Dr S Chandrakala vs State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2025

[Cites 29, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dr S Chandrakala vs State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2025

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 18.12.2024
Pronounced on : 17.03.2025 R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.24360 OF 2024 (GM - RES)

BETWEEN:

DR.S.CHANDRAKALA
W/O LATE M.SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT
ZAKIR HUSSAIN MOHALLA
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN
KOLAR - 563 135.
... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SMT.SANYA MALLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SRINIVASAPURA POLICE STATION
(NOW INVESTIGATED BY CID
BENGALURU)
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
2

HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
CBI, ACB, OFFICE OF HEAD OF BRANCH
36, BELLARY ROAD, KGH LAYOUT,
GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 560 032
(REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR).

3. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.222, 2ND FLOOR
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI C.H.HANUMANTHARAYA, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
A/W SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1 AND R-3;
SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP FOR R-2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO R-2 TO CONDUCT
FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO. 372/2023 OF
SRINIVASPURA POLICE STATION, CHARGE-SHEETED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U SECTIONS 120B, 109, 212, 307, 302, 201 R/W 149
IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST ACT 1986, VIDE ANNX-
A AND J WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE II ADDL.
3

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR IN SPL C. IPC AND SC/ST
NO. 03/2024.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 18.12.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner, a grieving widow of late M.Srinivas is standing

at the hallowed portals of this Court, seeking a direction for conduct

of further investigation into a crime in Crime No.372 of 2023

registered for offences under Sections 120B, 302 and 307 of IPC by

the Srinivasapura Police Station, now at the hands of an

independent agency.

2. The facts unfurled are as follows:-

On 23-10-2023 a complaint comes to be registered by a

Mason and Driver of one M.Srinivas. The gist of the complaint was

that on 23-10-2023, as he would do every day, complainant goes
4

near the house of M.Srinivas at Zakir Hussain Mohalla and enquired

about the work for the day. The narration in the complaint is that

the work for the day was to visit a construction site which had some

dispute with the Forest Department and M.Srinivas goes to the

place with the de-facto complainant at 11.00 a.m. to check the

work being done and later reaches the construction site near

Hugalagere Road. It appears that M.Srinivas sat under a Mango

tree and started sipping tea along with the security, CW-2 Krishna

and CW-17 Rajesh and the de-facto complainant. About 6 people

come to the said spot on bikes carrying a cement bag. One of those

6 persons come to shake hands with M.Srinivas for the purpose of

greeting him. By then the other person sprayed pepper spray on

the face of M.Srinivas, takes out knife, long and talwars from the

cement bag and assaulted M.Srinivas. The complainant and others

ran to save themselves, but saw those persons assaulting

M.Srinivas with deadly weapons on the head and other parts of the

body. When the complainant raised a hue and cry, it appears the

assailants fled on the bikes.
5

3. It is on this incident a complaint comes to be registered

which becomes a crime in Crime No.372 of 2023. By then

M.Srinivas was shifted to the local hospital and the doctors referred

him to a hospital nearby for a better treatment and then he was

shifted to Jalappa Hospital. After some time, it is the narration that

he gets to know from CW-17 that M.Srinivas succumbed to the

injuries and died at 1.50 p.m. It is the further narration in the

complaint that accused Nos.1, 5, 9 and 8 were all wreaking

vengeance against M.Srinivas and in furtherance of that conspiracy

have killed M.Srinivas. M.Srinivas was an ex-President of Zilla

Panchayat, Kolar District. Investigation begins in the aforesaid

crime. During the investigation, the wife of the deceased, the

present petitioner suspected involvement of others in her husband's

murder. She requested change of investigating agency, as the

apprehension was pressure would be mounted upon local police, as

the deceased had many political rivalries. The same request was

also made by different organizations of the area. Pursuant thereto,

the State Government hands over the investigation to the Crime

Investigation Department ('CID'). The CID takes over the

investigation. It is the averment in the petition that the CID also did
6

not make any further efforts into the investigation. It adopted the

investigation and materials collected by the local Police and filed a

charge sheet on 17-01-2024 for offences punishable under Sections

120B, 109, 212, 307, 302, 201 r/w 149 of the IPC and Sections

3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, 1986.

4. After filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner then

represents to the powers that be, including the top brass, the

Chief Minister and Home Minister, to transfer the investigation to

the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI'), as the CID which only

adopted the investigation of local Police did not conduct

investigation that would inspire semblance of confidence. These

representations go unheeded and, therefore, the petitioner is at the

door of this Court, in the subject petition, seeking further

investigation through any independent agency.

5. Heard Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya, learned

Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 3 along

with Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
7

and Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor

appearing for respondent No.2.

SUBMISSIONS:

PETITIONER:

6. The learned senior counsel Sri Sandesh J. Chouta

appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the

investigation conducted by the local Police or even the CID is so

shoddy that it would shock the conscience of any Court perusing

the documents of investigation. He would project plethora of

lacunae in the conduct of investigation, which would finally result in

acquittal of the accused only. The learned senior counsel would

emphasize on the fact that the petitioner was a politician of the

local area and being a prominent man, had several rivals. He has

been killed by giving supari to others. He would, therefore, contend

that none of the local Police or even the CID can do justice to the

investigation. It must be handed over to an independent

investigating agency like the CBI. He would further contend that it

would be only in run of the mill cases, the Apex Court declines to
8

hand it over to the CBI. This is a fit case as the investigation is full

of lacunae.

SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:

7. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor

appointed Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya is candid in accepting the flaw

that the investigation conducted is so shoddy that it fails to follow

rudimentary principles of conduct of investigation. He would also

accept that the Investigating Officers of local Police or even the CID

have not done enough to unearth the truth. He submits that it is a

sorry state of affairs where the investigation is carried out in this

manner in a case of murder. He would make these submissions

notwithstanding the fact that he is appointed as a Special Public

Prosecutor to prosecute the case on behalf of the State. He would

submit that he cannot defend such investigations.

ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:

8. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

Sri B.N. Jagadeesha was also asked to assist the Court. The learned
9

Additional State Public Prosecutor has placed certain notifications of

appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor and certain judgments

and submits that investigation should not be transferred for the

asking, as the local Police have done a good job is his submission.

All the learned counsel representing the parties have relied on

plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court, this Court and

different High Courts and all of them would bear consideration qua

their relevance in the course of the order.

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI):

9. The learned counsel Sri P.Prasanna Kumar representing the

2nd respondent, CBI would submit that if the investigation is placed

at the hands of the CBI, it will conduct appropriate investigation

and place the report before the concerned Court within a time

frame, as this Court would direct. However, he would leave the

decision to the hands of this Court.
10

10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

11. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue now

would be, whether the investigation should be entrusted to

an independent agency like the CBI or otherwise?

12. The incident that led to registration of crime is a matter of

record. A complaint comes to be registered by the de-facto

complainant on the date of the incident i.e., on 23-10-2023. The

complaint reads as follows:

"ರವ ೆ,

ೕ ೕ ಕರು
ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ ೕ ಾ ೆ
ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ

ರವ ಂದ

ಅಮgï£Á ಎ !ೕನಪ# 33 ವಷ%
ಆ' ಕ(ಾ%ಟಕ ಜ(ಾಂಗ, ,ಾಲಕ .ೆಲಸ
ದ/ಾನಂದ ರ0ೆ1 ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ 2ೌ
ªÉÆ.£ÀA. 8618199968

4ಾನ56ೇ,
11

7ೕಲ8ಂಡ :;ಾಸದ <ಾಯಂ ಾ!/ಾದ (ಾನು ತಮ? @ ದೂರು ಸ @!.ೊಳCDವ Eೇ(ೆಂದ6ೆ
(ಾನು ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ 2ೌ ನ .ೌ FಲG ೕ ಾಸ ರವರ ಬI ಾ6ೆ .ೆಲಸ ಮತು1 ,ಾಲಕ .ೆಲಸ
4ಾJ.ೊಂಡು ಇರುLೆ1ೕ(ೆ. ಎಂ'ನಂLೆ ಈ 'ನ '(ಾಂಕ 23/10/2023 ರಂದು (ಾನು .ೆಲಸ.ೆ8ಂದು
ೕ ಾಸ ರವರ ಮ(ೆ/ಾದ NಾOgï ಹು0ೇ Qಹಲ@ ಬI RೋEೆ. ಆಗ ೕ ಾಸ ರವರು
ಮುಳSಾTಲು ರ0ೆ1ಯ @ 4ಾ%ಣ 4ಾಡುV1ದW ಹೂಸ ಕಟXಡ ಮತು1 Rೊಗಳ ೆ6ೆ ರ0ೆ1ಯ @ ಇರುವ ಅರಣ5
ಪ Eೇಶದ @ ಕZXದW ಕಟXಡ ಅರಣ5 ಇ[ಾ<ೆಯವರು ತIDದುW ಅ @ ಕೂ ಯವ ಂದ ಇZX ೆಗಳನು\
0ಾTಸುV1ದW .ೆಲಸದ ಬ ೆ] :,ಾ !ದರು. (ಾನು ಇನೂ\ ಸ^ಲ# .ೆಲಸ ಇEೆ ಆ ೆ .ೆಲಸ ನJLಾ ಇEೆ ಎಂದು
VI!Eೆ. ಅದರಂLೆ ೕ ಾಸರವರು ಸ ನJ .ೆಲಸವನು\ (ೋJ.ೊಂಡು ಬ6ೋಣ ೆಂದು RೇI Sೆಳ ೆ]
11:00 ಗಂ2ೆ ಸಮಯದ @ ಮ(ೆಯನು\ ಟುX ೕ ಾಸ ರವರ .ಾ ನ @ Rೊಗಳ ೆ6ೆ ಅರಣ5 ಪ Eೇಶದ
ಬI ºÉÆÃV PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ C°èAzÀ ªÀÄÄ¼À¨ÁV®Ä gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ºÉÆUÀ¼ÀUÉgÉ PÁæ¸ï
§½ ನ_ೆಯುV1ದW Rೊಸ ಕ`ಟಡದ 4ಾ%ಣ ಬI ಬಂEೆವ . ಅ @ ೕ ಾಸರವರು ಕಟXಡದ 4ಾ%ಣ
.ೆಲಸವ(ೆಲ@ (ೋJ ಕಟXಡದ ಮುಂEೆ ಇದW 4ಾ:ನ ಮರದ .ೆಳಗ_ೆ ,ೇG ಗಳನು\ RಾO.ೊಂಡು
ಮaಾ5ಹ\ ಸು4ಾರು 12:15 ಗಂ2ೆ ಸಮಯದ @ (ಾನು ಮತು1 ೕ ಾಸರವರು ಕೃಷc ಈರಪ#
ದ/ಾನಂದ ರ0ೆ1 Rಾಗೂ ಕಟXಡದ 0ೆಕೂ5 Z (ಾವ (ಾಲು8 ಜನ Zೕ ಕುJದು.ೊಂಡು 4ಾತ(ಾಡುV1EೆWವ .
ೇZನ ಬI 6ಾNೇd ಂVದWನು. ಆಗ ಒಂದು I ಬಣcದ ಪಲFG ಮತು1 ಒಂದು 0ೆXಂಡG Sೈg ಗಳ @
ಒಂEೊಂದು ಾJಯ @ ಮೂರು ಮೂರು ಜನ ಒಟುX 6 ಜನ ಬಂ'ದುW ಅವರ @ ಒಬh !7ಂ` iೕಲದಂLೆ
I ಬಣcದ iೕಲ'ಂದ ಏ(ೋ ಎತು1.ೊಂಡು ೕ ಾಸ ರವರ ಬI ಬಂದು ಅವರ @ ಒಬh ಅಂಕk
,ೆ(ಾ\T'Wೕರ ಎಂದು 4ಾತ(ಾJ!.ೊಂಡು lೇg Rಾ5ಂm ೕJದ ಅವರ @ ಮLೊ1ಬh /ಾವ Eೋ
¸ÉàçÃಯನು\ ೕ ಾಸ ರವರ ಮುಖ.ೆ8 ¸ÉàçÃ 4ಾJದುW ಸಡ ಆT ಎಲ@ರೂ iೕಲ'ಂದ ,ಾಕು, [ಾಂಗು,
ತ[ಾ^gïUÀಳನು\ Lೆ ೆದು ೕ ಾ ಮತು1 ನಮ? 7ೕ[ೆ ಹ[ೆ@ 4ಾಡಲು ಬಂದರು ಅµÀÖರ @ (ಾನು
ತo#!.ೊಳDಲು ಸ^ಲ# ದೂರ ಓJRೋT VರುT (ೋಡುವಷXರ @ ೕ ಾ ರವ ೆ ,ಾಕು,
,ಾಕು [ಾಂq,
[ಾಂq
ತ[ಾ^G ಗIಂದ EಾI 4ಾJ ತ[ೆ ೆ Rೊ2ೆX ೆ ಮತು1 Eೇಹದ ಇತ6ೆ rಾಗಗಳ @ .ೊis,
.ೊis ಚುis
ೕI!ದರು.
ೕI!ದರು ನನ\ನು\ .ೊ[ೆ 4ಾಡಲು ಬಂದರು (ಾವ ಅ ಂ
@ ದ ಸ^ಲ# ದೂರ ಓJ RೋT Oರುi.ೊಂ_ೆನು
Oರುi.ೊಂ_ೆನು.
.ೊಂ_ೆನು
ಅಷXರ @uೕ ಅವರ ಅ ಂ
@ ದ ಓJ RೋT ಅವರು ತಂ'ದW Sೈg ಗಳ @ Rೊರಟು Rೋದರು.
Rೋದರು ೕ ಾಸ
ರವ ೆ ಹ[ೆ@ 4ಾJದವರ @ ನನ ೆ ಪ ಚಯ:ರುವ ಚಂದ , 6ೇವಂv ಮತು1 ೌತw ಇದುW ಉIದ
ಮೂವರ Rೆಸರು ೊV1ಲ@ ಅದ6ೆ ಇವ6ೆಲ@ರೂ ೇಣು ೋyಾk ರವರ NೊLೆ ಇರುV1ದುW ನನ ೆ ೊತು1.
ನಂತರ (ಾನು ಕೃಷc & 6ಾಜlೇಖG ರವರು,
ರವರು ಮಂಜು(ಾ ಮತು1 ಪ 'ೕz ರವ ೆ {ೕ 4ಾJ
ಸ|ಳ.ೆ8 ಕ6ೆ!.ೊಂಡು (ಾ ೆಲ@ರೂ ರಕ1ದ ಮಡು:ನ ದ
@ W ೕ ಾಸ ರವರನು\ ೕ ಾಸ ರವರ .ಾ ನ @
ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ ಸ.ಾ% ಆಸ#Lೆ ಯ @ iOLೆF ೆ Eಾಖ !EೆWವ ಅ ನ
@ ೈದ5ರು iOLೆF ೕJ Rೆisನ
iOLೆF ಾT .ೋ[ಾರ ಆG.
ಆG ಎk.
ಎk Nಾಲಪ# ಆಸ#Lೆ ೆ ಕ6ೆದು.ೊಂಡು Rೋಗಲು VI!ದುW ಅದರಂLೆuೕ
ಆಂಬು[ೆ F ನ @ .ೋ[ಾರ ಆG.ಎk
ಆG ಎk.Nಾಲಪ#
ಎk Nಾಲಪ# ಆಸ#Lೆ ೆ ಕ6ೆದು.ೊಂಡು Rೋದರು.
Rೋದರು (ಾನು ಅ[ೆ@ೕ ಇEೆW.
ನಂತರ 6ಾNೇd ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ VIಯ[ಾT ೕ ಾಸರವರು ಆG ಎk Nಾಲಪ# ಆಸ#Lೆ ಯ @
12

iOLೆF ೆ Eಾಖ !Eಾಗ ೈದ5ರು ಪ ೕ ! ಮaಾ5ಹ\ 01:50 ಗಂ2ೆ ಸಮಯದ @ ೕ ಾ ರವರು
ಮೃತಪnÖgÀÄªÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ 4ಾ}V ೕJದರು.
ೕJದರು ಜನ~ೕವನyಾಳ5ದ ೇಣು ೋyಾk
gÀªÀjUÉ ²æÃ¤ªÁ¸À£ï ರವ6ೊಡ(ೆ ಇದW Eೆ^ೕಷ'ಂದ ೇಣು ೋyಾk gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ°£À ZÀAzÀ£ï, 6ೇವಂv,
6ೇವಂv
ೌತw ಮತು1 ಇತರ ಮೂವgÉÆqÀ£É ¸ÉÃj M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ gÀÆ¦¹ ೕ ಾ ರವರ 7ೕ[ೆ ,ಾಕು,
,ಾಕು [ಾಂq,
[ಾಂq
ತ[ಾ^G UÀ½AzÀ zÁ½ ªÀiÁr PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁr ನನ\ನು\ ಸಹ 0ಾ•ಸುವ ಉEೆWೕಶ'ಂದ ¯ÁAUï, ZÁPÀÄ,
vÀ¯Áégï¢AzÀ ಹ[ೆ@ 4ಾಡಲು ಬಂದ ಇವ6ೆಲ@ರ 7ೕ[ೆ .ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ ಜರುTಸSೇ.ೆಂದು ತಮ? @
.ೋರುLೆ1ೕ(ೆ.
(ೆ
ತಮ? :lಾ^!

