/2018, ಕಲಂ 302 ೆ/6 34 ಐ M ಮತುN ಕಲಂ 3(2)(V) ಎ M ಎ O ಾPQ
26
1989 ಯ ಪ ಮುಖ /ಾb ಾದ ಎ . ೆ.ರಘ ರವರನು? ತೂA ನdೆM ಾಂಕ: 22.02.2021 ರಂದು
ಕು^ೇರ, ಆ ಾ, ೇ ಾ• ಮತುN ಾ ೇ ರವರು ೊ4ೆ Fಾ]ರುವV!ಾo ೊಡಗು Z4ೆ5, ಕು ಾಲನಗರ
ಾ Fಾಂತರ GCೕ HಾIೆ ಅಪ ಾಧಸಂKೆ:: 110/2021 ರ ಕಲಂ 302, 201, ೆ/6 34 ಐ M
ಕಲಂ, 3(1)( ಎ ), 3(1)( ), 3(1)(ಕೂ:), 3(1)(ಆ.), 3(2)(1), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(2) (vi)
ಮತುN 3(2)(vii) ಎ . M/ಎ .O !ೌಜ ನ: ತdೆ ಾPQ ಅ] !ಾಖ4ಾoರುತN!ೆ. ಸದA ಪ ಕರಣದC5
ಅ&ಾSತನು GCೕ ಅoರುವVದAಂದ ಅ&ಾSತನನು? ರbಸಲು ಸ™cೕಯ GCೕಸರು ಸೂಕN2ಾo ತTKೆ
ನdೆಸ!ೆ ಇರುವVದನು? ಮೃತ ಎ . ೆ.ರಘ ರವರ ಸRೋದA ೕಮ .ಎ . ೆ.ಲb"ೕ ರವರ ತಮ-
ಅZ ಯC5 cMರುBಾN ೆ.
ಈ ಕುAತು ಪA ೕCM ತTKಾS ಾA Rಾಗೂ GCೕ ಅSೕzಕರು, ೊಡಗು Z4ೆ5 ರವA ೆ
ಸೂಕN T!ೇ ಶನಗಳನು? Tೕ] &ಾಲ ಾ ವರ ಯನು? ಸC5ಸಲು ೋA ಉ4ೆ5ೕŽತ ಪತ Rಾಗೂ
ಅಡಕಗಳನು? ಲಗ NM ಕಳ gM!ೆ.
"ಎ]Z , ಾ ಮತುN ಸು ರವAಂದ
ಅನುJೕ ಸಲ%Of!ೆ".
ತಮ- 6 ಾ0M,
ಸg/- 6-4-22
(ಪದ-T /ಾಹು, ಐ ಎ )
dೈ ೆಕf. ಜನರs ಮತುN ಇt•&ೆಕf.
ಜನರs ಆŸ GCೕ ರವರ ಪರ2ಾo."
The plea of the petitioner for furnishing CCTV footage is accepted
by the following communication:
"ಸಂ: 114/C¦Ã®Ä/RTI/ಎ ( ಆ. ಓ)/2022/RPAD GCೕ ಅSೕzಕರು ಮತುN
ಅಡಕಗಳ : ( IPO only /ಾವ ಜTಕ ಸಂಪ ಾ S ಾA ಕ¦ೇA,
ಗಣಕಯಂತ ಸ೦: 23873 ನಂ.2, ನೃಪತುಂಗ ರ/ೆN, ^ೆಂಗಳ€ರು.
ಾಂಕ: -05-2022.
ೆ.
ಪ ಥಮ 8ೕಲ-ನ6 &ಾ S ಾAಗಳ ಮತುN
GCೕ ಅSೕzಕರು,
GCೕ ಅSೕzಕರ ಕ¦ೇA,
27
ೊಡಗು Z4ೆ5.
Fಾನ: ೇ,
6ಷಯ: 8ೕಲ-ನ6 ಸC5Mರುವ ಕುAತು.
ಉ4ೆ5ೕಖ: 1. ಅZ !ಾರರ ಅZ ಾಂಕ:12-02-2022.
2. ಈ ಕ¦ೇAಯ ಪತ ಸಮಸಂKೆ:ಯ :21-02-2022.
3. ಅZ !ಾರರ 8ೕಲ-ನ6ಯ : -04-2022.
