Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah's case (2 supra), for the proposition that, no second FIR shall be filed and no fresh investigation shall be done on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of same cognizable offence.

13. The facts of the said case are that, one Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah filed writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging filing of fresh FIR dated 29.04.2011 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and charge sheet dated 04.09.2012 arraying him as an accused. The fresh FIR was pursuant to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the Police Authorities of the Gujarat State to handover the case relating to the death of Tulsiram Prajapati, a material witness to the killings of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi to the CBI, in Narmada Bai vs. Sate of Gujarath [(2011) 5 SCC 79], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the investigation conducted/concluded by the State Police and directed to handover the case to CBI and after investigation, the CBI registered fresh FIR in 2011. Aggrieved by the action of CBI in registering fresh FIR, the said writ petition was filed alleging that it is violative of his fundamental rights. The prayer in the said writ petition is for quashing of second FIR and the charge sheet. In the said case, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the said prayer is based upon CBI's own finding that the offence covered by the second FIR is part of the same conspiracy and culminated into the same series of acts forming part of the same transaction, in which the offence alleged in the first FIR was committed. It was also pointed out therein that, it is the case of the CBI itself before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even KVL, J the charges will have to be framed jointly and one trial will have to be held as contemplated under Section 220 of Cr.P.C.; it was further pointed out that as per CBI, the alleged criminal conspiracy commenced when Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi (whose deaths were in question in the first FIR) and Tulsiram Prajapati (whose death was in question in the second FIR) were abducted from Hyderabad after which Sohrabuddin was allegedly killed in the year 2005 and Kausarbi and Tulsiram Prajapati were killed thereafter; it was also highlighted that the competent jurisdictional court has already taken cognizance of all the three alleged killings in the charge sheet filed by the CBI in the first FIR itself. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case of the CBI is that the abduction of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi and their subsequent murders as well as the murder of Tulsiram Prajapati are distinct offences arising out of separate conspiracies though inter- connected with each other. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that 'in the first charge sheet filed by the CBI in the year 2010, the CBI categorically mentioned that the killing of Tulsiram Prajapati is also a part of the very same conspiracy which is mentioned in the first FIR, but before the Supreme Court, a different stand was taken by the CBI'.

57. In the investigation conducted by CBI, it has clearly emerged that killing of Tulsiram Prajapati was an integral part of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused arising out of the same transaction.

67. Thus, in view of the aforesaid provision, it is eminently required in the interest of justice that Tulsiram Prajapati fake encounter case be investigated and tried along with Sohrabuddin fake encounter case as the evidence procured so far shows that Tulsiram Prajapati's encounter took place as he was the prime witness to the Sohrabuddin's abduction. As such both these cold-blooded murders are interconnected, they ought not to be tried separately as it may give rise to conflicting findings, raise issues of issue estoppel and/or res judicata and end up derailing or frustrating the interest of justice."

The above referred declaration of law by this Court has never been diluted in any subsequent judicial pronouncements even while carving out exceptions.

Mr Raval, learned ASG, by referring T.T. Antony submitted that the said principles are not applicable and relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case as the said judgment laid down the ratio that there cannot be two FIRs relating to the same offence or occurrence. The learned ASG KVL, J further pointed out that in the present case, there are two distinct incidents/occurrences, inasmuch as one being the conspiracy relating to the murder of Sohrabuddin with the help of Tulsiram Prajapati and the other being the conspiracy to murder Tulsiram Prajapati -- a potential witness to the earlier conspiracy to murder Sohrabuddin. We are unable to accept the claim of the learned ASG. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid proposition of law making registration of fresh FIR impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution is reiterated and reaffirmed in the following subsequent decisions of this Court:

(i) The larger conspiracy allegedly commenced in November 2005 and culminated into the murder of Tulsiram Prajapati in December 2006 in a fake encounter.

(ii) The alleged fake encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati was a consequence of earlier false encounter of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi since Tulsiram Prajapati was an eyewitness to the abduction and consequent murders of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi.

(iii) Tulsiram Prajapati was allegedly kept under the control of the accused police officers, as a part of the same conspiracy, till the time he was allegedly killed in a fake encounter.