'(ಾಂಕ 23/10/23 ರಂದು ಮaಾ5ಹ\ 02:15 ಗಂ2ೆ ೆ ¦gÁå¢zÁgÀgÀÄ ಾ ೆ ೆ Rಾಜ6ಾT
ೕJದ €ತ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ oÁuÁ CR.No. 372/2023 PÀ®A 302, 307, 120B IPC jÃvÁå
PÉÃ¸ÀÄ Eಾಖ !ರುLೆ1."
(Emphasis added)

The complaint narrates gory details of a blood stained assault upon

M.Srinivas who dies succumbing to the injuries. This becomes a

crime, in Crime No.372 of 2023. Investigation commences.

Demand for change of investigating agency from local Police to

some other agency is made. The petitioner who is the wife of the

deceased also submits a representation. It is then the investigation

comes to be transferred to the Crime Investigation Department -

the CID. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the

Special Public Prosecutor have taken me through the records and

have projected several lacunae in the investigation both by the local

Police and the CID. I deem it appropriate to notice those lacunae.
13

THE GLARING LACUNAE IN THE INVESTIGATION BY BOTH,
THE JURISDICTIONAL POLICE AND THE CID:

13. The complaint quoted supra discloses presence of eye

witnesses, CWs-2, 3 and 17 who were present at the incident. The

incident happens on 23-10-2023. Section 161 statements of those

eye witnesses were recorded on 28-10-2023, after a delay of 5

days. CW-4 is a res-gestae witness. His statement is also

recorded after 5 days. The statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,

of CWs-1 and 2 were recorded on 08-11-2023, after a delay of 16

days. No other witness statement is taken by the Investigating

Officer. Statement of eye witness, CW-3 reads as follows:

"£Áನು ಈ 7ೕಲ8ಂಡ :;ಾಸದ @ ಾಸ ಾTದುW ಈ }ಂEೆ ಕ(ಾ%ಟಕ 6ಾಜ5 ಬ;ಾD ಯ @
0ೆಕೂ5 Z ಆT .ೆಲಸ 4ಾಡುV1EೆW. ನನ\ ದೂರದ ಸಂಬಂ• 6ಾಮು ಪNಾ%, ರವರು .ೋ[ಾರ ~[ೆ@ಯ
ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ 2ೌ ನ ೕ ಾಸ ರವರ ಅIಯ rಾಸ8G ರವರ ಬI PÉ®ಸ 4ಾಡುV1ದುW ಈ ೆ
ಸು4ಾರು ಮೂರು Vಂಗಳ }ಂEೆ ನನ\ನು\ ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ.ೆ8 ಕ6ೆ!.ೊಂಡು ೕ ಾಸ ರವರು
ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ 2ೌ Rೊಗಳ ೆ6ೆ .ಾ ನ @ RೊಸEಾT ಕಟುXV1ರುವ ಕಟXಡದ @ 0ೆಕೂ5 Z ಾm% ಆT
(ೇಮಕ 4ಾJದುW (ಾನು ಕisಡದ ಒಂದು ರೂA ನ @ ಾಸ ಾTEೆW.

¢:23.10.2023 ರಂದು SೆIUÉÎ (ಾನು ಎದುW 0ಾ\ನ 4ಾJ ಅಡು ೆ 4ಾJ Vಂದು ಕಟXಡದ
lೆಟG SಾTಲನು\ ಮುಂದ.ೆ8 J¼Éದು.ೊಂಡು ಹ;ೆ ‚ಂq ಬI ಇರುವ yಾ5ನk Sೋm% ಬI ಇEೆW,
ಮEಾ5ಹ\, ಸು4ಾರು 12:04 ƒಷ.ೆ8 ೕ ಾಸ ರವರು ನನ\ QSೈk ೆ ಕ6ೆ 4ಾJ ಎ @'W/ಾ
lೆಟG ಮುಂದ.ೆ8 RಾO.ೊಂಡು RೋT'W/ಾ Sಾ ಎಂದು ಕ6ೆವರು, ಹ;ೆ ‚ಂq ಬ½ EgÀÄªÀ yಾ5ನk
Sೋm% ಬI ಇzÉÝÃ(ೆ ಎಂದು RೇI C°èAದ ಬಂEೆ, ೕ ಾಸ ರವರು ZÉÃರುಗಳನು\ Lೆ ೆದು.ೊಂಡು
ºÉÆÃV PÁA¥ËAqï £À°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀiÁ«£À ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À PÉ¼ÀUÀqÉ RಾOEೆ. ೕ ಾಸ ರವರ NೊLೆಯ @,
14

ಅಮG (ಾ ರವರು ಸಹ ಇದುW ಅಷXರ @ ಕೃ„ಾc ರವರು Zೕ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ C°èUÉ §AzÀgÀÄ ಕೃ„ಾc
ರವರು Qದ ೆ ಕz ನ @, Zೕ RಾO ೕ ಾಸ ರವ ೆ .ೊಟXರು, ೕ ಾಸ ರವರು ZÉÃgï
7ೕ[ೆ ಕುIತು.ೊಂಡು Zೕ ಕುJಯುV1ದWರು, ನಂತರ ಕೃ„ಾc ನನ ೆ ಮತು1 ಅಮG (ಾ ರವ ೆ Zೕ
.ೊಟುX, Lಾನು Zೕ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ ಅಮG (ಾ ಮತು1 ಕೃ„ಾc ರವರು ,ೇG 7ೕ[ೆ ಕುIತು.ೊಂಡು Zೕ
ಕುJದು.ೊಂಡು ೕ ಾಸ ರವ6ೊಂ' ೆ ಮತ(ಾಡುV1ದWರು (ಾನು ಅ[ೆ@ ಂತು .ೊಂಡು Zೕ
ಕುJಯುV1EಾWಗ ಎರಡು Sೈg ಗಳ @, ಒಂದರ @ ಮೂವರು, ಇ(ೊ\ಂದರ @ ಇ§âರು MಟುX LzÀÄ ಜನರು
ನನ ೆ ಅಪ iತ ವ5O1ಗ;ಾTದುW, .ಾಂyೌಂm ಒಳ ೆ ಬಂದು Sೈಕುಗಳನು\ @! ಆ yೈO ಒಬh ªÀåQÛ
²æÃ¤ªÁ¸À£ï gÀªÀjUÉ ±ÉÃPï ºÁåAqï PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, E£ÉÆß§â ªÀåQÛ DvÀ£À eÉÆÃ©¤AzÀ ¸ÉàçÃ ¨Ál¯ï
vÉUÉzÀÄ ೕ ಾಸ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRPÉÌ Rೊ_ೆ'ದುW, ಅವರು ,ೇG ಂದ 7ೕಲ.ೆ8 ಎEೆWೕಳCವಷXರ @,
.ಾಂyೌಂm ಒಳ.ೆ8 ಬಂ'ದWವರು ನಮ ೆ ¸ÉàçÃ Rೊ_ೆಯಲು §A¢zÀÄÝ (ಾವ Rೆದ .ೊಂqÀÄ ಸ^ಲ# ದೂರ
RೋT VರುT (ೋಡ[ಾT .ಾಂyೌಂm ಆ,ೆ•ಂದ ಒಬh ವ5O1, ಜಂz 4ಾJ.ೊಂಡು ಒಳ.ೆ8 ಬಂದು
ಆತನ .ೈಯ @ದW ಆಯುಧ'ಂದ ೕ ಾಸ ರವರ ತ[ೆ ೆ Rೊ_ೆದು ರಕ1 ಾಯ ಪJ!ದುW, .ಾಂyೌಂm
ಒಳ ೆ ಬಂ'ದW ಮೂರು d£À aÃ®zÀ°è vÀA¢zÀÝ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ vÀ®ªÁgïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CzÀgÀ°
M§â £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß CnÖ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ E¤ß§âgÀÄ vÀ¯ÁégïUÀ½AzÀ ²æÃ¤ªÁ¸À£ï gÀªÀgÀ vÀ¯ÉUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
ªÉÄÊ ªÉÄÃ¯É ZÀÄaÑzÀgÀÄ. (ಾವ ದೂರ'ಂದ ಗಮ ಸುV1Eೆವ . ಅಷXರ°è PÀÈµÁÐ gÀªÀgÀÄ ೕ ಾಸ ರವರ
ಅಣcನ ಮಗ 6ಾNೇd ರ ವ6ೆ ೆ ೕ£ï 4ಾJದುW ಅವರು ¸ÀÜಳ.ೆ8 ಬರುವಷXರ @ .ಾಂyೌಂm ºÁj
§A¢zÀÝ ªÀåQÛ ಪ ನಃ .ಾಂyೌಂm ಜಂz 4ಾJ.ೊಂಡು Rೋದ, ಉIದವರು Sೈg ಗಳ @ Rೊರಟು
Rೋದರು. ನಂತರ (ಾನು ಕೃಷc, ಅಮರ(ಾ ಸ|ಳ.ೆ8 ಬಂದು (ೋಡ[ಾT ೕ ಾಸ ರವರು ರಕ1ದ
ಮಡು:ನ @ 'WದWರು. ಅ°è ೆ ಮಂಜು(ಾಥ ಮತು1 .ಾG ,ಾಲಕ ಪ 'ೕz ರವರು ಸಹ ಬಂ'ದುW
ೕ ಾಸ ರವರನು\ .ಾ ನ @ RಾO.ೊಂಡು ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ ಸ.ಾ% ಆಸ#Lೆ ೆ Rೋದರು.

ನಂತರ 6ಾNೇd ರವ ಂದ :ಷಯ VIಯ[ಾT ೕ ಾಸ ರವರನು\ Rೆisನ iOLೆF ಾT
ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ ಸ.ಾ% ಆಸ#Lೆ •ಂದ ಆಂಬು[ೆ F ನ @, .ೋ[ಾರ ಆG.ಎk.Nಾಲಪ# ಆಸ#Lೆ ೆ
ಕ6ೆದು.ೊಂಡು RೋTದುW ೈದ5ರು ಪ ೕ‰! ಮEಾ5ಹ\ 1-50 ಗಂ2ೆ ೆ ೕ ಾಸ ರವರು 4ಾGಗ
ಮದ5ದ @ ಮೃತಪZXರುLಾ16ೆಂತ VI!ದ6ೆಂದು VI•ತು.

ನಂತರ ಕೃತ5ದ ಬ ೆ] VIಯ[ಾT ೕ ಾಸ ರವ ಗೂ ಮತು1 ಜಗ~ೕವನyಾಳ5ದ
ೇಣು ೋyಾk ರವ ಗೂ ಹ;ೆ ೈಷªÀÄåಗ½zÀÄÝ ಹ;ೆ Eೆ^ೕಷದ }ನ\[ೆಯ @ ೇಣು ೋyಾk ರವರು
ಅವರ ಸಂಬಂ• ಸಂLೋŠ ಕು4ಾG ಮತು1 ಇತರರನು\ ಕ6ೆ!.ೊಂಡು ಸಂಚನು\ ರೂo! Rೊಂಚು RಾO
ೕ ಾಸ ರವರನು\ '(ಾಂಕ:23-10-2023 ರಂದು ಮEಾ5ಹ\ ಸು4ಾರು 12-15 ಗಂ2ೆ ಸಮಯದ @
ತ¯ÁéG ಗIಂದ ತ[ೆ ೆ Rೊ_ೆದು 7ೖ7ೕ[ೆ ಚುis .ೊ[ೆ 4ಾJರುLಾ16ೆ. ಆ6ೋoಗಳನು\ ಪ ನಃ
(ೋJದ6ೆ ಗುV%ಸುLೆ1ೕ(ೆ."
15

The statement of CW-4 reads as follows:

"£Á£ÀÄ 7ೕಲ8ಂಡ :;ಾಸದ ಾ!/ಾTದುW, ನಮ? ತಂEೆ (ಾಗ6ಾಜಪ#, Lಾ• ಆಂಜಮ?
ಆTದುW ನಮ? ತಂEೆ Lಾ• ೆ (ಾವ ಇಬhರು ಮಕ8IದುW 1(ೇ ಪವ 2(ೇ (ಾ(ಾTದುW (ಾನು ಈ ೆ]
ಸು4ಾರು 4 ವಷ%ಗIಂದ ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ 2ೌ ನ ೕ ಾಸ @ .ೌ FಲG !ೕನಪ# ರವರ ಬI
,ಾಲಕ(ಾT .ೆಲಸ 4ಾJ.ೊಂJರುLೆ1ೕ(ೆ. ೕ ಾಸ ರವ ಗೂ ಮತು1 ಜಗ~ೕವನyಾಳ5ದ
ೇಣು ೋyಾk ರವ ೆ 2017 ಂದ ಹ;ೇ ೈಶಮ5ಗIರುವ ದು ನನ ೆ ೊತು1.