4. ಈ ಕ¦ೇAಯC5 M0ೕಕAMದ :27-04-2022
*****
8ೕಲ9ಂಡ 6ಷಯ ೆ9 ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟfಂBೆ ೕಮ ಲb"ೕ.ಎ . ೆ ರವರು ಉ4ೆ5ೕŽತ (1)ರ
ಪತ ದC5 Fಾg ಹಕು9 ಾPQ ಅನ0ಯ Fಾg / !ಾಖ4ೆಗಳನು? ೋA ಐ ಓ ಸಂKೆ: (55ಎŸ-
342090) ರ ಮುKಾಂತರ ಈ ಕ¦ೇA ೆ ಸC5Mರುವ ಅZ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ MದಂBೆ ಕು ಾಲನಗರ
G.HಾIೆಯವರೂ Tೕ]ರುವ gಂಬರಹದಂBೆ ಕ ಮ ೈ ೊಳUಲು ಸೂvಸ4ಾoತುN.
ಆದ ೆ ಅZ !ಾರರು ಸದA Fಾg ೋA ೆ ಅZ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ MದಂBೆ 8ೕಲ-ನ6 ಮತುN
ಮನ6ಯನು? ಈ ಕ¦ೇA ೆ ಸC5MರುBಾN ೆ Rಾಗೂ ೊಡಗು Z4ೆ5ಯ GCೕ ವA|ಾ¥S ಾAಯವA ೆ
ಮುಂ ನ ಸೂಕN ಕ ಮ ಾ9o ಕಳ gM ೊಡ^ೇ ೆಂದು ೋAರುBಾN ೆ. ಆದುದAಂದ ಅZ !ಾರರ
8ೕಲ-ನ6 ಮತುN ಮನ6ಯನು? ಸೂಕN ಕ ಮ ಾ9o ತಮ ೆ ಕಳ gಸು NದುQ, ತಮ- ಾKೆಯ/ಕ¦ೇAಯ
8ೕಲ-ನ6 &ಾ S ಾAಗಳ ಬc Tಯ1ತ ಾ4ಾವSಯ ಒಳ ಾo ಅZ !ಾರರನು? ಖು!ಾQo 6"ಾರIೆ ೆ
DºÁ餹, EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¹, «¼ÀA§PÉÌ D¸ÀàzÀ Tೕಡ!ೇ ಅZ !ಾರA ೆ ಸಂಪ•ಣ 2ಾದ
Fಾg /!ಾಖ4ಾ ಗಳನು? ಉvತ2ಾo ಒದoM ಈ ಕ¦ೇA ೆ &ಾಲ ಾ ವರ ಯನು? ತಪ%!ೆ ಕಳ gಸಲು
ಸಂಬಂಧ ಪಟfವA ೆ ಸೂಕN T!ೇ ಶನ Tೕಡ^ೇ ಾo Fಾನ:ರC5 ೋರುBೆNೕ ೆ.
(ಸದA 8ೕಲ-ನ6 ೆ Fಾg /!ಾಖ4ಾ ಗಳನು? ಒದoಸಲು ತಡ2ಾದC5 ಕ ಾ ಟಕ Fಾg
ಆuೕಗವV 6Sಸಬಹು!ಾದ ದಂಡಗc ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟfಂತಹ /ಾವ ಜTಕ Fಾg ಅSೕ ಾAPೕ ೇರ
RೊIೆ ಾರ ಾಗುBಾN ೆ)
ತಮ- 6 ಾ0M,
ಸg/-
(+.ಎt.ನರMಂಹಮೂ )
/ಾವ ಜTಕ Fಾg ಅS ಾA (ಪ ~ಾರ),
ಪ jಾನ ಕ¦ೇA, ^ೆಂಗಳ€ರು.
(ಕ.ದೂ-22943287)"
28
The petitioner then approaches the National Commission for
Scheduled Tribes. The Commission issues a notice on the complaint
of the petitioner. The notice reads as follows:
"File No.- NCST/ATY-390/KA/2/2022-APCR Date: 04.05.2022
NOTICE
To.
