2020 Supreme(SC) 545

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
NEETU KUMAR NAGAICH – PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.141 of 2020
Decided on : 16-09-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Fair investigation is as much a part of a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution as a fair trial, without which trial will naturally not be fair.
(2) Power of constitutional court to order fresh or de novo investigation could also be exercised after commencement of trial and examination of some witnesses could not be an impediment.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173(8) – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Further investigation – Normally, when an investigation has been concluded and police report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code, it is only further investigation that can be ordered under Section 173(8) of the Code – But where constitutional court is satisfied that investigation has not been conducted in a proper and objective manner, fresh investigation with help of an independent agency can be considered to secure ends of justice so that truth is revealed – Power may also be exercised if court comes to conclusion that investigation has been done in a manner to help someone escape clutches of law – In such exceptional circumstances court may, in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice direct de novo investigation – Fair investigation is as much a part of a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution as a fair trial, without which trial will naturally not be fair – Power of constitutional court to order fresh or de novo investigation could also be exercised after commencement of trial and examination of some witnesses could not be an impediment. (Paras 9 and 12)

(B) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 – Crime investigation – Suspected murder case – Petition for CBI investigation – Nature and number of injuries found on body of deceased make it evident that it was a homicidal death and not accidental or suicidal in nature – Deceased was not alone but in company of his friends – Yet there is no evidence how and under what circumstances and by whom he was murderously assaulted – Entry register bore his initials signifying his return to campus, yet it has been wished away by a simplistic explanation of one of his friends that he had made entry by mistake – Surely this was a matter for further investigation – If deceased subsequently left hostel premises again alone there had to be visuals in CCTV footage at the gate – No investigation of mobile locations available in vicinity at the time of occurrence has even been attempted by police – Closure report accepts it as a homicidal death but concludes that there is no clue who offenders were – Body was lying on Railway track curved at a right angle – Deceased had nine very serious injuries on his person which were found to be ante mortem in nature – There was no blood at place of occurrence but there was blood on his clothes – Only one slipper of deceased was found at place of occurrence – It does not leave much to imagination that deceased was not assaulted at railway track but elsewhere – Death of deceased was initially sought to be passed off as accidental by collision with a train or suicidal due to depression – F.I.R. under Section 302, IPC was registered very much belatedly, albeit reluctantly, only at persistence of petitioner and her husband after they repeatedly approached higher authorities – Even thereafter investigation remained at a standstill – Investigation remained inconclusive for nearly three long years with investigating agency sanguine of passing it off as an accidental death without coming to a firm conclusion avoiding to complete investigation – Entire investigation and closure report lack bonafide – Interest of justice requires de novo investigation to be done, to sustain confidence of society in rule of law irrespective of who the actors may be – Closure report set aside and a de novo investigation directed by a fresh team of investigators to be headed by a senior police officer of State consisting of efficient personnel well conversant with use of modern investigation technology also – No officer who was part of investigating team leading to closure report shall be part of team conducting de novo investigation – Such fresh investigation must be concluded within a maximum period of two months from today and police report be filed before court concerned whereafter matter shall proceed in accordance with law. (Paras 3, 4, 7, 8, 13 and 14)

Facts of the case:

Prayer in writ petition is for a mandamus to transfer the investigation in FIR registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code to Central Bureau of Investigation. Deceased aged 21 years, a 3rd year student at National Law University Jodhpur, was the only son of petitioner. She seeks justice to unravel the mystery of her son’s homicidal death, dissatisfied with investigation carried out by the State Police. The investigation has reached a dead end without identification of the offenders.

Findings of Court:

High Court despite noticing the long pendency of the investigation took a misguided approach that the petitioner had not expressed suspicion against any one and neither had he alleged biased against the Investigating Officer, to pass an open ended order to investigate the case and file a report. In this manner, 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.

Result : Writ Petition allowed