'(ಾಂಕ:23/10/2023 ರಂದು (ಾನು ೕ ಾಸ ರವ ೆ ಸಂಬಂದಪZXದW ಾ5 ! ಂಡG
ಾಹನದ @ ಾ ಹಕ ೆ ಾ5 ! ಂಡG ಗಳನು\ :ತರ ೆ 4ಾಡಲು RೋTEೆ. (ಾನು ಾ5 ! ಂಡG
ಗಳನು\ ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ 2ೌ ನ ೇಣು lಾ[ೆಯ ಬI :ತರ ೆ 4ಾಡುV1EಾWಗ ಮEಾ5ಹ\ ಸು4ಾರು 12-
20 ಗಂ2ೆ ಸಮಯದ @ 6ಾNೇd ರವರು ನನ ೆ ಕ6ೆ 4ಾJ ೕ ಾಸ ರವರನು\ Rೊಗಳ ೆ6ೆ PÁæ ಬI
RೊಸEಾT 4ಾ%ಣ 4ಾಡುV1ರುವ ೕ ಾಸ ರವರ ಕಟXಡದ .ಾಂyೌm ನ @ /ಾ6ೋ Rೊ_ೆದು
RಾOEಾW6ೆ Sೇಗ ಬರುವಂLೆ VI!ದರು ಅದರಂLೆ (ಾನು ಕೂಡ[ೇ ಅ @ ೆ RೋT (ೋಡ[ಾT
ೕ ಾಸ ರವರ ತ[ೆ ೆ ಮತು1 7ೖ7ೕ[ೆ ಹ ತ ಾದ DAiÀÄÄzsÀ¢AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ V:'ರುವ
ಾಯಗ;ಾT ರಕ1ದ ಮಡು:ನ @ 'WದWರು ಅ°è, 6ಾNೇd, ಮಂಜು(ಾಥ, ಕೃಷc, ಅಮರ(ಾಥ ªÀÄತು1
0ೆಕೂ5jZ ರತ ರವರು ಇದುW ಕೂಡ[ೇ (ಾವ ೕ ಾಸ ರವರನು\ ಅವರ ©æÃNಾ .ಾ ನ @
RಾO.ೊಂಡು ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ ¸ÀPÁð ಆಸ#Lೆ ೆ RೋTದುW ೈಧ5ರು iOLೆF ೕJ Rೆisನ .ೋ[ಾರ ಆG
ಎk Nಾಲಪ# ಆಸ#Lೆ ೆ ಕ6ೆದು.ೊಂಡು Rೋಗಲು VI!ದುW, (ಾನು 6ಾNೇd, ಮಂಜು(ಾಥ, ಅŒlೇg,
ೆಂಕಟರತ\ಮ?, ಅನಂv ಕು4ಾG ರವರು 108 ಆಂಬು[ೆ F, ನ°è RಾO.ೊಂಡು Nಾಲಪ# ಆಸ#Lೆ ೆ
ಕ6ೆದು.ೊಂಡು Rೋದವ ನಂತರ ೈಧ5ರು ಪ ೕ‰! ಸು4ಾರು ಮaಾ5ಹ\ 1-50 ಗಂ2ೆ ಸಮಯದ°è.
ೕ ಾಸ ರವರು 4ಾಗ%ರ ಮದ5ದ @ ಮತಪZXರುವ EಾT VI!EಾWT VI!ದರು.

£ÀAvÀgÀ F PÀÈvÀåzÀ §UÉÎ w½AiÀÄ¯ÁV ²æÃ¤ªÁ¸ïgÀªÀjUÀÆ dUÀfÃªÀ£À¥Á¼ÀåzÀ
ೇಣು ೋ¥Á¯ï ರವ ಗೂ ಹ;ೇ ೈಷಮ5:ದುW ೇಣು ೋyಾk ತನ\ 0ೋದರ ಸಂಬಂ'
ಬಂ ಾರyೇ2ೆ Lಾಲೂ@ಕು ಅಜ•ಪನಹID ಾ ಮದ ಸಂLೋŠ ಕು4ಾG ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಇತ6ೆ
ಹುಡುಗರನು\ ಕ6ೆ!.ೊಂಡು ಜಗ~ೕವನyಾಳ5ದ ಚಂದ , 6ೇವಂv, ೌತw, ರವ6ೊಂ' ೆ ಒಳಸಂಚನು\
ರೂo! '(ಾಂಕ 23/10/2023 ರಂದು ಮEಾ5ಹ\ 12-15 ಗಂ2ೆಯ @ ೕ ಾಸ ರವರು ಅವರ Rೊಸ
ಕಟXಡದ ಮುಂEೆ ಇರುವ 4ಾ:ನ ಮರದ .ೆಳ ೆ ಕುIತು.ೊಂಡು ಅಮರ(ಾಥ, ಕೃಷc, ರತ ರವ6ೊಂ' ೆ
ಇEಾWಗ ಎರಡು Sೈg ಗಳ @, ಬಂದ 05 ಜನರ yೈO ೇಣು ೋyಾk ನ ಸಂಬಂ' ಸಂLೋŠ ಕು4ಾG
²æÃ¤ªÁ¸À£ï gÀªÀjUÉ ±ÉÃSï ºÁåAqï ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ ªÀÄÄ£ÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÉàçÃ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÊPï£À°è vÀA¢zÀÝ
ತ[ಾ^G Lೆ ೆದು.ೊಂಡು ಅ @ದW ಅಮರ(ಾಥ, ಕೃಷc, ರತ ರವರನು\ .ೊ[ೆ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃVzÀÝjAzÀ
CªÀgÀÄ ¸Àé®à zÀÆgÀ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ CµÀÖgÀ°è .ಾಂyೌಂm ಆ,ೆ Rೊಂಚು RಾO.ೊಂJದW ೇಣು ೋyಾk
16

.ಾಂyೌಂm Rಾ ಒಳ ೆ ಬಂದು ಆತನ .ೈಯ @ದW ತ[ಾ^G ಂದ ೕ ಾಸ ರವರ ತ[ೆ ೆ Rೊ_ೆದು
ರಕ1 ಾಯ ೊಳ!ದುW ಅಷXರ @ ಸಂLೋŠ ಕು4ಾG, ಮು(ೇಂದ ರವರುಗಳC ತ[ಾ^G ಗIಂದ
ೕ ಾಸ ರವರ ತ[ೆ ೆ Rೊ_ೆದು Eೇಹದ 7ೕ[ೆ ಚುis .ೊ[ೆ 4ಾJ Rೊರಟು Rೋದ6ೆಂತ
VI•ತು."

The statement of the accused is taken, who would also narrate

certain details. What is germane to be noticed is narration of what

happens on 24-10-2023, the next day. It reads as follows:

"..... '(ಾಂಕ 24/10/2023 ರಂದು SೆಳTನ Nಾವ ಸು4ಾರು 03-00 ಗಂ2ೆ ಸಮಯದ @
ನಮ?ನು\ }Jದು.ೊಳDಲು ಪ ಯV\!Eಾಗ ನಮ? ಬI ಇಟುX.ೊಂಡದW ,ಾಕುಗIಂದ ಹ¯Éè 4ಾJ
ತo#!.ೊಳDಲು ಪ ಯV\!Eಾಗ ನನ ೆ ಮತು1 ಇ(ೊ\ಂದು ಕ_ೆ ಓJ Rೋದ ªÀÄÄ£ÉÃAzÀæ¤UÉ PÁ®ÄUÀ½UÉ
ಗುಂಡು Rಾ ! ೕಸರು ನಮ?ನು\ ವಶ.ೆ8 ಪ_ೆದು.ೊಂಡು ಸಂLೋŠ ಕು4ಾG ನನು\ ಓಡು ಾಗ ಮgÀ
ಎEೆ ೆ ತಗು ಾಯ ೊಂJದುW ಮೂವರನು\ ೕಸರು .ೋ[ಾರ SNR ಆಸ#Lೆ ೆ Eಾಖ !ದರು.
ಹ•%v, ಅರು• ಕು4ಾG, (ಾ ೇಂದ ನನು\ ಸಹ ೕಸರು }Jದು ದಸ1T 4ಾJರುವ EಾT
VI•ತು.

'(ಾಂಕ 23/10/2023 ರಂದು 6ಾV ನನ\ QSೈk ೕ ಎ[ೊ@ೕ ದುW RೋTರುLೆ1. ಎ @
'WEೆ ಎಂದು (ೆ(ೆoಲ@. 7ೕಲ8ಂಡ (ಾವ ಗಳC ಈ .ೊ[ೆ 4ಾಡಲು ಸಂಚು ರೂo!ದ ಸ?lಾನ Nಾಗವನು\
ಮತು1 ೕ ಾಸ ರವರನು\ .ೊ[ೆ 4ಾJದ Nಾಗವನು\ ಮತು1 Lಾನು .ೊ[ೆ ೆ ಬಳ!ದ ತ[ಾ^G ಅನು
Rಾಗೂ ಸ?lಾನದ ಕುಂ2ೆಯ ಬI RಾOರುವ ತ[ಾ^G ಅನು\ ನನ\ NೊLೆ ಬಂದ6ೆ ಸ|ಳ Lೋ ¹
ಎV1.ೊಡುLೆ1ೕ(ೆ. (ಾನು 7ೕಲ8ಂಡವರ NೊLೆ 0ೇ ಸಂಚು ರೂo! ೕ ಾಸ ರವರನು\ .ೊ[ೆ
4ಾJರುವ ದು ತyಾ#Tರುವ EಾT ತ o#.ೊಂJರುLೆ1ೕ(ೆ,

ನನ\ ಸಮ ಮ ಓ'! .ೇಳ[ಾT ಸ •Eೆ
¸À»/-"

Spot mahazar is conducted on 23-10-2023 without the FSL

personnel being in the team. No incriminating material is

collected from the spot. The mahazar is done in a casual
17

manner. The next day the inquest proceedings happen.

Eyewitnesses were present at the time of inquest proceedings. No

statements are recorded by the Investigating Officer at the time of

conduct of inquest proceedings. Accused No.4 tenders his voluntary

statement on 24-10-2023. It is his deposition that he along with

Accused No.2 tried to escape together after committing the offence

and have thrown the talwar into a nearby pond in the agricultural

field. The Investigating Officer does not make any effort to

recover the weapon, though accused themselves say that

weapon was thrown at that place. Accused No.4 further

deposes that he and accused No.6 after the incident had planned to

flee and had parked bike near the K.S.R.T.C bus stand. He has

deposed that it was parked on 23-10-2023. The Investigating

Officer recovers the same on 18-12-2023 after 2 months. On

20-11-2023, 1 month after the incident, accused No.2 is taken

to the pond in the agricultural field where he is said to have thrown

the talwar and could not recover the talwar as the soil had settled

in the water which was 10 feet deep. This happens only because of

callousness in the conduct of investigation.
18

14. For the incident that happens on 23-10-2023, when the

accused themselves say that they have thrown the talwar, the

material object in the nearby pond, the first thing the Investigating

Officer should have done was to recover the talwar. It was not done

so. All the collected documents and material objects during the

investigation ought to have been sent to the Magistrate

immediately. It is sent only after 20 days. The accused

themselves admit that they have used talwar and pepper spray. No

recovery is made of any pepper spray from the spot or the

instrument. Accused No.5 tenders his statement about the place

where all the accused sat, consumed alcohol, conspired to do away

the life of M.Srinivas on the previous day. Despite this voluntary

statement, mahazar of the said place i.e., SLV bar is done

only after 14 days i.e., on 10-11-2023. The most important

evidence would be CCTV footage at the SLV bar. This is not

seen/secured despite statements of accused Nos. 5, 8 and 9 were

recorded 10 days prior to the mahazar. Accused No.8 also points at

the place of conspiracy. No mahazar is drawn immediately. Same

goes with the statement of accused No.9. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were

taken into custody from the Hospital on 08-11-2023. They narrate
19

the place and the place where they hatched further conspiracy - a

grave yard. Spot mahazar is done after 10 days. Few of the

talwars were seized at the instance of the accused on 24-10-2023.

They were sent to FSL only on 04-11-2023, 10 days after the

seizure. Clothes of the accused which were said to be blood

stained have not been seized at all.

15. Though accused 1 to 3 were taken into custody from the

Hospital on 08-11-2023, the vehicles they used were seized only on

18-11-2023, 10 days thereafter. After the conduct of the aforesaid

shoddy investigation by the local Police, owing to demand, the

matter was transferred to the CID. The CID did nothing better.

After the CID took over the investigation, test identification parade

ought to have been done. It is done after 45 days of the

incident. The accused themselves give consent for a polygraph test

on 30-12-2023 after the CID took over the investigation. Till the

filing of the charge sheet no polygraph test is conducted. The CID

Police would go a step further. They go to the pond again in an

effort to recover the talwar. The talwar is then recovered by the
20

CID, which the local Police had reported that it was missing, and

could not be recovered.

16. The CID Police make an effort to resolve the problem of

absolutely shoddy investigation of the local police, by another

shoddy investigation. The common lapses in both the

investigations are that none of the mahazars that are done are

videographed as is necessary in law; No blood test of any of the

accused is conducted, as the body of the accused and their clothes

were all blood stained; No investigation takes place to trace the

movement of the accused prior to the incident; The mobile phones

of accused 1 to 8 are even to-day missing; The CDRs are not

collected; It is only after a direction at the hands of this Court the

CDRs are secured; The tower dumps of places where the accused

moved prior to the incident have not been taken; The two seized

talwars were sent to FSL only by the CID. It is based upon the

aforesaid shoddy investigation. The petitioner, wife of deceased

submits a representation to the Chief Minister to transfer the

investigation to the hands of the CBI. The same representation is

again repeated on 26-07-2024 when no action is taken on the
21

earlier representation. The representation dated 26-07-2024 reads

as follows:

"ರವ ಂದ

_ಾ. ಚಂದ ಕ[ಾ .ೋಂ [ೇ` ಎಂ. ೕ ಾಸ .
ಬೃಂEಾವನ ಲಯ. yಾ 2ೆO\g ರ0ೆ1,
ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ 2ೌ ,
.ೋ[ಾರ ~[ೆ@ - 563 135.

ರವ ೆ:

ಸ(ಾ?ನ5 ೕ !ದ'6ಾಮಯ5ನವರು,
4ಾನ5 ಮುಖ5 ಮಂV ಗಳC,
ಕ(ಾ%ಟಕ ಸ.ಾ%ರ,
:aಾನ0ೌಧ, Sೆಂಗಳ'ರು .

:ಷಯ: .ೋ[ಾರ ~[ೆ@ ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ ೕ¸ï oÁuÉಯ @ Eಾಖ[ಾTರುವ ªÀÄPÀzÝÀ ªÄÉ
¸ÀASÉå:372/2023 PÀ®A 120:109, 212,307, 302, 202 ಸಹ ಾಚಕ 149 ಐ o !
ಮತು1 ಕಲಂ 3(2(vÀ), 3(2)(vÀ)(a) ಎ /ಎ¹Ö, ಆgX 1986 ಪ ಕರಣದ @
Eೋ„ಾ6ೋಪ ಾ ಪZX ಸ @ಸ[ಾTದುW. ಪ ಕರಣದ ಮುಂದುವ ದ ತ <ೆಯನು\
! ಐ ೆ ವ ಾ%•ಸುವಂLೆ .ೋ ರುವ '(ಾಂಕ 2-3-2024 ರ ಅ~%ಯ •ಾಪನ
.ೋ .ೆ ಪತ .