1.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
Karnataka Police
Police Hqrs, Nrupathunga Road
Nunegundlapalli, Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore -560001 (Karnataka)
Email: [email protected]
2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PLOICE
District - Bangalore Rural
5, Millers Rd, Vasanth Nagar,
Bangalore -560052 (Karnataka)
Email: [email protected]
Sub: Representation of Smt. Lakshmi S.K, W/o Shri
Krishna Naik, Bengaluru regarding murder of ST
person Shri Raghu S.K. Naik and not taking action
against the accused by the concerned Police
officials.
Whereas a petition/complaint dated 11.04.2022
has been received by this Commission from Smt. Lakshmi
S.K. W/o Shri Krishna Naik, Bengaluru as enclosed and
the Commission has decided to investigate/inquire into
the matter in pursuance of the power conferred upon it
under Article 338A of the Constitution of India. You are
hereby requested to submit the facts and information on
the action taken on the allegations/matters to the
undersigned within 30 days of receipt of this notice either
by post or in person or by any other means of
communication.
29
Please take notice that in case the Commission does
not receive reply from you within the stipulated time the
Commission may exercise the powers of Civil Court
conferred on it under of Article 338A of the Constitution
of India and issue summons for your appearance in
person or by a representative before the Commission.
Sd/-
(Y.K. Bansal)
Research Officer
Email ID : [email protected]"
(Emphasis added in each instance)
The petitioner makes every effort to get justice for the death of her
mother and the brother. After all hopes are lost, she is now before
this Court seeking the aforesaid prayer.
8. The issue now would be, under what circumstances this
Court can direct reopening and reinvestigation into a crime that
stood closed. I deem it appropriate to notice the judicial landscape.
8.1. The Apex Court in ANANT THANUR KARMUSE v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA1, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
31. By the impugned judgment and order [Anant
ThanurKarmuse v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom
1
(2023) 5 SCC 802
30
9405] , the High Court has refused the prayer made on behalf of
the appellant to transfer the investigation to CBI and also
refused the prayer for further investigation/reinvestigation of
FIR No. 120 of 2020 on merits as well as mainly on the ground
that once the charge-sheet is filed after investigation and the
charges are framed, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order
further investigation/reinvestigation/de novo investigation.
32. Therefore, the short question, which is posed for the
consideration of this Court is:
"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the High Court is justified in denying the relief of
transfer of the investigation to CBI and refusing to order
further investigation/reinvestigation/de novo
investigation?"
33. While considering the aforesaid issue and
appreciating the above submissions made on behalf of the
respective parties, few decisions of this Court on the power of
the courts to transfer the investigation to another agency like
CBI and the powers of the constitutional courts to order further
investigation/reinvestigation/de novo investigation are required
to be referred to.
34. In Himanshu Kumar [Himanshu Kumar v. State
of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 12 SCC 592 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC
884] , this Court had occasion to consider the power of
the Court to transfer investigation to any
other independent agency. After taking into consideration
the catena of judgments on the point, it is reiterated that
investigation may be transferred to CBI only in "rare and
exceptional cases". In SCC paras 44 to 55, it is observed and
held as under:
"44. It is now settled law that if a citizen,
who is a de facto complainant in a criminal case
alleging commission of cognizable offence
affecting violation of his legal or fundamental
rights against high Government officials or
influential persons, prays before a Court for a
direction of investigation of the said alleged
offence by CBI, such prayer should not be granted
on mere asking.
31
45. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in State of
W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights [State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 : (2010) 2 SCC
(Cri) 401] , has made the following observations
pointing out the situations where the prayer for
investigation by CBI should be allowed : (SCC p. 602,
para 70)
"70. ... Insofar as the question of
issuing a direction to CBI to conduct
investigation in a case is concerned, although
no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to
decide whether or not such powers should be
exercised, but time and again it has been
reiterated that such an order is not to be
passed as a matter of routine or merely
because a party has levelled some allegations
against the local police. This extraordinary
power must be exercised sparingly,
cautiously and in exceptional situations
where it becomes necessary to provide
credibility and instil confidence in
investigations or where the incident may
have national and international ramifications
or where such an order may be necessary for
doing complete justice and enforcing the
fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be
flooded with a large number of cases and
with limited resources, may find it difficult to
properly investigate even serious cases and
in the process lose its credibility and purpose
with unsatisfactory investigations.'
46. In the above decision, it was also pointed out
that the same Court in Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg.
