Investigation:
De novo investigation – Writ Petition before Supreme Court seeking transfer of criminal case from State Police to CBI – Alleging several deficiencies in the investigation – On direction by Supreme Court to conclude the investigation within stipulated time, police filed Closure Report – Held: A fair investigation is as much a part of Constitutional right guaranteed u/Art. 21 of the Constitution as a fair trial – The Constitutional Court has power to direct de novo investigation in exceptional circumstances in order to prevent miscarriage of justice – In the facts and circumstances of the case, entire investigation and the closure report lack bonafide – The interest of justice requires a de novo investigation, to sustain the confidence of the society in the rule of law – Therefore, the Closure Report is set aside and de novo investigation is directed to be conducted by a fresh team of investigators of State police – Constitution of India – Art. 21.
Allowing the petition, the Court
HELD: 1. A fair investigation is as much a part of a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution as a fair trial, without which the trial will naturally not be fair. Normally when an investigation has been concluded and police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C., it is only further investigation that can be ordered under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. But where the constitutional court is satisfied that the investigation has not been conducted in a proper and objective manner, fresh investigation with the help of an independent agency can be considered to secure the ends of justice so that the truth is revealed. The power may also be exercised if the court comes to the conclusion that the investigation has been done in a manner to help someone escape the clutches of the law. In such exceptional circumstances the court may, in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice direct de novo investigation. The power of the constitutional court to order fresh or de novo investigation could also be exercised after commencement of the trial and the examination of some witnesses could not be an impediment. [Paras 9 and 12][1020-H; 1021-A-C; 1024-G]
Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration, (1988) Suppl. SCC 482 : [1988] 3 SCR 700; Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 : [2010] 10 SCR 651; Bharati Tamang v. Union of India, (2013) 15 SCC 578 : [2013] 14 SCR 525; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 : [2004] 3 SCR 1050; Pooja Pal v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135 : [2016] 11 SCR 560; Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 160 : [2016] 1 SCR 194 – relied on.
2. In the present case, death of the deceased was initially sought to be passed off as accidental by collision with a train or suicidal due to depression. The F.I.R. under Section 302, IPC was registered very much belatedly albeit reluctantly, only at the persistence of the petitioner and her husband after they repeatedly approached the higher authorities. Even thereafter the investigation remained at a standstill till the filing of the counter affidavit before this Court with the respondents insisting that the death was accidental and that the nature of injuries could not attribute a homicidal death. Earlier the husband of the petitioner had also petitioned the High Court where the respondents insisted that the death was accidental in nature. The High Court despite noticing the long pendency of the investigation took a misguided approach and passed an open ended order to investigate the case and file a report. In this manner, the investigation remained inconclusive for nearly three long years with the investigating agency sanguine of passing it off as an accidental death without coming to a firm conclusion avoiding to complete the investigation. It is only when this Court ordered that the investigation be concluded within a period of two months that suddenly a very lengthy investigation closure report has been filed taking a stand that though the death was homicidal there was no clue. The closure report is therefore, a clear hasty action leaving much to be desired regarding the nature of investigation, because if a detailed investigation had already been done as is sought to be now suggested, there is no reason why a final report could not have been filed by the investigating agency in the normal course of events and needed an order to do so from this Court. The entire investigation and the closure report therefore lack bonafide. The interest of justice therefore requires a de novo investigation to be done, to sustain the confidence of the society in the rule of law irrespective of who the actors may be. [Para 13][1025-C-H; 1026-A-B]
3. Therefore, the closure report is set aside and a de novo investigation is directed, to be conducted by a fresh team of investigators to be headed by a senior police officer of the State consisting of efficient personnel well conversant with use of modern investigation technology. No officer who was part of the investigating team leading to the closure report shall be part of the team conducting de novo investigation. Such fresh investigation must be concluded within a maximum period of two months. [Para 14][1026-C-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.