7ೕಲ8ಂಡ :ಷಯ.ೆ8 ಸಂಬಂ•!ದಂLೆ ತಮ ೆ VIಸುವ Eೇ(ೆಂದ6ೆ, (ಾನು ಮೃತ ಎಂ.
ೕ ಾ , 4ಾ~ ~[ಾ@ ಪಂ,ಾ•V ಅಧ5 ರು, .ೋ[ಾರ ~[ೆ@ ರವರ ಪV\/ಾTದುW, ವೃV1ಯ @
ೈEೆ5/ಾTರುLೆ1ೕ(ೆ. '(ಾಂಕ 23/ 10/ 23 ರಂದು ನನ\ ಪVಯವರ .ೊ[ೆ/ಾTದುW, ಪ ಕರಣದ
ತ <ೆಯನು\ .ೈ ೊಂಡ ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ ೕಸರು. (ಾವ VI!ದ ::ಧ ಆ/ಾಮಗಳ @ ತ <ೆಯನು\
ನ_ೆಸEೆ ಇರುವ ಬ ೆ] ಕ ಮವನು\ .ೈ ೊಂಡು, ಪ ಕರಣದ ತ <ೆಯನು\ ! ಐ ತ <ಾ ಸಂ0ೆ| ೆ
ೕಡSೇ.ೆಂದು - ೕಡಂ yಾg% Sೆಂಗಳ'ರು ನ @ '(ಾಂಕ 01/12/2023 ರಂದು ಧರ-- ನ_ೆ! ಸ.ಾ%ರ.ೆ8
ಮನ: ಸ @!ರುLೆ1ೕ ೆ. ನನ\ ಪV ೆ ಮತು1 ನನ\ ಕುಟುಂಬ.ೆ8 ಆTರುವ ಅ(ಾ5ಯದ :ರುದ' Rೋ6ಾಡುವ
ಸಲು ಾT ಸ.ಾ% ೈEೆ5/ಾT 0ೇ ೆಯ @ದW (ಾನು ಸ^ ಇ,ೆ˜•ಂದ 31-3-2024 ರಂದು ವೃV1
ಪ_ೆ'ರುLೆ1ೕ(ೆ. ಆದ6ೆ, ನಮ? ಮನ:ಯನು\ rಾಗಶಃ ಪ ರಸ8 !ದ ಸ.ಾ%ರ, ಮುಂ'ನ ತ <ೆಯನು\
22

!ಐJ :lೇಷ ಘಟ(ೆಗಳC ಮತು1 ಆš%ಕ ಅಪ6ಾಧಗಳC, Sೆಂಗಳ'ರು ಇವ ೆ ವ ಾ%•!ರುತ1Eೆ. !ಐJ
ರವರು ತ <ೆಯನು\ .ೈ ೆV1.ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ. ತ <ಾ•.ಾ ಗI ೆ (ಾನು ನನ\ ಮಗಳC _ಾಕXG OLಾ
ಎ . ಾಸ ಅIಯ . ಆG. rಾಸ8G. ಮತು1 ನನ\ ಮಗ(ಾದ _ಾಕXG Oಶ ಸೂಯ% ರವರುಗಳ
RೇI.ೆಗಳನು\ ೕJರುLೆ1ೕ ೆ. ಸದ RೇI.ೆಗಳ @ ಈ .ೊ[ೆ ಪ ಕರಣದ @ ಈ ಾಗ[ೇ (ಾ5/ಾಂಗ
ಬಂಧನದ @ರುವ 9 ಜನ ಆ6ೋoಗಳಲ@Eೆ. ಅವ6ೊಂ' ೆ ಸಂಚು ರೂo!, .ೊ[ೆ 4ಾಡಲು ಆ6ೋoಗI ೆ
ಧನ ಸRಾಯ 4ಾJದವರ ಬ ೆ] ನಮ ೆ ಸಂಶಯ:ರುವ ವ5O1ಗಳ Rೆಸರು, :;ಾಸ ದೂರ ಾ--
ಸಂ<ೆ5ಗಳನು\ ೕJರುLೆ1ೕ ೆ. ಮತು1 ನನ\ ಯಜ4ಾನರು 6ಾಜOೕಯದ @ ಸO ಯ ಾTದW ಂದ ಮತು1
2024ರ [ೋಕಸrಾ ಚು(ಾವ ೆಯ @ .ೋ[ಾರ [ೋಕಸrೆ ›ೇತ ದ @ ಸ#•%ಸಲು Z.ೆ` ಆ.ಾಂ‰ಯೂ
ಆTದW ಂದ ಮತು1 .ೊ[ೆ ಆ6ೋoಗI ೆ 6ಾಜ.ಾರ--ಗಳ ಕಟ ಸಂಪಕ%:ದುWದW ಂದ, ಈ .ೊ[ೆಯ }ಂEೆ
6ಾಜOೕಯ ವ5O1ಗಳ ಸಂiರುವ ಬ ೆ]ಯೂ ನಮ? RೇI.ೆಗಳ @ VI!ರುLೆ1ೕ ೆ.

ಈ .ೊ[ೆ ಪ ಕರಣದ @ ಹಣವಂತರು ಮತು1 ಪ rಾ: ವ5O1ಗಳ .ೈ ಾಡ:ದುW ಈ .ೊ[ೆœಂದು
ಸು•ಾ .ೊ[ೆ/ಾTರುವ ಬಲ ಾದ ಸಂಶಯ:ರುವ ದ ಂದ ಅವರು ಬಯ[ಾಗEೆ ಇರುವ ದು ಒಂದು
ದುರಂತ ನಮ ೆ (ಾ5ಯ!ಗುವಂLಾಗಲು ಈ ಪ ಕರಣವನು\ ! ಐ ತ <ೆ ೆ ಒo#ಸುವಂLೆ (ಾನು '(ಾಂಕ
2-3-2024 ರಂದು ತಮ ೆ ಮನ:ಯನು\ ಸ @!ರುLೆ1ೕ(ೆ. ಅದರ ಪ Vಗಳನು\ ಇದ6ೊಂ' ೆ
ಲಗV1!ರುLೆ1ೕ(ೆ. ಅಲ@Eೆ ಇಂ' ೆ .ೊ[ೆ ಪ ಕರಣ ನ_ೆದು 9 VಂಗಳC ಕ;ೆದರೂ ತ <ೆಯು ಪžಣ%
ಪ 4ಾಣದ @ .ೊ(ೆ/ಾTಲ@. '(ಾಂಕ: 2-3-2024 ರಂದು (ಾನು ತಮ ೆ ಸ @!ದ ಮನ: ಪತ ದಂLೆ
ಆ6ೋoಗಳ Brain mapping ಾT ಆ6ೋoಗಳ ಒo# ೆಯನು\ ಮತು1 (ಾ5/ಾಲಯದ ಒo#ಯನು\
ಪ_ೆ'ರುವ EಾT ಈ ಾಗ[ೇ !ಐJ ಯವರು ಸ @!ರುವ NಾŸ% !ೕ` ನ @ ನಮೂ'!ರುLಾ16ೆ. ಆದ6ೆ
ಈ ಒo# ೆ ಪ_ೆದು ಸು4ಾರು 4-5 VಂಗಳC ಕ;ೆ'ದWರೂ ಈ ತ <ೆಯನು\ ಇನು\ 4ಾJರುವ 'ಲ@.
ಆ6ೋoಗಳ ಸRಾಯಕರ ಮತು1 (ಾವ ದೂ ನ @ .ೊZXರುವ ವ5O1ಗಳ :,ಾರ ೆಗಳC ಪžಣ% ಾT
ಆTರುವ 'ಲ@. ತ <ೆ :ಳಂಬ ಆಗುV1ರುವ ದ ಂದ ನನ ೆ ನನ\ ಕುಟುಂಬ.ೆ8 (ಾ5ಯ Eೊರಕುತ1Eೆ ಎಂಬ
ಭರವ0ೆ ‰ೕ--ಸುV1Eೆ. ಮತು1 ನನ ೆ, ನನ\ ಮಕ8I ೆ ಮತು1 ಕುಟುಂಬ¸ÀÜ ೆ ನಮ? ಯಜ4ಾನರನು\
ಕ;ೆದು.ೊಂJರುವ (ೋ:ನ NೊLೆ ೆ ತ <ೆ :ಳಂಬ ಾಗುV1ರುವ ದ ಂದ 4ಾನ!ಕ }ಂ0ೆ, (ೋವ ,
ಸಂಕಟ, ಮ(ೋEೌಬ%ಲ5 ಉಂ2ಾಗುV1Eೆ. ನನ\ ಪVಯ .ೊ[ೆ ೆ (ಾ5ಯ Eೊರಕುತ1Eೆ ಎಂಬ ಭರವ0ೆ
‰ೕ--ಸುV1Eೆ.

ಆದW ಂದ Lಾವ ಈ .ೊ[ೆ ಪ ಕರಣದ ತ <ೆಯನು\ ! ಐ ೆ ಒo#ಸುವ ಅಥ ಾ ಒo#ಸEೆ
ಇರುವ ಬ ೆ], ನನ ೆ ಪತ (}ಂಬರಹದ
}ಂಬರಹದ ಮು<ೇನ)
ಮು<ೇನ) VI!ದ6ೆ,
VI!ದ6ೆ (ಾ5ಯ.ಾ8T Rೋ6ಾಡುವ ಮುಂ'ನ
ಮುಂ'ನ
ಆu8ಗಳನು\ ಗುರುV!.ೊಳDಲು ಅನು ಾಗುತ1Eೆ ತ <ೆ aಾನ ಾದಂLೆ.
ಾದಂLೆ 0ಾ‰ (ಾಶ ಾಗುವ ಮತು1
ಪ ತ5 0ಾ‰ಗಳ @ ಭಯ ಹುZX.
ಹುZX ಅವರುಗಳC 0ಾ‰ ೕಡಲು ಮುಂದುವ6ೆಯEೆ.
ಮುಂದುವ6ೆಯEೆ (ಾ5/ಾಲಯ.ೆ8 ಬರEೇ
ಇರುವ 0ಾಧ5LೆಗIದುW ಇದರ @ ನಮ ೆ (ಾ5ಯ !ಗಬಹುEಾದ 4ಾಗ%ಗಳC O EಾTರುವ 'ಂದ ನಮ ೆ
(ಾ5ಯ EೊರಕSೇ.ಾದ6ೆ ಈ ಪ ಕರಣವನು\ Rೆisನ ತ <ಾ ಸಂ0ೆ|/ಾದ ! ಐ ೆ .ೊಡುವ ಅಥ ಾ
23

.ೊಡEೆ ಇರುವ ಬ ೆ] ತಮ? ಧ%ರವನು\ (ಾವ VIದು.ೊಳCDವ ಅವ.ಾಶವನು\ ೕಡಲು ಬ ೆ] ಈ ಮೂಲಕ
ತಮ? @ ಸ:ನಯ ಾT yಾ š%ಸುLೆ1ೕ(ೆ.
(ೆ.

ಧನ5 ಾದಗ;ೆ' ಂ' ೆ
ತಮ? :lಾ^!
¸À»/-
_ಾ. ಚಂದ ಕ[ಾ
ಸ|ಳ: ೕ ಾಸಪ ರ"
(Emphasis added)

17. In the considered view of this Court, whether it is the

local Police or the CID, the Investigating Officers of both the

agencies have miserably failed to inspire even a semblance of

confidence in the conduct of investigation, which erodes public

confidence in the conduct of investigation particularly in murder

cases. The Special Public Prosecutor, as observed hereinabove, has

been candid in accepting the grave lacanue in the investigation,

undeniably so, as the CID is no better than the jurisdictional police

who had investigated into the matter. The CID is not an

independent investigating agency stricto senso. It is an

investigating wing of the State in which except the detectives in the

CID, who were permanent appointees, every other officer is on

deputation from the general wing of the Police. It is, therefore
24

necessary, in the glaring facts and peculiar circumstances, that the

investigation be handed over to a different investigating agency,

independent enough for conduct of free and fair investigation,

which perhaps would be neither shoddy nor lopsided.

THE LAW FROM THE PRISM OF THE APEX COURT:

18. The Apex Court has considered the issue of transfer of

investigation in plethora of cases and has transferred and has also

declined to transfer again, in plethora of cases. I deem it

appropriate to notice the law, where the Apex Court, particularly in

cases of murder, has transferred the investigation to CBI on

noticing absolutely shoddy investigation conducted by the local

Police or the local agencies. The Apex Court has, right from 1992,

emphasized this fact of transfer of investigation on the score that

victims are not likely to get justice at the hands of local Police.

Therefore, to instill public confidence, transfer had become

necessary, as the transfer in every case is done from the

hands of the local Police to the CBI.
25

18.1. The Apex Court in the case of GUDALURE M.J.

CHERIAN v. UNION OF INDIA1 has held as follows:

".... .... ....
7. It is not necessary for us to go into various facts and
circumstances mentioned by the petitioners in the writ petition
in support of their apprehensions that the investigation in the
case by the police was not fair and the victims are not likely to
get justice by the authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Four
accused persons have been arrested in connection with the
crime and the trial against them is likely to commence. The
investigation having been completed by the police and charge-
sheet submitted to the court, it is not for this Court, ordinarily,
to reopen the investigation specially by entrusting the same to a
specialised agency like CBI. We are also conscious that of late
the demand for CBI investigation even in police cases is on the
increase. Nevertheless -- in a given situation, to do justice
between the parties and to instil confidence in the public
mind -- it may become necessary to ask the CBI to
investigate a crime. It only shows the efficiency and the
independence of the agency.

8. It is obvious from the affidavit of the Senior
Superintendent, Police that the nuns who are victims of the
tragedy are not coming forward to identify the culprits in an
identification parade to be held by the Magistrate. The
petitioners on the other hand, have alleged that the four
persons who have been set up as accused by the police
are not the real culprits and the police is asking the
sisters to accept the four arrested persons as culprits. In
the face of these averments and keeping in view the facts
and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that
ends of justice would be met if we direct the CBI to hold
further investigation in respect of the offences committed
between the night of July 12 and 13, 1990 as per the FIR
lodged at Police Station, Gajraula.

1
(1992) 1 SCC 397
26

9. We are, however, not inclined to accept the prayer of
the petitioners to transfer the criminal case from the file of IX
Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad.

10. We, therefore, direct the CBI to take up the
investigation of the case immediately. We further direct
the Senior Superintendent Police, Moradabad and the
Station House Officer, Gajraula Police Station to assist
the CBI in conducting the investigation. The State of Uttar
Pradesh through its Chief Secretary and the Home
Secretary is further directed to provide all assistance to
the CBI in this respect.
(Emphasis supplied)

18.2. Later, the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA v. SHEELA RAMESH KINI2 has held as follows:

".... .... ....

3. The facts speak eloquently in the judgment of the High
Court sought to be appealed against. We would scrupulously
avoid making mention thereof lest our step in that direction be
treated as one of approval or disapproval. Some portions of the
High Court's judgment, however, are worth reproduction. These
are:

"Having watched progress of the investigation, we
have no reason to doubt either the honesty or the integrity
of the officers engaged in the investigation. We, however,
find that the investigation has now reached a deadlock. We
further find that certain vital facts which emerge in the
investigation have still remained unanswered. They are:

(i) exact cause of death;

(ii) movements of Ramesh Kini between 8.00 a.m.
on 23rd July, 1996 when he left to attend a meeting in the
office of Samna after he met Advocate Shri Lad at 9.30 a.m.

2
(1998) 9 SCC 346
27

and 10.30 p.m. on the same evening when he was found in
Alka Theatre in Pune;

(iii) possibility of death otherwise than by suicide.

We find that the present investigating agency
has proceeded to investigate the case only on one
hypothesis namely 'suicidal death'. No steps are
taken to find out whether this is a case of murder."

Further the High Court has said:

"The present case, it is to be noted, has
generated immense amount of public interest. There
is, in fact, a public outcry. In the circumstances, we
cannot totally ignore the aforesaid facts and
circumstances arising in the present case."
And finally, the High Court has gone on to say:

"Having regard to the lacuna in the
investigation, which we have noted above, we find
that a case is made out to order transfer of
investigation to the CBI. We have noticed that
investigation has been one-sided and has failed to
explore alternate possibilities arising in the
investigation. To this extent investigation is found to
be faulty. Though no trace of external agency is
noticed, possibility of a latent bias on the part of the
investigation cannot be totally ruled out."