Services v. Sahngoo Ram Arya [Minor Irrigation & Rural
Engg. Services v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521
: 2002 SCC (L&S) 775] , had said that an order directing
an enquiry by CBI should be passed only when the High
Court, after considering the material on record, comes
to the conclusion that such material does disclose a
prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or
any other similar agency.
47. In an appropriate case when the Court
feels that the investigation by the police
authorities is not in ... a proper direction, and in
32
order to do complete justice in the case and if high
police officials are involved in the alleged crime,
the Court may be justified in such circumstances
to hand over the investigation to an independent
agency like CBI. By now it is well settled that even
after the filing of the charge-sheet the Court is
empowered in an appropriate case to hand over
the investigation to an independent agency like
CBI.
48. The extraordinary power of the
constitutional courts under Articles 32 and 226
respectively of the Constitution of India qua the
issuance of directions to CBI to conduct
investigation must be exercised with great caution
as underlined by this Court in Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights [State of
W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri)
401] as adverted to hereinabove, observing that
although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down
in this regard, yet it was highlighted that such an
order cannot be passed as a matter of routine or
merely because the parties have levelled some
allegations against the local police and can be
invoked in exceptional situations where it
becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil
confidence in the investigation or where the
incident may have national or international
ramifications or where such an order may be
necessary for doing complete justice and for
enforcing the fundamental rights.
49. We are conscious of the fact that though a
satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and
effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability
is the precondition for a direction for further
investigation or reinvestigation, submission of the
charge-sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can,
by no means, be a prohibitive impediment. The
contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have
to be singularly evaluated and analysed to decide the
needfulness of further investigation or reinvestigation to
unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties.
The prime concern and the endeavour of the court of law
should be to secure justice on the basis of true facts
33
which ought to be unearthed through a committed,
resolved and a competent investigating agency.
50. The above principle has been reiterated
in K.V. Rajendran v. Supt. of Police [K.V.
Rajendran v. Supt. of Police, (2013) 12 SCC 480 :
(2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 578] . Dr B.S. Chauhan, J. speaking
for a three-Judge Bench of this Court held : (SCC p.
485, para 13)
'13. ... This Court has time and again dealt
with the issue under what circumstances the
investigation can be transferred from the State
investigating agency to any other independent
investigating agency like CBI. It has been held that
the power of transferring such investigation
must be in rare and exceptional cases where
the court finds it necessary in order to do
justice between the parties and to instil
confidence in the public mind, or where
investigation by the State Police lacks
credibility and it is necessary for having "a
fair, honest and complete investigation", and
particularly, when it is imperative to retain
public confidence in the impartial working of
the State agencies."
51. Elaborating on this principle, this Court
further observed : (K.V. Rajendran case [K.V.
Rajendran v. Supt. of Police, (2013) 12 SCC 480 :
(2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 578] , SCC p. 487, para 17)
'17. ... the Court could exercise its
constitutional powers for transferring an
investigation from the State investigating
agency to any other independent
investigating agency like CBI only in rare and
exceptional cases. Such as where high
officials of State authorities are involved, or
the accusation itself is against the top
officials of the investigating agency thereby
allowing them to influence the investigation,
and further that it is so necessary to do
justice and to instil confidence in the
investigation or where the investigation is
prima facie found to be tainted/biased.'
52. The Court reiterated that an
investigation may be transferred to CBI only in
34
"rare and exceptional cases". One factor that
courts may consider is that such transfer is
"imperative" to retain "public confidence in the
impartial working of the State agencies." This
observation must be read with the observations
made by the Constitution Bench in Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights [State of
W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri)
401] , that mere allegations against the police do
not constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the
investigation.
53. In Romila Thapar v. Union of India [Romila
Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753 : (2019) 1
SCC (Cri) 638] , one of us, A.M. Khanwilkar, J., speaking
for a three-Judge Bench of this Court (Dr D.Y.
Chandrachud, J. dissenting) noted the dictum in a line of
precedents laying down the principle that the accused
"does not have a say in the matter of appointment of
investigating agency". In reiterating this principle, this
Court relied upon its earlier decisions in Narmada
Bai v. State of Gujarat [Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat,
(2011) 5 SCC 79 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 526] , Sanjiv
Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India [Sanjiv Rajendra
Bhatt v. Union of India, (2016) 1 SCC 1 : (2016) 1 SCC
(Cri) 193 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] , E.
