SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 75

V.GOPALA GOWDA, AMITAVA ROY
POOJA PAL – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment discusses the discretionary, exceptional use of directing CBI reinvestigation to ensure fair investigation and justice, including criteria like credibility, public confidence, and extraordinary circumstances (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It distinguishes between speedy trial and fair trial, emphasizing fair investigation as essential to due process and the public interest (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It holds that courts may direct de novo investigation or entrustment to CBI in exceptional situations to do complete justice, even if a charge-sheet has been filed or trial is pending, to prevent miscarriage of justice (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It cites precedents (e.g., Zahira, Kashmeri Devi, Gudalure Cherian, Rubabbuddin Sheikh) establishing that such orders are to be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances to restore credibility in investigation and trial (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It ultimately directs the CBI to undertake a de novo investigation within six months to ensure justice in the murder case, staying the trial interim (!) (!) .

What is the test or criteria for directing a de novo investigation by the CBI in exceptional cases?

What is the balance between speedy trial and fair investigation in ensuring justice and public confidence?

What are the circumstances under which a court may direct reinvestigation or entrustment to the CBI despite pendency of trial?


JUDGMENT

AMITAVA ROY,J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, widow of slain Raju Pal, who at his death was a sitting M.L.A. of Uttar Pradesh State Assembly, is before this court in her relentless pursuit for securing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the stirring incident of murderous attack on her husband, snuffing their a week old marital tie. This is the appellant's second outing before this forum, she having been relegated earlier to the High Court, to seek the remedy at the first instance. By the decision impugned, the High Court has declined the relief sought for.

3. We have heard Mr. R. S. Sodhi, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. P.N.Misra, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. Manoj Goel, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

4. The eventful factual backdrop is outlined by the available pleadings. First the facts as narrated by the appellant. In the bye-elections to the vacant seat of Allahabad (West) State Assembly, held in the month of October 2004, the same having been vacated on the resignation of its incumbent Atiqe Ahmed, respondent N


















































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top