4. Insofar as the view of the High Court that the
crime has generated immense amount of public interest
or, in other words, a public outcry and that in a manner a
public demand has been made towards transference of
the investigation to the CBI, with respect, we do not
agree with the High Court. Decisions cannot be made on
the verdict of the numbers. A situation of the kind can
develop many a time, but courts have to maintain their
cool and watch the events with a fair amount of
objectivity. And it is not difficult for interested parties
sometimes to manipulate mass outcry; highly litigious as
our country has emerged to be. Disagreement with that
portion of the order, however, does not tell on the other
parts of the order which, in our view, does not call for any
28

dissent on our part; more so, when we have gone through
the reports submitted by the CID to the High Court. The
impression gathered by the High Court on the basis of
those reports was perfectly within its domain and that
being so, the impugned order does not require any
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India. The special leave petitions are, therefore,
dismissed."

(Emphasis supplied)

18.3. Further, the Apex Court in the case of RUBABBUDDIN

SHEIKH v. STATE OF GUJARAT3 has held as follows:

".... .... ....

51. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the parties and after going through the eight action taken
reports submitted by the police authorities before this Court and
after considering the decisions of this Court cited at the Bar and
the materials on record and considering the nature of offence
sought to be investigated by the State police authorities who are
themselves involved in such crime, we are unable to accept that
the investigation at this stage cannot be handed over to the CBI
Authorities or any other independent agency. We have already
discussed the decisions cited by Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat and have
already distinguished the said cases and came to a conclusion
that those decisions were rendered when CBI enquiries have
already been made and at that stage this Court held that after
the charge-sheet is submitted, the CBI Authorities would not be
able to approach this Court or the High Court to have issuance
of directions from this Court.

52. In R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC
143 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 248 : AIR 1994 SC 38] on which reliance
was placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner, this Court observed: (SCC pp. 144-45, para 2)

3
(2010)2 SCC 200
29

"2. ... We have perused the events that have taken
place since the incidents but we are refraining from entering
upon the details thereof lest it may prejudice any party but
we think that since the accusations are directed against the
local police personnel it would be desirable to entrust the
investigation to an independent agency like the Central
Bureau of Investigation so that all concerned including the
relatives of the deceased may feel assured that an
independent agency is looking into the matter and that
would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility.
However faithfully the local police may carry out the
investigation, the same will lack credibility since the
allegations are against them. It is only with that in mind
that we having thought it both advisable and desirable as
well as in the interest of justice to entrust the investigation
to the Central Bureau of Investigation...."
(emphasis supplied)

This decision clearly helps the writ petitioner for handing
over the investigation to the CBI Authorities or any other
independent agency.

53. It is an admitted position in the present case
that the accusations are directed against the local police
personnel in which the high police officials of the State of
Gujarat have been made the accused. Therefore, it would
be proper for the writ petitioner or even the public to
come forward to say that if the investigation carried out
by the police personnel of the State of Gujarat is done,
the writ petitioner and their family members would be
highly prejudiced and the investigation would also not
come to an end with proper finding and if investigation is
allowed to be carried out by the local police authorities,
we feel that all concerned including the relatives of the
deceased may feel that investigation was not proper and
in that circumstances it would be fit and proper that the
writ petitioner and the relatives of the deceased should
be assured that an independent agency should look into
the matter and that would lend the final outcome of the
investigation credibility however faithfully the local police
may carry out the investigation, particularly when the
gross allegations have been made against the high police
30

officials of the State of Gujarat and for which some high
police officials have already been taken into custody.

54. It is also well known that when police officials of the
State were involved in the crime and in fact they are
investigating the case, it would be proper and interest of justice
would be better served if the investigation is directed to be
carried out by the CBI Authorities, in that case CBI Authorities
would be an appropriate authority to investigate the case.

55. In Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2006) 2
SCC 677: (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678] , this Court at para 8
observed: (SCC p. 681)
"8. ... We are also of the view that since there is
allegation against the police personnel, the interest of
justice would be better served if the case is registered and
investigated by an independent agency like CBI."

(emphasis supplied)

56. In Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Admn. [1988 Supp SCC
482: 1988 SCC (Cri) 864: AIR 1988 SC 1323] this Court held
that in a case where the police had not acted fairly and in fact
acted in partisan manner to shield real culprits, it would be
proper and interest of justice will be served if such investigation
is handed over to the CBI Authorities or an independent agency
for proper investigation of the case. In this case, taking into
consideration the grave allegations made against the
high police officials of the State in respect of which some
of them have already been in custody, we feel it proper
and appropriate and in the interest of justice even at this
stage, that is, when the charge-sheet has already been
submitted, the investigation shall be transferred to the
CBI Authorities for proper and thorough investigation of
the case.

57. In Kashmeri Devi [1988 Supp SCC 482 : 1988 SCC
(Cri) 864 : AIR 1988 SC 1323] , this Court also observed as
follows: (SCC p. 484, para 7)

"7. Since according to the respondents charge-sheet
has already been submitted to the Magistrate we direct the
trial court before whom the charge-sheet has been
31

submitted to exercise his powers under Section 173(8) CrPC
to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation for proper and
thorough investigation of the case. On issue of such
direction the Central Bureau of Investigation will investigate
the case in an independent and objective manner and it will
further submit additional charge-sheet, if any, in accordance
with law."

58. In Gudalure M.J. Cherian [(1992) 1 SCC 397] , in that
case also the charge-sheet was submitted but in spite of that, in
view of the peculiar facts of that case, the investigation was
transferred from the file of the Sessions Judge, Moradabad to
the Sessions Judge, Delhi. In spite of such fact that the charge-
sheet was filed in that case, this Court directed CBI to hold
further investigation in spite of the offences committed. In this
case at p. 400 this Court observed: (SCC para 7)

"7. ... The investigation having been completed by
the police and charge-sheet submitted to the court, it is not
for this Court, ordinarily, to reopen the investigation
specially by entrusting the same to a specialised agency like
CBI. We are also conscious that of late the demand for CBI
investigation even in police cases is on the increase.
Nevertheless--in a given situation, to do justice between
the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind--it
may become necessary to ask CBI to investigate a crime. It
only shows the efficiency and the independence of the
agency."

59. In this connection, we may reiterate the decision of
this Court in Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Assn. [(1994) 1
SCC 616: 1994 SCC (Cri) 455: AIR 1994 SC 1023] strongly
relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner. A reference of the paragraph of the said decision on
which reliance could be placed has already been made in para
35 from which it would be evident that in order to do complete
justice in the matter and to instil confidence in the public mind,
this Court felt it necessary to have investigations through the
specialised agency like CBI.

60. Therefore, in view of our discussions made
hereinabove, it is difficult to accept the contentions of Mr
Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State
of Gujarat that after the charge-sheet is submitted in the
32

court in the criminal proceeding it was not 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 independent
agency. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that in an
appropriate case when the court feels that the
investigation by the police authorities is not in the proper
direction and in order to do complete justice in the case
and as the high police officials are involved in the said
crime, it was always open to the court to hand over the
investigation to the independent agency like CBI. It
cannot be said that after the charge-sheet is submitted,
the court is not empowered, in an appropriate case, to
hand over the investigation to an independent agency like
CBI.

61. Keeping this discussion in mind, that is to say,
in an appropriate case, the court is empowered to hand
over the investigation to an independent agency like CBI
even when the charge-sheet has been submitted, we now
deal with the facts of this case whether such
investigation should be transferred to the CBI Authorities
or any other independent agency in spite of the fact that
the charge-sheet has been submitted in court. On this
ground, we have carefully examined the eight action
taken reports submitted by the State police authorities
before us and also the various materials produced and
the submissions of the learned counsel for both the
parties.
... ... ..

80. We have already discussed the decisions cited
from the Bar on the question that after the charge-sheet
being filed whether the investigation could be handed
over to the CBI Authorities or to any other independent
agency from the State police authorities. We have already
distinguished the decisions cited by the State that they
related to the power of the court to monitor the
investigation after the charge-sheet was filed. The scope
of this order, however, cannot deal with the power of this
Court to monitor the investigation, but on the other hand
in order to make sure that justice is not only done, but
also is seen to be done and considering the involvement
of the State police authorities and particularly the high
33

officials of the State of Gujarat, we are compelled even at
this stage to direct the CBI Authorities to investigate into
the matter. Since the high police officials of the State of
Gujarat are involved and some of them had already been
in custody, we are also of the view that it would not be
sufficient to instil confidence in the minds of the victims
as well as of the public that still the State police
authorities would be allowed to continue with the
investigation when allegations and offences were mostly
against them.

81. In the present circumstances and in view of the
involvement of the police officials of the State in this crime, we
cannot shut our eyes and direct the State police authorities to
continue with the investigation and the charge-sheet and for a
proper and fair investigation, we also feel that CBI should be
requested to take up the investigation and submit a report in
this Court within six months from the date of handing over a
copy of this judgment and the records relating to this crime to
them.

82. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances even at
this stage the police authorities of the State are directed to hand
over the records of the present case to the CBI Authorities
within a fortnight from this date and thereafter the CBI
Authorities shall take up the investigation and complete the
same within six months from the date of taking over the
investigation from the State police authorities. The CBI
Authorities shall investigate all aspects of the case relating to
the killing of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi including the
alleged possibility of a larger conspiracy. The report of the CBI
Authorities shall be filed in this Court when this Court will pass
further necessary orders in accordance with the said report, if
necessary. We expect that the Police Authorities of Gujarat,
Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan shall cooperate with the CBI
Authorities in conducting the investigation properly and in an
appropriate manner.
(Emphasis supplied)
34

18.4. In STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. COMMITTEE FOR

PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS4, the Apex Court has

held as follows:

".... .... ....
Conclusions

68. Thus, having examined the rival contentions in the
context of the constitutional scheme, we conclude as follows:
... ... ...
(vii) When the Special Police Act itself
provides that subject to the consent by the State, CBI
can take up investigation in relation to the crime
which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the
State police, the Court can also exercise its
constitutional power of judicial review and direct CBI
to take up the investigation within the jurisdiction of
the State. The power of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away,
curtailed or diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police
Act. Irrespective of there being any statutory
provision acting as a restriction on the powers of the
Courts, the restriction imposed by Section 6 of the
Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot
be read as restriction on the powers of the
constitutional courts. Therefore, exercise of power of
judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion,
would not amount to infringement of either the
doctrine of separation of power or the federal
structure.

69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question
referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to
CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have
been committed within the territory of a State without
the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the
federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the
doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law.
Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this
4
(2010) 3 SCC 571
35

Court and the High Courts have not only the power and
jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the
fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and
under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular,
zealously and vigilantly.

70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to
emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32
and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts
must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the
exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of
the power under the said articles requires great caution in its
exercise. 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 power 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.

71. In Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services,
U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya [(2002) 5 SCC 521: 2002 SCC (L&S)
775] this Court 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 a conclusion that
such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an
investigation by CBI or any other similar agency. We
respectfully concur with these observations."

(Emphasis supplied)
36

18.5. In ASHOK KUMAR TODI v. KISHWAR JAHAN5, the

Apex Court has held as follows:

".... .... ....

31. In view of the above judgment, it is unnecessary to
delve into the issue further about appointment of special agency
like CBI for investigation under the orders of the High Court. In
fact, in view of the above decision, almost all the counsel
appearing on either side have no quarrel with the issue and
their present grievance is whether the order of the learned
Single Judge is to be implemented or the impugned order of the
Division Bench is to be applied.

32. On the legality of the order of the learned Single
Judge in directing CBI to investigate and submit a report
instead of the State CID, we are of the view that the
learned Single Judge assigned acceptable reasons. It was
highlighted by the learned Senior Counsel for the mother
and brother of the deceased that in spite of Sections
154(3) and 156(1) of the Code and the Police Regulations
of Calcutta, the authorities, particularly, the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Detective Department was
interested in protraction of the case and was not taking
any interest in its investigation. The Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, and the
Additional Deputy Commissioner, Headquarters had
unauthorisedly intervened in the matter. Since there was
no allegation of abduction against the deceased, the said
officers made several attempts to mediate between the
deceased and his in-laws. Relevant materials were shown
that the officer in charge of Karaya Police Station had
visited the residence of the deceased; the intervention by
the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective
Department, in the conjugal life of the deceased was
uncalled for. It was also highlighted that without taking into
account the earlier decisions of this Court directing the
administration/authorities to see that spouses of inter-religious
marriages are not harassed or subjected to threats, the

5
(2011) 3 SCC 758
37

Commissioner of Police had made comments, widely reported,
that the reaction of the parents to the marriage was natural and
death was due to suicide.

33. The learned Senior Counsel has also highlighted
unholy nexus between the top brass of the police with the
father-in-law of the deceased. By placing such acceptable
materials, the writ petitioners expressed doubt about fair
investigation under CID and demonstrated that investigation by
CBI under the orders of the court is necessary, since justice
should not only be done but seen to be done. Inasmuch as the
grievance of the mother and brother of the deceased is
acceptable, the learned Single Judge, by interim order dated 16-
10-2007, directed CBI to investigate into the cause of unnatural
death of Rizwanur Rahman and file a report before it.
... ... ...
42. While answering those issues, the Division Bench of
the High Court committed several infirmities which we point out
hereunder. With regard to the interim order dated 16-10-2007
passed by the learned Single Judge appointing CBI to
investigate and report, the Division Bench has observed that the
learned Single Judge has not injuncted or restrained the State
CID from proceeding with the investigation in accordance with
the Code. The Division Bench has also commented that in the
absence of any direction by the learned Single Judge for
handing over the papers relating to the investigation done so far
by CID to CBI, CID ought to have completed the investigation
on its own. We are unable to accept this conclusion.

43. When the learned Single Judge on satisfying
himself based on the materials, particularly, the conduct
of the State Police and the apprehension of the mother
and brother of the deceased about getting fair justice at
the hands of the State CID directed investigation by CBI,
there cannot be any parallel investigation by the State
CID.

44. In the same way, we are unable to accept the
conclusion of the Division Bench that the learned Single Judge
simply appointed CBI as His Lordship's "Special Officer" to
investigate into the cause of unnatural death of the deceased
and to submit a report in a sealed cover. The said finding of the
38

High Court is not borne out of the records of the case including
the order dated 16-10-2007 passed by the learned Single
Judge. Neither the Code authorises the appointment of CBI
officers as "Special Officer" nor the prayers made in the writ
petition prayed for appointment of CBI to act as "Special Officer"
of the Court. As a matter of fact, the order dated 16-10-2007 of
the learned Single Judge does not mention that CBI was being
appointed as "Special Officer" of the Court.

45. In the interim order, the learned Single Judge
decided the question whether investigation by CID was
just, fair and proper or whether such investigation should
be conducted by CBI. Merely because no injunction was
passed against CID from continuing with the
investigation in the matter or no order was passed
directing CID to hand over all the papers relating to
investigation conducted by them to CBI, does not mean
that CID was free to continue with their investigation. On
the other hand, the order dated 16-10-2007 makes it
clear that the learned Single Judge was prima facie
satisfied that the case in question necessitated
investigation by CBI. Thus, the finding of the Division
Bench that the learned Single Judge appointed CBI as its
"Special Officer" is patently against all canons of justice,
equity and fair play in action.