Sivakumar v. Union of India [E. Sivakumar v. Union of
India, (2018) 7 SCC 365 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 49] ,
and Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala [Divine
Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542 :
(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 9] . This Court observed : (Romila
Thapar case [Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10
SCC 753 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 638] , SCC p. 776, para
30)
'30. ... the consistent view of this Court is
that the accused cannot ask for changing the
investigating agency or to do investigation in a
particular manner including for court-monitored
investigation.'
54. It has been held by this Court
in CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi [CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi, (1996)
11 SCC 253 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 88 : 1997 Cri LJ 63] , that
no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a
particular agency. We fully agree with the view in the
35
aforesaid decision. An aggrieved person can only claim
that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but
he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any
particular agency of his choice.
55. The principle of law that emerges from the
precedents of this Court is that the power to transfer an
investigation must be used "sparingly" and only "in
exceptional circumstances". In assessing the plea urged
by the petitioner that the investigation must be
transferred to CBI, we are guided by the parameters laid
down by this Court for the exercise of that extraordinary
power."
... ... ...
39. While observing and holding so in Dharam
Pal [Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 160 :
(2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 259] , in paras 24 and 25, it is observed and
held as under : (SCC pp. 170-71)
"24. Be it noted here that the constitutional
courts can direct for further investigation or
investigation by some other investigating agency. The
purpose is, there has to be a fair investigation and a fair
trial. The fair trial may be quite difficult unless there is a
fair investigation. We are absolutely conscious that
direction for further investigation by another agency has
to be very sparingly issued but the facts depicted in this
case compel us to exercise the said power. We are
disposed to think that purpose of justice commands that
the cause of the victim, the husband of the deceased,
deserves to be answered so that miscarriage of justice is
avoided. Therefore, in this case the stage of the case
cannot be the governing factor.
25. We may further elucidate. The power to
order fresh, de novo or reinvestigation being
vested with the constitutional courts, the
commencement of a trial and examination of some
witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment for
exercising the said constitutional power which is
meant to ensure a fair and just investigation. It
can never be forgotten that as the great ocean has
only one taste, the taste of salt, so does justice
have one flavour, the flavour of answering to the
distress of the people without any discrimination.
We may hasten to add that the democratic set-up
36
has the potentiality of ruination if a citizen feels,
the truth uttered by a poor man is seldom listened
to. Not for nothing it has been said that sun rises
and sun sets, light and darkness, winter and
spring come and go, even the course of time is
playful but truth remains and sparkles when
justice is done. It is the bounden duty of a court of
law to uphold the truth and truth means absence
of deceit, absence of fraud and in a criminal
investigation a real and fair investigation, not an
investigation that reveals itself as a sham one. It
is not acceptable. It has to be kept uppermost in
mind that impartial and truthful investigation is
imperative. If there is indentation or concavity in
the investigation, can the "faith" in investigation
be regarded as the gospel truth? Will it have the
sanctity or the purity of a genuine investigation? If
a grave suspicion arises with regard to the
investigation, should a constitutional court close
its hands and accept the proposition that as the
trial has commenced, the matter is beyond it? That
is the "tour de force" of the prosecution and if we
allow ourselves to say so it has become "idée fixe"
but in our view the imperium of the constitutional
courts cannot be stifled or smothered by bon mot
or polemic. Of course, the suspicion must have
some sort of base and foundation and not a
figment of one's wild imagination. One may think
an impartial investigation would be a nostrum but
not doing so would be like playing possum. As has
been stated earlier, facts are self-evident and the
grieved protagonist, a person belonging to the
lower strata. He should not harbour the feeling
that he is an "orphan under law"."
... ... ...
47. It can be seen from the aforesaid that there was no
proper investigation by the State investigating agency at the
relevant time and even the material evidences were also not
collected. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that during the
pendency of the writ petition before the High Court and
pursuant to the various orders passed by the High Court, the
State investigating agency were compelled to investigate in the
matter and belatedly Accused 13 was charge-sheeted in the
month of March 2022. Even according to the State investigating
37
agency, still the further investigation is required on certain
aspects. Some of the illustrations/instances which required
further investigation are narrated in Para 4 of the counter-
affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3. Elaborate reasons
and on what further investigation is required has not been
stated on the apprehension that if the same is disclosed at this
stage, it may frustrate the very purpose of the
investigation/further investigation."
