Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.2 Mr. Shah has also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of K. Chandrashekhar v. State of Kerala reported in 1998 SCC (Cri.) 1212 wherein the Apex Court pointed out distinction between further investigation and reinvestigation.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is disputing the contents of Panchnama and his case is that he has been framed in the present case. The alleged discovery of 'Surgical Blade' was made after about eight days from the date of incident. The Panchnama shows that it was having fresh bloodstains on it. However, no investigation has been made with regard to the said fresh bloodstains. Earlier brother-in-law of the petitioner had given statement alleging that the petitioner had committed murder of his sister i.e. wife of the petitioner. Thereafter he turned hostile and filed an application seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions Court at Viramgam. The said application came to be rejected. According to the prosecution, it was after the petitioner was released on bail the said witness has changed his version. However, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has in any manner influenced his brother-in-law to change his version, when earlier he categorically stated that the petitioner has committed murder of his sister. In such case two hypothetical conclusion can be arrived at. Either the petitioner has prevailed upon his brother-in-law or his brother-in-law must have reasonable belief that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence. Therefore he has filed the application for further investigation.