46. The Division Bench of the High Court also
committed an error in holding the order appointing CBI to
investigate for the purpose of submitting report to the
learned Single Judge and not to investigate for the
alleged offence in accordance with law in place of State
CID and hence conclusion of such investigation by CBI
cannot form the basis of charge-sheet in the criminal
trial. The Division Bench has also not considered the
judgment dated 14-8-2008 passed by the learned Single
Judge in terms whereof, the Court permitted CBI to
proceed in accordance with law for filing charge-sheet
before the competent court under Section 173(2) of the
Code and was also granted liberty to conduct further
investigation before it actually files the charge-sheet at
any point it may consider necessary in the interest of
justice. Neither the learned Single Judge directed CBI to
submit the report as charge-sheet, as has been held
39

erroneously by the learned Division Bench, nor was CBI
stopped from conducting further investigation in the
matter before it actually filed the charge-sheet at any
point it may consider necessary in the interest of justice.
It is evident that CBI at interim order stage was directed
to investigate the case and at the final order stage was
directed to submit charge-sheet after making further
investigation.
... ... ...
51. In view of the same, the Division Bench failed to
appreciate the order dated 16-10-2007 passed by the learned
Single Judge directing CBI to investigate into the cause of
unnatural death of Rizwanur Rehman. We have already noted
that as per Section 2(h) of the Code "investigation" includes all
the proceedings under this Code for collection of evidence
conducted by a police officer. The direction to conduct
investigation requires registration of an FIR preceding
investigation and, therefore had to be treated as casting an
obligation on CBI to first register an FIR and thereafter proceed
to find out the cause of death, whether suicidal or homicidal. In
order to find out whether the death of Rizwanur Rahman was
suicidal or homicidal, investigation could have been done only
after registration of an FIR. Therefore, CBI was justified in
recording FIR on 19-10-2007 in terms of the order dated 16-10-
2007 passed by the learned Single Judge.

52. The inquiry/investigation under Section 174 read with
Section 175 of the Code may continue till the outcome of the
cause of the death. Depending upon the cause of death, the
police has to either close the matter or register an FIR. In the
case on hand, as per the post-mortem report dated 22-9-2007,
the cause of death of Rizwanur Rahman was due to the effect of
ten injuries on the body and which were ante-mortem in nature.
In such circumstances, the proceedings under Section 174 of
the Code were not permissible beyond 22-9-2007 and
registration of an FIR was the natural outcome to ascertain
whether the death was homicidal or suicidal.

(Emphasis supplied)
40

18.6. In NARMADA BAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT6 the Apex

Court has held as follows:

".... .... ....
Key issues

26. Keeping the above submissions in mind, we have to
first find out:

(A) Whether after filing of the charge-sheet by
the State agency, the Court is precluded from
appointing any other independent specialised agency
like CBI to go into the same issues if the earlier
investigation was not done as per the established
procedure; and

(B) Subject to the answer relating to the issue raised
in (A), whether the petitioner has made out a case for
entrusting the investigation to CBI.

Analysis as to Issue (A)

27. The first issue i.e. Issue (A) as in the case on hand
also arose in Rubabbuddin Sheikh [(2010) 2 SCC 200 : (2010) 2
SCC (Cri) 1006] . The factual details therein will be discussed in
the later paragraphs. With regard to the similar objection as to
further investigation by CBI, this Court considered the following
cases:

(i) Vineet Narain v. Union of India [(1996) 2 SCC 199 : 1996
SCC (Cri) 264] ,
(ii) Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi [(1998) 8 SCC 661 :
1999 SCC (Cri) 84] ,
(iii) Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'Lalan' (8) v. Union of India [(2006) 6
SCC 613 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 125] ,
(iv) Hari Singh v. State of U.P. [(2006) 5 SCC 733 : (2006) 3
SCC (Cri) 63] ,
(v) AlequePadamsee v. Union of India [(2007) 6 SCC 171 :
(2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 1] ,

6
(2011) 5 SCC 79
41

(vi) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(2008) 1 SCC 407 : (2008)
1 SCC (Cri) 216] ,
(vii) R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 143 :
1994 SCC (Cri) 248] ,
(viii) Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2006) 2 SCC
677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678] ,
(ix) Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Admn. [1988 Supp SCC 482 :
1988 SCC (Cri) 864] ,
(x) Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India [(1992) 1 SCC
397] , and
(xi) Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Assn. v. State of
Punjab [(1994) 1 SCC 616 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 455]

and concluded in paras 60-61 as under : (Rubabbuddin Sheikh
case [(2010) 2 SCC 200 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1006] , SCC pp.
216-17)
"60. Therefore, in view of our discussions made
hereinabove, it is difficult to accept the contentions of Mr
Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of
Gujarat that after the charge-sheet is submitted in the court
in the criminal proceeding it was not 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 independent agency.
Therefore, it can safely be concluded that in an appropriate
case when the court feels that the investigation by the
police authorities is not in the proper direction and in order
to do complete justice in the case and as the high police
officials are involved in the said crime, it was always open
to the court to hand over the investigation to the
independent agency like CBI. It cannot be said that after
the charge-sheet is submitted, the court is not empowered,
in an appropriate case, to hand over the investigation to an
independent agency like CBI.

61. Keeping this discussion in mind, that is to say, in
an appropriate case, the court is empowered to hand over
the investigation to an independent agency like CBI even
when the charge-sheet has been submitted, we now deal
with the facts of this case whether such investigation should
be transferred to the CBI Authorities or any other
independent agency in spite of the fact that the charge-
sheet has been submitted in court. On this ground, we have
carefully examined the eight action-taken reports submitted
by the State police authorities before us and also the
42

various materials produced and the submissions of the
learned counsel for both the parties."
(emphasis supplied)

It is clear that in an appropriate case, particularly, when
the Court feels that the investigation by the State police
authorities is not in the proper direction as the high
police officials are involved, in order to do complete
justice, it is always open to the Court to hand over the
investigation to an independent and specialised agency
like CBI.
... ... ...
59. It is not in dispute that it is the age-old maxim
that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be
done. The fact that in the case of murder of an associate
of Tulsiram Prajapati, senior police officials and a senior
politician were accused may shake the confidence of
public in investigation conducted by the State police. If
the majesty of the rule of law is to be upheld and if it is to
be ensured that the guilty are punished in accordance
with law notwithstanding their status and authority
which they might have enjoyed, it is desirable to entrust
the investigation to CBI.

60. As stated earlier, it is the specific claim of the State
of Gujarat that they have conducted a fair and impartial
investigation into the killing of Tulsiram Prajapati, however,
analysis of the materials which we have already discussed
shows several lacunae on the part of the investigation by the
State Government. It is relevant to point out that much before
the incident dated 28-12-2006 which happened in Village
Chappri in Banaskantha District of the State of Gujarat in which
Tulsiram Prajapati was allegedly shot in an encounter while he
had opened fire on the police party, who was on the lookout for
him to apprehend him, after he had allegedly escaped from a
running train while being taken back to Rajasthan from Gujarat
where he was stated to be produced in a court proceeding,
Tulsiram Prajapati lodged two complaints in written, one to the
Collector, Udaipur and another addressed to the Chairman,
NHRC, New Delhi expressing the apprehension that he is likely
and going to be killed by Gujarat and Rajasthan Police. In fact,
on 28-12-2006, Tulsiram Prajapati has been killed in the fake
43

encounter which has now been admitted to be a fake encounter
after a gap of 3½ years.

61. In Mohd. Anis v. Union of India [1994 Supp (1) SCC
145 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 251] it has been observed by this Court
that:

"5. ... Fair and impartial investigation by an
independent agency, not involved in the controversy, is the
demand of public interest. If the investigation is by an
agency which is allegedly privy to the dispute, the credibility
of the investigation will be doubted and that will be contrary
to the public interest as well as the interest of justice." (SCC
p. 148, para 5)

"2. ... Doubts were expressed regarding the fairness
of the investigation as it was feared that as the local police
was alleged to be involved in the encounters, the
investigation by an officer of the U.P. Cadre may not be
impartial." (SCC p. 147, para 2)

62. In another decision of this Court in R.S.
Sodhi v. State of U.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 143 : 1994 SCC (Cri)
248] the following conclusion is relevant : (SCC pp. 144-45,
para 2)

63. In both these decisions, this Court refrained from
expressing any opinion on the allegations made by either side
but thought it wise to have the incident investigated by an
independent agency like CBI so that it may bear credibility. This
Court felt that no matter how faithfully and honestly the local
police may carry out the investigation, the same will lack
credibility as allegations were directed against them. This Court,
therefore, thought it both desirable and advisable and in the
interest of justice to entrust the investigation to CBI so that it
may complete the investigation at an early date. It was clearly
stated that in so ordering, no reflection either on the local police
or the State Government was intended. This Court merely acted
in public interest.

64. The above decisions and the principles stated therein
have been referred to and followed by this Court in Rubabbuddin
Sheikh [(2010) 2 SCC 200 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1006] where
also it was held that considering the fact that the allegations
have been levelled against high-level police officers, despite the
investigation made by the police authorities of the State of
Gujarat, ordered investigation by CBI. Without entering into the
allegations levelled by either of the parties, we are of the view
that it would be prudent and advisable to transfer the
investigation to an independent agency. It is trite law that the
accused persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment
of an investigation agency. The accused persons cannot choose
as to which investigation agency must investigate the alleged
offence committed by them.

65. In view of our discussions and submission of
the learned counsel on either side and keeping in mind
the earlier directions given by this Court, although,
charge-sheet has been filed by the State of Gujarat after
a gap of 3½ years after the incident, that too after
pronouncement of judgment in Rubabbuddin
case [(2010) 2 SCC 200 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1006] and
considering the nature of crime that has been allegedly
committed not by any third party but by the police
personnel of the State of Gujarat, we are satisfied that
the investigation conducted and concluded in the present
case by the State police cannot be accepted. In view of
45

various circumstances highlighted and in the light of the
involvement of police officials of the State of Gujarat and
police officers of two other States i.e. Andhra Pradesh
and Rajasthan, it would not be desirable to allow the
Gujarat State Police to continue with the investigation,
accordingly, to meet the ends of justice and in the public
interest, we feel that CBI should be directed to take the
investigation."

(Emphasis supplied)

18.7. In BHARATI TAMANG v. UNION OF INDIA7, the Apex

Court holds as follows:

".... .... ....

36. Again, in the subsequent decision in Rubabbuddin
Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 2 SCC 200 : (2010) 2 SCC
(Cri) 1006] , this Court has highlighted as to how under certain
circumstances the investigation can be entrusted with
independent agencies like CBI and also monitor the further
progress of the case after the final report is filed by CBI. The
relevant paras are 60 and 82 which are as under : (SCC pp. 216
& 221)

"60. Therefore, in view of our discussions made
hereinabove, it is difficult to accept the contentions of Mr
Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of
Gujarat that after the charge-sheet is submitted in the court
in the criminal proceeding it was not 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 independent
agency. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that in an
appropriate case when the court feels that the investigation
by the police authorities is not in the proper direction and in
order to do complete justice in the case and as the high
police officials are involved in the said crime, it was always
open to the court to hand over the investigation to the
independent agency like CBI. It cannot be said that after

7
(2013) 15 SCC 578
46

the charge-sheet is submitted, the court is not empowered,
in an appropriate case, to hand over the investigation to an
independent agency like CBI.
***
82. ... The report of CBI Authorities shall be filed in
this Court when this Court will pass further necessary orders
in accordance with the said report, if necessary. We expect
that the Police Authorities of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and
Rajasthan shall cooperate with CBI Authorities in conducting
the investigation properly and in an appropriate manner."

(emphasis supplied)

37. In the decision of 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."

(emphasis supplied)

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.

39. In the 2G Spectrum case in Centre for Public Interest
Litigation v. Union of India [(2011) 1 SCC 560 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri)
463] , this Court gave extensive directions in para 19 and also
directed CBI to produce the progress report before this Court.

40. In the decision of Ram Jethmalani v. Union of
India [(2011) 8 SCC 1 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 310] (to which one of
us S.S. Nijjar, J. was a party) considering the nature of grievances
expressed by the writ petitioner, constituted a high-level committee
as a Special Investigation Team in order to ensure that an effective
investigation is carried out and the culprits were brought to book.
47

41. From the various decisions relied upon by the petitioner
counsel as well as by respondents' counsel, the following principles
can be culled out.

41.1. The test of admissibility of evidence lies in its
relevancy.

41.2. Unless there is an express or implied constitutional
prohibition or other law, evidence placed as a result of even an
illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out.

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.

41.4. 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.

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 Investigation 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.

41.6. While entrusting the criminal prosecution with
other instrumentalities of State or by constituting a Special
Investigation Team, the High Court or this Court can also
monitor such investigation in order to ensure proper
conduct of the prosecution.

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.
48

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 supplied)

18.8. In SUBRATA CHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA8, the

Apex Court holds as follows:

".... .... ....

36. The question is whether the above features call
for transfer of the on-going investigation from the State
Police to CBI. Our answer is in the affirmative. Each one
of the aspects set out above in our view calls for
investigation by an independent agency like the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI). That is because apart from
the sensitivity of the issues involved, especially inter-
State ramifications of the scam under investigation,
transfer of cases from the State Police have been ordered
by this Court also with a view to ensure credibility of such
investigation in the public perception. Transfers have
been ordered by this Court even in cases where the
family members of the victim killed in a firing incident
had expressed apprehensions about the fairness of the
investigation and prayed for entrusting the matter to a
credible and effective agency like CBI.

37. Investigation by the State Police in a scam that
involves thousands of crores collected from the public allegedly
because of the patronage of people occupying high positions in
the system will hardly carry conviction especially when even the
regulators who were expected to prevent or check such a scam
appear to have turned a blind eye to what was going on. The
State Police Agency has done well in making seizures, in
registering cases, in completing investigations in most of the
cases and filing charge-sheets and bringing those who are
responsible to book. The question, however, is not whether the

8
(2014) 8 SCC 768
49

State Police has faltered. The question is whether what is done
by the State Police is sufficient to inspire confidence of those
who are aggrieved.

38. While we do not consider it necessary to go into the
question whether the State Police have done all that it ought to
have done, we need to point out that money trail has not yet
been traced. The collections made from the public far exceed
the visible investment that the investigating agencies have till
now identified. So also the larger conspiracy angle in the States
of Assam, Odisha and West Bengal although under investigation
has not made much headway partly because of the inter-State
ramifications, which the investigating agencies need to examine
but are handicapped in examining.

39. M/s Vaidyanathan and Gopal Subramanium, learned
counsel for the States of West Bengal and Odisha respectively
argued that CBI itself has in a great measure lost its credibility
and is no longer as effective and independent as it may have
been in the past. Similar sentiments were expressed by Mr P.V.
Shetty appearing on behalf of some of the investors and some
other intervenors, who followed suit to pursue a similar line of
argument.

40. There is, in our opinion, no basis of the
apprehension expressed by the State Governments. It is
true that a lot can be said about the independence of CBI
as a premier investigating agency but so long as there is
nothing substantial affecting its credibility it remains a
premier investigating agency. Those not satisfied with
the performance of the State Police more often than not
demand investigation by CBI for it inspires their
confidence. We cannot, therefore, decline transfer of the
cases only because of certain stray observations or
misplaced apprehensions expressed by those connected
with the scam or those likely to be affected by the
investigation.

41. We may in this regard gainfully extract the following
passage from the decision of this Court in Sanjiv Kumar v. State
of Haryana [(2005) 5 SCC 517: (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 235] ,
wherein this Court has lauded CBI as an independent agency
50

that is not only capable of but actually shows results: (SCC p.
523, para 15)

"15. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, looking at the nature of the allegations made and the
mighty people who are alleged to be involved, we are of the
opinion, that the better option of the two is to entrust the
matter to investigation by CBI. We are well aware, as was
also told to us during the course of hearing, that the hands
of CBI are full and the present one would be an additional
load on their head to carry. Yet, the fact remains that CBI
as a Central investigating agency enjoys independence and
confidence of the people. It can fix its priorities and
programme the progress of investigation suitably so as to
see that any inevitable delay does not prejudice the
investigation of the present case. They can think of acting
fast for the purpose of collecting such vital evidence, oral
and documentary, which runs the risk of being obliterated
by lapse of time. The rest can afford to wait for a while. We
hope that the investigation would be entrusted by the
Director, CBI to an officer of unquestioned independence
and then monitored so as to reach a successful conclusion;
the truth is discovered and the guilty dragged into the net
of law. Little people of this country, have high hopes from
CBI, the prime investigating agency which works and gives
results. We hope and trust the sentinels in CBI would justify
the confidence of the people and this Court reposed in
them."