8.2. A little earlier, the Apex Court in NEETU KUMAR
NAGAICH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN2, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
10. Normally when an investigation has been
concluded and police report submitted under Section
173(2) of the Code, it is only further investigation that
can be ordered under Section 173(8) of the Code. But
where the constitutional court is satisfied that the
investigation has not been conducted in a proper and
objective manner, as observed in Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi
Admn. [Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Admn., 1988 Supp SCC
482 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 864] , fresh investigation with the
help of an independent agency can be considered to
secure the ends of justice so that the truth is revealed.
The power may also be exercised if the court comes to
the conclusion that the investigation has been done in a
manner to help someone escape the clutches of the law.
In such exceptional circumstances the court may, in
order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice, direct de
novo investigation as observed in Babubhai v. State of
Gujarat [Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254
: (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336] . A fair investigation is as much
a part of a constitutional right guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution as a fair trial, without which the
trial will naturally not be fair. The observations in this
context in Babubhai [Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010)
2
(2020) 16 SCC 777
38
12 SCC 254 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336] are considered
relevant at para 45 as follows: (SCC p. 272)
"45. Not only fair trial but fair investigation
is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed
under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. Therefore, investigation must be fair,
transparent and judicious as it is the minimum
requirement of rule of law. The investigating
agency cannot be permitted to conduct an
investigation in a tainted and biased manner.
Where non-interference of the court would
ultimately result in failure of justice, the court
must interfere. In such a situation, it may be in
the interest of justice that independent agency
chosen by the High Court
[GaneshbhaiJakshibhaiBharwad v. State of
Gujarat, 2009 SCC OnLineGuj 12130] makes a
fresh investigation."
11. In Bharati Tamang v. Union of India [Bharati
Tamang v. Union of India, (2013) 15 SCC 578 : (2014) 6
SCC (Cri) 566] , relief was sought in a writ petition to
quash the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-
sheet coupled with a mandamus for a de novo
investigation by a Special Investigation Team of
competent persons having impeccable credentials to
unravel the conspiracy. This Court relied on the following
extract from Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of
Gujarat [Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004)
4 SCC 158 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 999] , as follows: (Bharati Tamang
case [Bharati Tamang v. Union of India, (2013) 15 SCC 578 :
(2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 566] , SCC pp. 594-97, paras 33, 37-38 &
41)
"33. ...'56. ... Courts have to ensure that accused
persons are punished and that the might or authority of
the State are not used to shield themselves or their
men. It should be ensured that they do not wield such
powers which under the Constitution has to be held only
in trust for the public and society at large. If deficiency
in investigation or prosecution is visible or can be
perceived by lifting the veil trying to hide the
realities or covering the obvious deficiencies,
courts have to deal with the same with an iron
39
hand appropriately within the framework of law. It
is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the
court to ensure that full and material facts are
brought on record so that there might not be
miscarriage of justice.' (Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh
case [Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat,
(2004) 4 SCC 158 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 999] , SCC pp. 192-
93, para 56)
***
37. In the decision of Babubhai v. State of
Gujarat [Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC
254 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336] , in para 40, this Court
held that the scheme of investigation particularly Section
173(8) CrPC provides for further investigation and not of
reinvestigation but held in para 42 as under: (SCC p.
272)
'42. Thus, it is evident that in exceptional
circumstances, the court in order to prevent the
miscarriage of criminal justice, if considers necessary,
may direct for investigation de novo wherein the case
presents exceptional circumstances.'
38. Therefore, at times of need where this Court
finds that an extraordinary or exceptional circumstance
arise and the necessity for reinvestigation would be
imperative in such extraordinary cases even de novo
investigation can be ordered.
***
41.3. If deficiency in investigation or
prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting
the veil which try to hide the realities or covering
the obvious deficiency, courts have to deal with
the same with an iron hand appropriately within
the framework of law.
***
41.5. In order to ensure that the criminal
prosecution is carried on without any deficiency, in
appropriate cases this Court can even constitute
Special Investigating Team and also give
appropriate directions to the Central and State
Governments and other authorities to give all
required assistance to such specially constituted
investigating team in order to book the real
culprits and for effective conduct of the
prosecution.
