Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

99. The trial on the basis of the investigation completed hitherto by the State Police and CB-CID has remained stayed by the orders of this Court. Prior thereto, however, as per the materials laid before this Court, several eyewitnesses cited by the investigating agency have been examined. As the trial is pending for the present, we refrain from commenting on their testimony, except that they seem to have resiled from their statements under Section 161 of the Code. Having regard to the manner in which the offence had been committed, it is incomprehensible that there was no eyewitness to the incident. Thus, if the persons cited as eyewitnesses by the investigating agency retract from their version made before the police, then either they have been wrongly projected as eyewitnesses or they have for right or wrong reasons resiled from their earlier narration. In both the eventualities, in our opinion, the investigation has to be faulted as inefficient, incomplete and incautious with the inevitable consequence of failure of the prosecution in the case in hand. Such a fallout also spells a dismal failure of the State machinery as a pivotal stakeholder in the process of justice dispensation to protect and assure the witnesses of their safety and security so as to fearlessly testify the truth. We would hasten to add that these observations are by no means suggestive of the complicity of Respondents 4 and 5 and other accused persons standing trial. These, to reiterate, are farthest from even any presumptive hypothesis of their involvement in the offence for the present and are engendered by the concern of possible failure of justice. If the investigating agencies, as involved, have not been able to identify and present eyewitnesses of the incident who would under all circumstance religiously and devotedly abide by their version about the same, the shortcoming apparently is in the probe made, sadly reflecting on the competence, commitment and efficacy of such agencies. The very fact that this Court had earlier stayed the trial while permitting the appellant to approach the High Court with the relief for assignment of the investigation to CBI does signify its expectation that the High Court would adopt a sensitive insight into the issues raised and appropriately address the same. The pendency of the trial and the examination of the witnesses so far made thus in our estimate is not a disarming factor for this Court, to consider the necessity of entrusting the investigation to CBI even at this stage. To reiterate, a decision in this regard has to be induced and impelled by the cause of justice viewed in the overall facts and circumstances attendant on the incident. No inflexible norm or guideline is either available or feasible.