Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
POOJA PAL – APPELLANT
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1458/2015)
Decided On : 22-01-2016
(2004) 4 SCC 158; (2010) 3 SCC 571; (2010) 12 SCC 254; (2012) 9 SCC 408; (2013) 15 SCC 578; (2013) 12 SCC 480; (2010) 2 SCC 200; (2014) 10 SCC 406; (2014) 11 SCC 527 – Relied upon
(1985) 1 SCC 317; (1996) 2 SCC 199; (1998) 8 SCC 661; (1999) 6SCC 667; (2002) 5 SCC 521; (2011) 13 SCC 337; (1980) 1 SCC 81; (1992) 1SCC 225; (2002) 4SCC 578; (2009) 3 SCC 355; 1988 (Suppl.) SCC 482; (1992) 1 SCC 397; (1994) 1 SCC 616; (1994) 6 SCC 275; (1972) 1 All ER 997; (1995) 5 SCC 518; (1998) 4 SCC 517; (1994) 3 SCC 569; (2001) 7 SCC 679; (2010) 6 SCC 1; (1980) 1 SCC 554 – Referred
(b) Constitution of India – Article 20 and 21 – Right to speedy trial and fair trial – Qualitative difference – Denial of speedy trial by itself does not prejudice the accused – Fair trial, on the other hand is imperative – Like justice, investigation should not only be fair it should also appear to be so – If court is satisfied about need for reinvestigation, submission of the charge-sheet or pendency of the trial can by no means be a prohibitive impediment. (Para 76)
(c) Constitution of India – Articles 20 and 21 – Fair trial – Includes fair investigation – Investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law – Bringing out the truth of the case is raison d’etre for the investigating agency’s existence – Concern of the victim has to be addressed – Courts are also duty bound to bring out the truth of the case. (Para 79, 82, 84, 86)
(2013) 5 SCC 762; (2012) 7 SCC 407; (2012) 4 SCC 516; (2009) 6 SCC 767; (2012) 5 SCC 370; (2010) 10 SCC 677; (2015) 3 SCC 220; (2014) 2 SCC 532 – Relied upon
(1957) 2 All ER 155(CA) – Referred
(d) Constitution of India – Article 226 and 32 r/w section 173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and section 6, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Reinvestigation by CBI – Appellant’s husband mercilessly killed by a group of gun wielding assailants in a public place, in the open view of all concerned – Pleaded imputations of appellant showing political pressure and unwarranted interference of the higher ups – One of the investigating officers challenging his suspension also pleading about unexpected and unwarranted interference of the higher ups – Eye witnesses resiling from their statements u/s 161, Cr PC – Such incidents though not having national or international ramifications, transcend beyond individual tragedies affecting the society – In the instant factual situation notwithstanding pendency of the trial, and availability of power of the courts below under Sections 311 and 391, CrPC r/w section 165, Evidence Act, 1872; CBI ought to be directed to undertake a de novo investigation in the incident. (Para 91, 92, 93, 94)
Facts of the case:
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.
Finding of the Court:
High Court ought to direct CBI to undertake de novo investigation.
Result: Appeal allowed.
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 (!) (!) .
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 No. 4, he having been elected as a Member of Parliament from Phoolpur constituency, Allahabad, the appellant's husband was elected thereto by defeating the nearest contender Mohd. Ashraf set-up by the Samajwadi Party. Whereas the appellant’s husband as the candidate of the Bahujan Samaj Party (for short hereinafter referred to as “BSP.”) secured 70537 votes against 65713 votes polled by the respondent No. 5, the other candidates representing the Congress and Bhartiya Janta Party fared very poorly in comparison. According to the appellant, since his defeat, Moh. Ashraf @ Khalid Azeem the respondent No. 5, along with his brother Atiqe Ahmed respondent No. 4 as well as the then Chief Minister of the State had taken the set-back to be a matter of personal humiliation, defeat and insult so much so that the respondent No. 4 declared in public that the candidate elected would not be able to hold the seat for long. It has been alleged by the appellant that subsequent thereto, continuous attempts were made to eliminate Raju Pal and that too with the connivance of the local police and at the instigation of the respondent No. 4. The appellant has asserted that as a consequence, the family members and the supporters of her husband very often were assaulted and subjected to harassment by arrests by the police and hired goons engaged by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and that their property and personal belongings were even destroyed.
5. The appellant alleged as well that the respondent No. 5 was a history sheeter against whom several cases had been lodged involving the offence of murder, but on account of his political clout and the following of anti-social elements, no witness would even dare to give evidence of his nefarious activities. This was more so, according to the appellant, as he enjoyed police patronage and protection. The appellant stated that after the election of her husband as the Member of the Legislative Assembly on 16.10.2004, three abortive attempts were made on his life and the properties belonging to him and his close relatives were ransacked and taken away. The appellant mentioned that the last attempt on the life of her husband before the gruesome incident was made on 28.12.2004. Prior thereto amongst others, an attempt was also made in the month of November, 2004, whereafter Raju Pal did submit a representation to the Governor of the State on 04.11.2004, following which the said constitutional authority had directed an inquiry to be made.
6. According to the appellant though the Governor of the State had directed that additional security be provided to her husband, it was not done and instead his existing security staff was replaced by the State Government. Such was the animosity as alleged by the appellant, that the State Government even had
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