***
40
41.7. In appropriate cases even if the
charge-sheet is filed it is open for this Court or
even for the High Court to direct investigation of
the case to be handed over to CBI or to any other
independent agency in order to do complete
justice.
41.8. In exceptional circumstances the
Court in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal
justice and if considers necessary may direct for
investigation de novo."
(emphasis in original)
12. The power of the constitutional court may extend to
directing reinvestigation was again noticed in Pooja Pal v. Union
of India [Pooja Pal v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135 : (2016)
1 SCC (Cri) 743] , as follows: (SCC pp. 176-79, paras 87, 90 &
96)
"87. Any criminal offence is one against the
society at large casting an onerous responsibility on the
State, as the guardian and purveyor of human rights
and protector of law to discharge its sacrosanct role
responsibly and committedly, always accountable to the
law-abiding citizenry for any lapse. The power of the
constitutional courts to direct further investigation
or reinvestigation is a dynamic component of its
jurisdiction to exercise judicial review, a basic
feature of the Constitution and though has to be
exercised with due care and caution and informed
with self-imposed restraint, the plenitude and
content thereof can neither be enervated nor
moderated by any legislation.
***
90. That the victim cannot be afforded to be
treated as an alien or total stranger to the criminal trial
was reiterated by this Court in Rattiram v. State of
M.P. [Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516 :
(2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 481] It was postulated that the
criminal jurisprudence with the passage of time has laid
emphasis on victimology, which fundamentally is the
perception of a trial from the viewpoint of criminal as
well as the victim when judged in the social context.
***
96. The avowed purpose of a criminal
investigation and its efficacious prospects with the
41
advent of scientific and technical advancements have
been candidly synopsised in the prefatory chapter
dealing with the history of criminal investigation in the
treatise on Criminal Investigation -- Basic
Perspectives by Paul B. Weston and Renneth M. Wells:
'Criminal investigation is a lawful search
for people and things useful in reconstructing the
circumstances of an illegal act or omission and
the mental state accompanying it. It is probing
from the known to the unknown, backward in
time, and its goal is to determine truth as far as
it can be discovered in any post-factum inquiry.
Successful investigations are based on
fidelity, accuracy and sincerity in lawfully
searching for the true facts of an event under
investigation and on an equal faithfulness,
exactness, and probity in reporting the results of
an investigation. Modern investigators are persons
who stick to the truth and are absolutely clear about
the time and place of an event and the measurable
aspects of evidence. They work throughout their
investigation fully recognising that even a minor
contradiction or error may destroy confidence in their
investigation.
The joining of science with traditional criminal
investigation techniques offers new horizons of
efficiency in criminal investigation. New perspectives in
investigation bypass reliance upon informers and
custodial interrogation and concentrate upon a skilled
scanning of the crime scene for physical evidence and
a search for as many witnesses as possible. Mute
evidence tells its own story in court, either by its own
demonstrativeness or through the testimony of an
expert witness involved in its scientific testing. Such
evidence may serve in lieu of, or as corroboration of,
testimonial evidence of witnesses found and
interviewed by police in an extension of their
responsibility to seek out the truth of all the
circumstances of crime happening. An increasing
certainty in solving crimes is possible and will
contribute to the major deterrent of crime--the
certainty that a criminal will be discovered, arrested
and convicted.'"
(emphasis in original)
13. In Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana [Dharam
Pal v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 160 : (2016) 2 SCC (Cri)
259] , it was noticed that the power of the constitutional court
42
to order fresh or de novo investigation could also be exercised
after commencement of the trial and the examination of some
witnesses could not be an impediment, observing as follows:
(SCC p. 170, para 25)
"25. ... The power to order fresh, de novo or
reinvestigation being vested with the
constitutional courts, the commencement of a trial
and examination of some witnesses cannot be an
absolute impediment for exercising the said
constitutional power which is meant to ensure a
fair and just investigation. ... It is the bounden
duty of a court of law to uphold the truth and truth
means absence of deceit, absence of fraud and in a
criminal investigation a real and fair investigation,
not an investigation that reveals itself as a sham
one. It is not acceptable. It has to be kept
uppermost in mind that impartial and truthful
investigation is imperative."