42. In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow
all these petitions and direct transfer of the following
cases registered in different police stations in the State of
West Bengal and Odisha from the State Police Agency to
the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI):"

(Emphasis supplied)
51

18.9. In MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF

RAJASTHAN9, the Apex Court holds as follows:

".... .... ....

11. Such being the importance of fair and proper
investigation, this Court has in numerous cases arising
out of several distinctly different fact situations exercised
its power of transferring investigation from the
State/jurisdictional police to the Central Bureau of
Investigation under the Delhi Police Establishment Act.
There was mercifully no challenge to the power of this
Court to direct such a transfer and in my opinion rightly
so as the question whether this Court has the jurisdiction
to direct transfer stands authoritatively settled by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in State of
W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571: (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 401] .

12. Even so the availability of power and its exercise are
two distinct matters. This Court does not direct transfer of
investigation just for the asking nor is transfer directed only to
satisfy the ego or vindicate the prestige of a party interested in
such investigation. The decision whether transfer should or
should not be ordered rests on the Court's satisfaction whether
the facts and circumstances of a given case demand such an
order. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can possibly be
prescribed for universal application to all cases. Each case will
obviously depend upon its own facts. What is important is that
the Court while exercising its jurisdiction to direct transfer
remains sensitive to the principle that transfers are not ordered
just because a party seeks to lead the investigator to a given
conclusion. It is only when there is a reasonable apprehension
about justice becoming a victim because of shabby or partisan
investigation that the Court may step in and exercise its
extraordinary powers. The sensibility of the victims of the crime
or their next of kin is not wholly irrelevant in such situations.
After all transfer of investigation to an outside agency does not
imply that the transferee agency will necessarily, much less

9
(2015) 9 SCC 795
52

falsely implicate anyone in the commission of the crime. That is
particularly so when transfer is ordered to an outside agency
perceived to be independent of influences, pressures and pulls
that are commonplace when State Police investigates matters of
some significance. The confidence of the party seeking transfer
in the outside agency in such cases itself rests on the
independence of that agency from such or similar other
considerations. It follows that unless the Court sees any design
behind the prayer for transfer, the same must be seen as an
attempt only to ensure that the truth is discovered. The
hallmark of a transfer is the perceived independence of the
transferee more than any other consideration. Discovery of truth
is the ultimate purpose of any investigation and who can do it
better than an agency that is independent.

13. Having said that we need to remind ourselves that
this Court has, in several diverse situations, exercised the power
of transfer. In Inder Singh v. State of Punjab [(1994) 6 SCC 275
: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1653] this Court transferred the investigation
to CBI even when the investigation was being monitored by
senior officers of the State Police. So also in R.S. Sodhi v. State
of U.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 143 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 248]
investigation was transferred even when the State Police was
doing the needful under the supervision of an officer of the rank
of an Inspector General of Police and the State Government had
appointed a one-member Commission of Inquiry headed by a
sitting Judge of the High Court to enquire into the matter. This
Court held that however faithfully the police may carry out the
investigation the same will lack credibility since the allegations
against the police force involved in the encounter resulting in
the killing of several persons were very serious. The transfer to
CBI, observed this Court, "would give reassurance to all those
concerned including the relatives of the deceased that an
independent agency was looking into the matter".

14. Reference may also be made to the decision of this
Court in State of Punjab v. CBI [(2011) 9 SCC 182: (2011) 3
SCC (Cri) 666] wherein this Court upheld the order transferring
investigation from the State Police to CBI in connection with a
sex scandal even when the High Court had commended the
investigation conducted by the DIG and his team of officers.
In Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India [(2014) 8 SCC 768 :
(2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 116] , this Court directed transfer of the Chit
53

Fund Scam in the States of West Bengal and Orissa from the
State Police to CBI keeping in view the involvement of several
influential persons holding high positions of power and influence
or political clout.

15. Suffice it to say that transfers have been
ordered in varied situations but while doing so the test
applied by the Court has always been whether a direction
for transfer, was keeping in view the nature of
allegations, necessary with a view to making the process
of discovery of truth credible. What is important is that
this Court has rarely, if ever, viewed at the threshold the
prayer for transfer of investigation to CBI with suspicion.
There is no reluctance on the part of the Court to grant
relief to the victims or their families in cases, where
intervention is called for, nor is it necessary for the
petitioner seeking a transfer to make out a cast-iron case
of abuse or neglect on the part of the State Police, before
ordering a transfer. Transfer can be ordered once the
Court is satisfied on the available material that such a
course will promote the cause of justice, in a given case.

16. In the case at hand, circumstances leading to
the death of young college student girl have become the
subject-matter of investigation. The issue is sensitive not
only because of loss of an invaluable human life but also
because of the reasons which are sought to be attributed
for the sordid affair. The circumstances which the
petitioner has referred to in the writ petition and the
written submissions as also the contentions that were
urged before us in the course of the hearing may or may
not be conclusive in their import but those circumstances
need to be suitably looked into by an independent
investigating agency like CBI lest an incomplete,
indifferent or ineffective investigation leads to failure of
justice.
... ... ...
22. It is true that the prayer for transfer of
investigation from the State Police to CBI can be allowed
only in rare and exceptional circumstances when fair
investigation by the State Police does not inspire
confidence on account of any external influence or
54

otherwise as held in State of W.B. v. Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571 :
(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 401] . There can be no cast-iron
parameters and whether an exceptional situation has
arisen may be determined by the Court by taking an
overview of the fact situation of a particular case. In the
present case, we do not consider it necessary to blame
the college authorities or the local police but we are also
unable to reject the apprehension of the petitioner and
his prayer for transfer of investigation. The death of a
young girl student has taken place in mysterious
circumstances. According to the petitioner, the statement
of the girl was not recorded even though it could have
been done and thus, truth has not come out. In these
circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits,
it will be appropriate that the matter is investigated by
CBI."

(Emphasis supplied)

18.10. In DHARAM PAL v. STATE OF HARYANA10, the Apex

Court holds as follows:

".... .... ....

21. In this context, we may notice the statutory scheme
pertaining to investigation. Section 173 CrPC empowers the
police officer conducting investigation to file a report on
completion of the investigation with the Magistrate empowered
to take cognizance of the offence. Section 173(8) CrPC
empowers the officer-in-charge to conduct further investigation
even after filing of a report under Section 173(2) CrPC if he
obtains further evidence, oral or documentary. Thus, the power
of the police officer under Section 173(8) CrPC is unrestricted.
Needless to say, the Magistrate has no power to interfere but it
would be appropriate on the part of the investigating officer to
inform the Court. It has been so stated in Rama

10
(2016) 4 SCC 160
55

Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar,
(2009) 6 SCC 346 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1059] .

22. In Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali [Vinay Tyagi v.Irshad Ali,
(2013) 5 SCC 762 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 557] , wherein a two-
Judge Bench, after referring to the decision in Bhagwant
Singh v. Commr. of Police [Bhagwant Singhv. Commr. of Police,
(1985) 2 SCC 537: 1985 SCC (Cri) 267] has held thus: (Vinay
Tyagi case [Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762: (2013)
4 SCC (Cri) 557], SCC p. 789, para 38)

"38. However, having given our considered thought
to the principles stated in these judgments, we are of the
view that the Magistrate before whom a report under
Section 173(2) of the Code is filed, is empowered in law to
direct 'further investigation' and require the police to submit
a further or a supplementary report. A three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Bhagwant Singh [Bhagwant Singh v. Commr.
of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 267] has, in
no uncertain terms, stated that principle, as aforenoticed."

23. In the said case, the question had arisen whether a
Magistrate can direct for reinvestigation. While dealing with the
said issue, the Court has observed: (Vinay Tyagi case [Vinay
Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 557]
, SCC p. 791, para 43)

"43. At this stage, we may also state another well-
settled canon of the criminal jurisprudence that the superior
courts have the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
or even Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct
'further investigation', 'fresh' or 'de novo' and even
'reinvestigation'. 'Fresh', 'de novo' and 'reinvestigation' are
synonymous expressions and their result in law would be
the same. The superior courts are even vested with the
power of transferring investigation from one agency to
another, provided the ends of justice so demand such
action. Of course, it is also a settled principle that this
power has to be exercised by the superior courts very
sparingly and with great circumspection."

(emphasis supplied)
And again : (SCC p. 794, para 51)
56

"51. ... Whether the Magistrate should direct 'further
investigation' or not is again a matter which will depend
upon the facts of a given case. The learned Magistrate or
the higher court of competent jurisdiction would direct
'further investigation' or 'reinvestigation', as the case may
be, on the facts of a given case. Where the Magistrate can
only direct further investigation, the courts of higher
jurisdiction can direct further, reinvestigation or even
investigation de novo depending on the facts of a given
case. It will be the specific order of the court that would
determine the nature of investigation."

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 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
57

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".

26. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appeal is
allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside, and it is
directed that CBI shall conduct the investigation and file
the report before the learned trial Judge. The said
investigation report shall be considered by the trial Judge
as per law. Till the report by CBI is filed, the learned trial
Judge shall not proceed with the trial. A copy of the order
be handed over to Mr P.K. Dey, learned counsel for CBI to
do the needful."

(Emphasis supplied)
58

18.11. In POOJA PAL v. UNION OF INDIA11 the Apex Court

holds as follows:

".... .... ....

75. That the extraordinary power of the constitutional
courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India qua
the issuance of direction to CBI to conduct investigation must be
exercised with great caution, was underlined 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, it was highlighted that such an order cannot be
passed as a matter of routine or merely because the party
has 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 investigation or where the incident may
have national and international ramifications or where
such an order may be necessary for doing complete
justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights.

76. In Kashmeri Devi [Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi
Admn., 1988 Supp SCC 482 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 864] , being
satisfied, in the prevailing facts and circumstances that
effort had been made to protect and shield the guilty
officers of the police who allegedly had perpetrated the
offence of murder involved, this Court directed the
Magistrate concerned before whom the charge-sheet had
been submitted, to exercise its power under Section
173(8) of the Code to direct CBI for proper and thorough
investigation of the case and to submit an additional
charge-sheet in accordance with law.

77. In Gudalure M.J. Cherian [Gudalure M.J.
Cherian v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 397] , this Court in a
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,
lodged in public interest, did after taking note of the fact

11
(2016) 3 SCC 135
59

that charge-sheet had already been submitted, direct CBI
to hold further investigation in respect of the offence
involved. In recording this conclusion, this Court did take
note of the fact that the nuns who had been the victim of
the tragedy did not come forward to identify the culprits
and that as alleged by the petitioners, the four persons
set up by the police as accused were not the real culprits
and that the victims were being asked to accept them to
be so. The paramount consideration for the direction
issued was to secure justice between the parties and to
instil confidence in public mind. The same imperative did
impel this Court to issue a similar direction for fresh
investigation by CBI in Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar
Assn. [Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Assn. v. State of
Punjab, (1994) 1 SCC 616 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 455] Here as well
the investigation otherwise had been completed and charge-
sheet was submitted.

78. This Court dealing with the proposition that
once a charge-sheet is filed, it would then be exclusively
in the domain of the competent court to deal with the
case on merits in accordance with law and that the
monitoring of the investigation would cease in all
respects, held, in particular, in K.V. Rajendran [K.V.
Rajendran v. Supt. of Police, (2013) 12 SCC 480 : (2014)
4 SCC (Cri) 578] in reiteration of the enunciations
aforestated, that though it is ordinarily so, the power of
transferring investigation in rare and exceptional cases
for the purpose of doing justice between the parties and
to instil confidence in the public mind, can be made
invoking its constitutional power available, to ensure a
fair, honest and complete investigation.

79. The precedential ordainment against absolute
prohibition for assignment of investigation to any impartial
agency like CBI, submission of the charge-sheet by the normal
investigating agency in law notwithstanding, albeit in an
exceptional fact situation warranting such initiative, in order to
secure a fair, honest and complete investigation and to
consolidate the confidence of the victim(s) and the public in
general in the justice administering mechanism, is thus
unquestionably absolute and hallowed by time. Such a measure,
however, can by no means be a matter of course or routine but
60

has to be essentially adopted in order to live up to and
effectuate the salutary objective of guaranteeing an
independent and upright mechanism of justice dispensation
without fear or favour, by treating all alike.

80. In the decisions cited on behalf of CBI as well, this
Court in K. Saravanan Karuppasamy [K. Saravanan
Karuppasamy v. State of T.N., (2014) 10 SCC 406 : (2015) 1
SCC (Cri) 133] and SudiptaLenka [SudiptaLenka v. State of
Odisha, (2014) 11 SCC 527 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 428] ,
recounted the above propositions underpinning the primacy of
credibility and confidence in investigations and a need for
complete justice and enforcement of fundamental rights judged
on the touchstone of high public interest and the paramountcy
of the rule of law.

81. The judicially propounded propositions on the
aspects of essentiality and justifiability for assignment of
further investigation or reinvestigation to an independent
investigating agency like CBI, whether or not the probe
into a criminal offence by the local/State Police is
pending or completed, irrespective of as well, the
pendency of the resultant trial have concretised over the
years, applicability whereof, however, is contingent on
the factual setting involved and the desideratum for
vigilant, sensitised and even-handed justice to the
parties.

82. The exhaustive references of the citations seemingly
repetitive though, assuredly attest the conceptual consisting in
the expositions and enunciations on the issue highlighting the
cause of justice as the ultimate determinant for the course to be
adopted.

83. A "speedy trial", albeit the essence of the
fundamental right to life entrenched in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India has a companion in concept in "fair trial",
both being inalienable constituents of an adjudicative process,
to culminate in a judicial decision by a court of law as the final
arbiter. There is indeed a qualitative difference between right to
speedy trial and fair trial so much so that denial of the former
by itself would not be prejudicial to the accused, when pitted
against the imperative of fair trial. As fundamentally, justice not
61

only has to be done but also must appear to have been done,
the residuary jurisdiction of a court to direct further
investigation or reinvestigation by any impartial agency, probe
by the State Police notwithstanding, has to be essentially
invoked if the statutory agency already in charge of the
investigation appears to have been ineffective or is presumed or
inferred to be not being able to discharge its functions fairly,
meaningfully and fructuously. As the cause of justice has to
reign supreme, a court of law cannot reduce itself to be a
resigned and a helpless spectator and with the foreseen
consequences apparently unjust, in the face of a faulty
investigation, meekly complete the formalities to record a
foregone conclusion. Justice then would become a casualty.
Though a court's 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 is to
secure justice on the basis of true facts which ought to be
unearthed through a committed, resolved and a competent
investigating agency.

84. As every social order is governed by the rule of
law, the justice dispensing system cannot afford any
compromise in the discharge of its sanctified role of
administering justice on the basis of the real facts and in
accordance with law. This is indispensable, in order to
retain and stabilise the faith and confidence of the public
in general in the justice delivery institutions as
envisioned by the Constitution.

