Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: supplementary charge sheet in Smt. Rajni Vishram Patil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 18 July, 2009Matching Fragments
11. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and (C). Prayer clause (D) does not survive since the investigation is transferred to respondent No.7 - Central Bureau of Investigation. Appropriate steps be taken by the concerned Authority for implementation of this order at the earliest."
3. The State CID had filed a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 22nd December 2005. In this charge sheet, only four persons were shown as assailants/accused: Raju Pundlik Mali (accused No.1), Raju Chintaman Sonawane, (accused No.2), Leeladhar Pundlik Narkhede, (accused No.3), and Damodar Lokhande, (accused No.4). On the basis of this charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.3 The Competent Court granted permission to the investigating agency for conducting a further investigation. A supplementary charge sheet was submitted at a subsequent stage. Two accused, namely, Leeladhar Narkhede and Damodar Lokhande had filed a Writ Petition before the Aurangabad Bench for quashing the FIR, filed against them which was allowed on 3rd February 2006 and the FIR against these two persons was quashed. Against this order, the State had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. This Appeal filed by the State came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18th April 2007. Writ Petition No.646 of 2005 was filed subsequent to the filing of the charge sheet under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code and, as already noticed, in that Writ Petition, the Court had directed that further investigation in terms of the order of the High Court should be transferred to CBI. The order of this Court transferring the investigation to CBI was not challenged. The CBI conducted further investigation, examined various witnesses and claims to have subjected a number of persons to Narco analysis and other tests whereafter it filed a supplementary charge sheet on 19th June 2008. In the supplementary chargesheet, CBI attributed a role in the commission of the crime to Damodar Lokhande and Leeladhar Narkhede. While filing the first supplementary charge sheet, the investigating agency made a prayer to take additional evidence on record in support of the charge sheet already filed. This was taken on record by the trial Court. A second supplementary charge sheet was filed by CBI on 6th October 2008 wherein the names of accused Nos.3 and 4 were again sought to be added as accused. This was taken on record by the concerned Court and accused Nos.3 and 4 were also directed to be summoned to face trial for the offence. In the second supplementary charge sheet filed on 6th October 2008, it has been specifically mentioned by the investigating agency that on the basis of the previous evidence collected by the investigating agency at the time of the filing of the first charge sheet, the FIR against these two accused had been quashed and it was relying upon the subsequent investigation. This fact was also stated under the head "Charge". In the report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reliance on the evidence collected subsequently was placed.
8. Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani, Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the investigation has been unjust and unfair; as the investigating agency has ignored material pieces of evidence primarily to favour two suspects, Dr. G.N. Patil and Dr. Ulhas Patil, who, according to the Petitioner, are influential persons. Despite the fact that the Court had been continuously supervising or monitoring the investigation of the case, the investigating agency has, according to the petitioner, withheld the record from the Court and complete records have not been filed along with the charge sheet/supplementary charge sheet under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The mysterious death of Raju Mali while in custody, it was urged, casts a shadow of doubt on the investigation. The mobile records, the interview of the accused, panchnama dated 3rd October 2005 are some of the features pressed in aid to submit on the involvement of the above stated two persons. Accused Nos.1 and 2, according to Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, were the assailants, while accused Nos.3 and 4 were monitoring the commission of the crime in conspiracy with the said two persons.
9. The learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the CBI, submitted that once a charge sheet has been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction in terms of Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 this Court should not deal with the matter and control the investigation proceedings by issuing a writ of continuing mandamus. It was also contended that the investigating agency has conducted a conscious, just and fair investigation free of any influence and has taken recourse to all possible methods of technical investigation and, after collecting the evidence upon a further investigation, filed a first and second supplementary charge sheet. Material was found only against accused Nos.3 and 4. In the final report submitted before the Court on 12th January 2009, it has been stated as follows :
(a) The memorandum/panchnama dated 3rd October 2005 has not been given its due importance and has not been critically examined;
(b) Complete records of mobile phones have not been affixed to the charge sheet/supplementary charge sheet filed by the investigating agency.
The records collected during investigation have not been correctly referred to in the reports as there were conversations on cell phones between the accused and the two suspects afore-referred.