14. Reverting to the facts of the present case, we find
that the occurrence took place in the intervening night of 13-8-
2017 and 14-8-2017. The inquest proceedings under Section
174 CrPC were registered on 14-8-2017 but remained
inconclusive, and now in view of the closure report deserves to
be consigned. The death of the deceased was initially sought to
be passed off as accidental by collision with a train or suicidal
due to depression. The FIR under Section 302 IPC was
registered very much belatedly on 29-6-2018, albeit reluctantly,
only at the persistence of the petitioner and her husband after
they repeatedly approached the higher authorities. Even
thereafter the investigation remained at a standstill till the filing
of the counter-affidavit before this Court as recent as 3-7-2020
with the respondents insisting that the death was accidental and
that the nature of injuries could not attribute a homicidal death.
15. Earlier the husband of the petitioner had also
petitioned the High Court where till 20-7-2019 the respondents
insisted that the death was accidental in nature. Unfortunately,
the High Court despite noticing the long pendency of the
investigation took a misguided approach that the petitioner had
not expressed suspicion against anyone and neither had he
alleged bias against the investigating officer, to pass an open-
ended order to investigate the case and file a report. In this
43
manner, the investigation remained inconclusive for nearly three
long years with the investigating agency sanguine of passing it
off as an accidental death without coming to a firm conclusion
avoiding to complete the investigation.
16. It is only when we ordered on 8-7-2020 [Neetu
Kumar Nagaich v. State of Rajasthan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 561]
that the investigation be concluded within a period of two
months and the final report be placed before us, that suddenly a
very lengthy investigation closure report has been filed before
us taking a stand that though the death was homicidal there
was no clue. The closure report is therefore, to our mind, a clear
hasty action leaving much to be desired regarding the nature of
investigation, because if a detailed investigation had already
been done as is sought to be now suggested, there is no reason
why a final report could not have been filed by the investigating
agency in the normal course of events and needed an order to
do so from this Court. The entire investigation and the closure
report therefore lack bona fides. The interest of justice therefore
requires a de novo investigation to be done, to sustain the
confidence of the society in the rule of law irrespective of who
the actors may be.
17. We, therefore, set aside the closure report and direct
a de novo investigation by a fresh team of investigators to be
headed by a senior police officer of the State consisting of
efficient personnel well conversant with use of modern
investigation technology also. No officer who was part of the
investigating team leading to the closure report shall be part of
the team conducting de novo investigation."
(Emphasis supplied in each instance)
The Apex Court was considering circumstances under which a
re-investigation or a further investigation could be ordered. The
Apex Court holds that the defect in the investigation, if it is
apparent and the real accused are roaming free, by the conduct of
44
shoddy investigation by the investigating agency, it is open to the
constitutional Courts to direct reopening of the crime and
investigation thereon. If the facts narrated hereinabove are noticed,
the petitioner, who is the daughter of Akkamma who died due to
the alleged crime and the brother who was alleged of murdering his
mother himself dies in mysterious circumstances, seeks
re-investigation of crime. Therefore, the investigation must ensue,
to bring home the real culprit, so that justice should not become a
mirage to the petitioner and the like.
9. I have perused the entire material on record. Most of the
communications are quoted hereinabove. The circumstances under
which Akkamma dies is still to be unearthed, as also, the
circumstance under which Raghu S.K. dies is still a mystery.
Therefore, the pursuit of justice to bring home the assailants of
either Akkamma or Raghu S.K. lies in limbo. The investigation or
the trial in odyssey towards discovery of truth has tumbled
midway. In that light, further investigation into the matter or
re-investigation into Crime No.99 of 2018 becomes imperative.
45
10. For the aforementioned reasons and in view of the
judgments of the Apex Court as afore-quoted, I deem it appropriate
to order re-investigation of Crime No.99 of 2018 and also transfer
the said investigation to the hands of Crime Investigation
Department. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The Crime in Crime No.99 of 2018 stands reopened for re-investigation into the matter.
(iii) The investigation of the case is handed over to the Crime Investigation Department, who shall conduct re- investigation into Crime No.99 of 2018 and submit a report to the jurisdictional Magistrate, within an outer limit of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier.
(iv) While so doing, the observations made in the course of the order, as also, the communications between Police 46 quarters with regard to shoddy investigation and line of investigation done, shall be borne in mind.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:MJ