85. As succinctly summarised by this Court
in Committee for Protection of Democratic Right [State of
W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights,
(2010) 3 SCC 571 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 401] , the
extraordinary power of the constitutional courts in
directing CBI to conduct investigation in a case must be
exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional
62

situations, when it is necessary to provide credibility and
instil confidence in 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. In our
comprehension, each of the determinants is consummate
and independent by itself to justify the exercise of such
power and is not interdependent on each other.

86. A trial encompasses investigation, inquiry, trial,
appeal and retrial i.e. the entire range of scrutiny including
crime detection and adjudication on the basis thereof.
Jurisprudentially, the guarantee under Article 21 embraces both
the life and liberty of the accused as well as interest of the
victim, his near and dear ones as well as of the community at
large and therefore, cannot be alienated from each other with
levity. It is judicially acknowledged that fair trial includes fair
investigation as envisaged by Articles 20 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Though well-demarcated contours of crime
detection and adjudication do exist, if the investigation is
neither effective nor purposeful nor objective nor fair, it would
be the solemn obligation of the courts, if considered necessary,
to order further investigation or reinvestigation as the case may
be, to discover the truth so as to prevent miscarriage of the
justice. No inflexible guidelines or hard-and-fast rules as such
can be prescribed by way of uniform and universal invocation
and the decision is to be conditioned to the attendant facts and
circumstances, motivated dominantly by the predication of
advancement of the cause of justice.
... ... ...
100. The present factual conspectus leaves one with a
choice either to let the ongoing trial casually drift towards its
conclusion with the possibility of offence going unpunished or to
embark upon investigation belated though, spurred by the
intervening developments, to unravel the truth, irrespective of
the persons involved. As it is, every offence is a crime against
the society and is unpardonable, yet there are some species of
ghastly, revolting and villainous violations of the invaluable right
to life which leave all sensible and right-minded persons of the
society shell-shocked and traumatised in body and soul. Such
incidents mercifully, rare though, are indeed exceptionally
agonising, eliciting resentful condemnation of all and thus
63

warrant an extraordinary attention for adequate remedial
initiatives to prevent their recurrence. In our considered view,
even if such incidents, otherwise diabolical and horrendous, do
not precipitate national or international ramifications, these
undoubtedly transcend beyond the confines of individual
tragedies and militativelyimpact upon the society's civilised
existence. If the cause of complete justice and protection of
human rights are the situational demands in such contingencies,
order for further investigation or reinvestigation, even by an
impartial agency as CBI ought to be a peremptory measure in
the overwhelming cause of justice.

101. Judged in these perspectives, we are of the firm
opinion that notwithstanding the pendency of the trial, and the
availability of the power of the courts below under Sections 311
and 391 of the Code read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act,
it is of overwhelming and imperative necessity that to rule out
any possibility of denial of justice to the parties and more
importantly to instil and sustain the confidence of the
community at large, CBI ought to be directed to undertake a de
novo investigation in the incident. We take this view, conscious
about the parameters precedentially formulated, as in our
comprehension in the unique facts and circumstances of the
case any contrary view would leave the completed process of
crime detection in the case wholly inconsequential and the
judicial process impotent. A court of law, to reiterate has to be
an involved participant in the quest for truth and justice and is
not expected only to officiate a formal ritual in a proceeding far-
seeing an inevitable end signalling travesty of justice. Mission
justice so expectantly and reverently entrusted to the judiciary
would then be reduced to a teasing illusion and a sovereign and
premier constitutional institution would be rendered a suspect
for its existence in public estimation. Considering the live
purpose for which judiciary exists, this would indeed be a price
which it cannot afford to bear under any circumstance.

102. In the wake of the above, we are
unhesitatingly inclined to entrust CBI, with the task of
undertaking a de novo investigation in the incident of
murder of Raju Pal, the husband of the appellant as
aforementioned. Though a plea has been raised on behalf
of Respondents 4 and 5 in particular that this incident has
been exploited by the appellant for her political gains, we
64

are left unpersuaded thereby, as her achievements in
public life must have been fashioned by very many
ponderable as well as imponderable factors. In any view of
the matter, such a contention, in our view, is of no consequence
or relevance. We would, however, make it abundantly clear that
this direction for entrustment of the investigation to CBI anew
has been made in view of the exceptional features of the case
as overwhelmingly demonstrated by attendant facts and
circumstances indispensably necessitating the same.

103. We are aware that in the meantime, over a
decade has passed. The call of justice, however, demands
that CBI in spite of the constraints that it may face in
view of the time lag, would make all possible endeavours
to disinter the truth through its effective and competent
investigation and submit the same before the trial court,
as early as possible, preferably within the period of six
months from today. The clarion call of justice expects a
befitting response from the country's premier and
distinguished investigating agency. On receipt of the
report by CBI only, the trial court would proceed
therewith in accordance with law and conduct and
conclude the trial expeditiously and not later than six
months. The interim order staying the ongoing trial is
hereby made absolute."

(Emphasis supplied)

18.12. Later, the Apex Court in the case of MANDAKINI

DIWAN v. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH12 has held as

follows:

".... .... ....

19. Considering the fact that Respondent 7 is a
senior judicial officer any doubt or apprehension in the
minds of the appellants who have lost their family

12
(2024) 10 SCC 560
65

member may be dispelled by the investigation being
carried out by CBI. This may result into doing complete
justice and enforcing the fundamental right of getting a
fair investigation.

20. In AwungshiChirmayo v. State (NCT of
Delhi) [AwungshiChirmayo v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 10
SCC 568] this Court directed CBI to hold enquiry in the criminal
matter related to murder of two cousins due to certain puzzling
facts including inconclusive post-mortem report. It held as
follows: (SCC pp. 572-73, paras 14-18)

"14. In a seminal judgment reported as 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] , this Court has discussed in detail inter alia the
circumstances under which the constitutional courts would
be empowered to issue directions for CBI enquiry to be
made. This Court noted that the power to transfer
investigation should be used sparingly, however, it could be
used for doing complete justice and ensuring there is no
violation of fundamental rights. This is what the Court said
in para 70: (SCC p. 602)
'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 power 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.'

Madan Tamang who was killed during a political clash and
directed investigation by CBI which would be monitored by
the Joint Director, CBI. The following observations were
made in para 44: (SCC p. 601)

'44. ... Whether it be due to political rivalry or
personal vengeance or for that matter for any other motive
a murder takes place, it is the responsibility of the police to
come up to the expectation of the public at large and
display that no stone will remain unturned to book the
culprits and bring them for trial for being dealt with under
the provisions of the criminal law of prosecution. Any
slackness displayed in that process will not be in the
interest of the public at large and therefore as has been
pointed out by this Court in the various decisions, which we
have referred to in the earlier paragraphs, we find that it is
our responsibility to ensure that the prosecution agency is
reminded of its responsibility and duties in the discharge of
its functions effectively and efficiently and ensure that the
criminal prosecution is carried on effectively and the
perpetrators of crime are duly punished by the appropriate
court of law.'

16. This Court has expressed its strong views
about the need of Courts to be alive to genuine
grievances brought before it by ordinary citizens as
has been held in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of
Gujarat [Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of
Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 999] .

17. It is to observe that unresolved crimes tend
to erode public trust in institutions which have been
established for maintaining law and order. Criminal
investigation must be both fair and effective. We say
nothing on the fairness of the investigation appears
to us, but the fact that it has been ineffective is self-
evident. The kith and kin of the deceased who live far away
in Manipur have a real logistical problem while approaching
authorities in Delhi, yet they have their hope alive, and
have shown trust and confidence in this system. We are
therefore of the considered view that this case needs to be
handed over to CBI, for a proper investigation and also to
remove any doubts in the minds of the appellants, and to
bring the real culprits to justice.

18. In view of the discussion made above, the order
of the Delhi High Court dated 18-5-2018
67

[AwungshiChirmayo v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 9123] , dismissing the prayer of the present
appellants to transfer the investigation to CBI is hereby set
aside. The appeal is hereby allowed and we direct that CBI
to hold enquiry in the matter. The case shall be transferred
from SIT to CBI. The SIT, which has so far conducted the
investigation in the matter, will hand over all the relevant
papers and documents to CBI for investigation. After a
thorough investigation, CBI will submit its complete
investigation report or charge-sheet before the court
concerned as expeditiously as possible."

21. It is true that power to direct CBI to conduct
investigation is to be exercised sparingly and such orders
should not be passed in a routine manner. In the present
case, the aggrieved party has raised allegations of bias
and undue influence on the police machinery of the State
of Chhattisgarh. Coupled with the fact that the thorough,
fair and independent investigation needs to be carried
out to find out the truth about the whole incident and in
particular about the ante-mortem injuries. We are of the
view that such a direction needs to be issued in the
present case.

22. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the
impugned order [Mandakini Diwan v. High Court of
Chhattisgarh, 2023 SCC OnLineChh 1441] passed by the
High Court and further direct CBI Respondent 8 to carry
out complete and fair investigation and proceed in
accordance to law into the incident and that too
expeditiously considering the fact that the incident is of
2016 and submit a report to this Court. If CBI finds that an
FIR needs to be registered, it may itself do so and proceed
accordingly and bring such complaint to a logical conclusion.

23. However, if CBI comes to the conclusion that
there is no material which it could collect which is not
sufficient in ordinary course to submit a charge-sheet, it
would close the proceedings. The State of Chhattisgarh is
directed to extend all cooperation to CBI in conducting
the investigation and provide all necessary papers and
other strategic support to CBI as may be required."

(Emphasis supplied)
68

18.13. In AWUNGSHI CHIRMAYO v. GOVERNMENT OF

NCT OF DELHI13, the Apex Court holds as follows:

".... .... ....

12. Apparently there seems to be no reason for a
young girl of 25 years of age to commit suicide. Prima
facie it does not seem to be a case of suicide. The crime
scene shows that blood was spattered on the floor and
the bedsheet was completely drenched in blood. It
appears to be a homicidal death and therefore the
culprits must be apprehended.

13. Mr K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General
of this Court, in his usual fairness submits that he has no
objection, if the investigation in the present case is handed over
to CBI.

14. In a seminal judgment reported as 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] , this Court has discussed in
detail inter alia the circumstances under which the constitutional
courts would be empowered to issue directions for CBI enquiry
to be made. This Court noted that the power to transfer
investigation should be used sparingly, however, it could be
used for doing complete justice and ensuring there is no
violation of fundamental rights. This is what the Court said in
para 70: (SCC p. 602)

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 power 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

13
(2024) 10 SCC 568
69

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."
(emphasis supplied)

15. The powers of this Court for directing further
investigation regardless of the stage of investigation are
extremely wide. This can be done even if the charge-
sheet has been submitted by the prosecuting agency.
In Bharati Tamang v. Union of India [Bharati
Tamang v. Union of India, (2013) 15 SCC 578 : (2014) 6
SCC (Cri) 566] , this Court allowed the writ petition filed
by the widow of late Madan Tamang who was killed
during a political clash and directed investigation by CBI
which would be monitored by the Joint Director, CBI. The
following observations were made in para 44: (SCC p.
601)

44. ... Whether it be due to political rivalry or
personal vengeance or for that matter for any other motive
a murder takes place, it is the responsibility of the police to
come up to the expectation of the public at large and
display that no stone will remain unturned to book the
culprits and bring them for trial for being dealt with under
the provisions of the criminal law of prosecution. Any
slackness displayed in that process will not be in the
interest of public at large and therefore as has been pointed
out by this Court in the various decisions, which we have
referred to in the earlier paragraphs, we find that it is our
responsibility to ensure that the prosecution agency is
reminded of its responsibility and duties in the discharge of
its functions effectively and efficiently and ensure that the
criminal prosecution is carried on effectively and the
perpetrators of crime are duly punished by the appropriate
court of law."

16. This Court has expressed its strong views about the
need of courts to be alive to genuine grievances brought before
it by ordinary citizens as has been held in Zahira Habibulla H.
Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State
of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 999] .
70

17. It is to observe that unresolved crimes tend to
erode public trust in institutions which have been
established for maintaining law and order. Criminal
investigation must be both fair and effective. We say
nothing on the fairness of the investigation as appears to
us, but the fact that it has been ineffective is self-evident.
The kith and kin of the deceased who live far away in
Manipur have a real logistical problem while approaching
authorities in Delhi, yet they have their hope alive, and
have shown trust and confidence in this system. We are
therefore of the considered view that this case needs to
be handed over to CBI, for a proper investigation and also
to remove any doubts in the minds of the appellants, and
to bring the real culprits to justice.

18. In view of the discussion made above, the order
of the Delhi High Court dated 18-5-2018
[AwungshiChirmayo v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 9123] , dismissing the prayer of the present
appellants to transfer the investigation to CBI is hereby
set aside. The appeal is hereby allowed and we direct that
CBI to hold enquiry in the matter. The case shall be
transferred from SIT to the CBI. The SIT, which has so far
conducted the investigation in the matter, will hand over
all the relevant papers and documents to CBI for
investigation. After a thorough investigation, CBI will
submit its complete investigation report or charge-sheet
before the court concerned as expeditiously as possible."

(Emphasis supplied)

19. An analysis of the constellation of the judgments rendered

by the Apex Court as quoted hereinabove, the unmistakable

inference is, that the Apex Court in cases of murder, suicide or

large scale public fraud have transferred the investigation to
71

independent agencies like the CBI. In all those cases investigation

was found to be absolutely shoddy. The investigation was

conducted by the local Police. The investigation at times, in certain

cases, were directed to be conducted de novo and in certain cases

were directed to conduct further, to what the local police have

conducted.

20. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the

State has relied on several judgments of the Apex Court to contend

that for the asking the transfer should not be made. The said

submission is noted only to be rejected and the judgments relied on

by him are all inapplicable to the facts of the case. Therefore,

transfer to the CBI can never be for the asking. It can be only on

weighing the conduct of investigation, on a case to case basis.

There will be plethora of cases where investigation is sought at the

hands of CBI for the asking, and those demands have been

declined, as transfer of investigation to CBI cannot become a

panacea to all ills in the conduct of investigation. But, in cases of

the nature of the subject crime which is an alleged day light

murder, the investigation cannot be recklessly done, as is done in
72

the case at hand. The glaring lacunae is as noticed

hereinabove, and if the glaring lacunae is considered, it does

not inspire even a modicum of confidence in the conduct of

investigation by the Investigating agency (local Police) or

the CID. The very essence of justice is threatened, when

those entrusted with its pursuit, falter so gravely. A case of

such magnitude cannot be allowed to perish under the

weight of a shoddy investigations.

21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, noticing the

fulcrum of the investigation, the subject case emerges as a classic

illustration for transfer of investigation to CBI, not for conduct of

further investigation, but for conduct of de-novo investigation. The

said direction is not merely warranted, it is imperative, as

both the local Police and the CID have completely drowned

the whispers of truth into deep waters by slipshod

investigations. Therefore, the entire investigation is required to be

transferred to the CBI for its conduct de novo.
73

22. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

        (i)     Writ Petition is allowed.


        (ii)    The investigation in Crime No.372 of 2023 is placed at

the hands of the CBI - Respondent No.2 for conduct of a de novo investigation.

(iii) The local Police or the CID shall hand over entire material to the hands of the CBI forthwith.

(iv) Respondent No.2, CBI shall conduct de novo investigation and file its final report before the concerned Court, within an outer limit of three months from the date of commencement of investigation.

(v) The concerned Court shall not proceed with its proceedings till the CBI files its final report.

(vi) Needless to observe that the local police shall cooperate with CBI during investigation, if needed and sought.

SD/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:MJ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court