1. Kidnapping and murder charges — Trial Court conviction — High Court acquittal with direction for de novo investigation by CBI — Subsequent chargesheet — Petition to quash. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1216
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. Ravikumar, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
P. Manikandan - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation And Ors - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 5478 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 8700 of 2023)
Decided On : 19-12-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Retrial of offence – There exists clear difference between retrial and reinvestigation – Mere observation that investigating authorities may have taken lackadaisical ethical approach does not warrant accused being put through wringer once more for same offence.
(2) Transfer to CBI must take place in special circumstances.
(1) Retrial of offence – There exists clear difference between retrial and reinvestigation – Mere observation that investigating authorities may have taken lackadaisical ethical approach does not warrant accused being put through wringer once more for same offence.
(2) Transfer to CBI must take place in special circumstances.
Subject
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 386(b) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 427(b)] – Retrial of offence – There exists clear difference between retrial and reinvestigation – Retrial implies that judicial process that starts after investigation of crime is complete shall be redone from start, whereas latter implies that police and other investigating authorities are once again required to collect and examine evidence in order to present charges before Court, so that trial can commence on such freshly collected evidence – Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. provides for further investigation with permission of Magistrate, but not reinvestigation – Mere observation that investigating authorities may have taken lackadaisical ethical approach does not warrant accused being put through wringer once more for same offence. (Paras 23 and 24)
(B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 364-A and 302 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 140(2) and103(1)] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 300 and 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 337 and 528] – Constitution of India – Article 20(3) – Kidnapping and murder of girl child – Rejection of quashing petition – High Court, after acquitting appellant, directed CBI to re-investigate after considering relevant material and documents on record – Direction of High Court, transferring investigation to CBI and directing them to reinvestigate offence allegedly committed, was without authority of law and has to be set aside – Transfer to CBI must take place in special circumstances, or else agency, being with limited resources shall be overburdened and rendered ineffective – In directing as such, High Court has not referred to any such special circumstance arising in present case – On such further count, transfer of case to CBI is rendered questionable and set aside – Acquittal awarded by High Court has to remain in force for cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence of innocent until proven guilty applies and cannot be displaced in except in circumstances otherwise provided by law – Right enshrined in Article 20(2) of appellant stands violated – Appellant acquitted of all charges. (Paras 20, 21, 26, 27, 32, 33 and 35)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from judgment and order dated 4th July, 2023 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby High Court dismissed petition for quashing filed by appellant under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against charge-sheet/final report and proceedings pending before Special Court for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. High Court acquitted appellant and directed to transfer documents and relevant material to conduct de novo investigation before CBI on same facts for the same offences and to proceed against appellant in accordance with law, by exercising power under Section 386 of Cr.P.C.
Findings of Court:
Vision of High Court was bad in law, and quashed and set aside. All proceedings subsequent to such direction, necessarily have to be held as such and therefore quashed and set aside as well. Appellant stands acquitted of all charges.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Ms. T.archana, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerji, A.S.G. Mrs. Archna Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Saransh Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Meera Patel, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Ms. T.archana, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerji, A.S.G. Mrs. Archna Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Saransh Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Meera Patel, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether de novo investigation after acquittal violates Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC — Scope of Appellate Court's power under Section 386 CrPC. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. Distinction between retrial and reinvestigation — Section 386 CrPC empowers retrial, not reinvestigation — Reinvestigation after acquittal violates the principle of double jeopardy. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
4. Appellate courts under Section 386 CrPC cannot order reinvestigation; subsequent prosecution for the same offence after acquittal violates Article 20(2) of the Constitution. (Para 24 , 33 )
5. High Court order for reinvestigation set aside — Subsequent proceedings quashed — Appellant acquitted of all charges. (Para 35 , 36 )
6. What is the legal distinction between a retrial and a reinvestigation?
Retrial implies that the judicial process starting after the investigation is complete shall be redone. Reinvestigation implies that investigating authorities must again collect and examine evidence to present charges before a court so that the trial can commence on freshly collected evidence. (Para 23 )
7. Does Section 386 of the CrPC empower an Appellate Court to order a de novo investigation?
No. Section 386 CrPC enumerates the power of the Appellate Court to order a retrial, but it does not provide for reinvestigation. Reinvestigation is only invoked in extraneous circumstances and is not a power granted under Section 386. (Para 24 )
8. When does the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution apply to an acquitted person?
It applies when: first, there were previous valid proceedings before a competent court; second, the acquittal remains in force; and third, the subsequent proceeding is a fresh prosecution for the same offence and same set of facts. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL J.
Leave Granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 4th July, 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRL.O. P. No.5826 of 2023 and CRL.M.P.Nos.3640 and 3642 of 2023, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition for quashing filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19731[hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”] against the chargesheet/final report and proceedings pending before the Special Court for the trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20122[hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”,], Tiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu in Special S.C.No.42 of 2021.
3. The crux of the present appeal is that on 19th June, 2013, a case was registered bearing Crime No.139 of 2013 under Section 364A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603[hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] against the accused namely, P. Manikandan4[hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”], wherein it was alleged that the appellant kidnapped the 4-year-old child from Gandhi International Matriculation School, Mangalam by using his motorcycle and after murdering her, threw away the dead body in Well.
4. The background facts in which the present appeal has arisen are:
4.1 The father of the deceased, namely Paramasivam5[hereinafter referred to as “Complainant”], and the appellant were known to each other. The appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the complainant due to losses incurred in his brick making business and he failed to return the money despite repeated demands from the complainant for repayment. The Complainant and his wife, Usha, had a daughter6[hereinafter referred to as the “Deceased child”], who was 4 years old and studied at Gandhi International Matriculation School, Mangalam7[hereinafter referred to as the “School”]. The deceased child was regularly taken to school by one Chandrasekar, the van driver and in his absence, the appellant sometimes would take the deceased child to and from the school. On 13th June 2013, at about 01.30PM the deceased child was found to be missing from school. Allegedly, the father of the deceased informed the appellant about the same and requested his assistance in confirming her whereabouts. It was alleged that the appellant arrived at the location after a delay of two hours, pretending to be involved in the search for the deceased child, but being unable to locate her, subsequently, a complaint was filed at the Mangalam Police Station.
4.2 About a week later, the villagers informed the complainant about a body floating in a well at Aarpakkam and the same was later identified as that of his daughter. On 19th June 2013, the Complainant filed a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.139 of 2013, initially recorded under the head of ‘Child Missing’; the case was later reclassified to include charges of kidnapping for ransom and murder. It was alleged that on 13th June 2013, the appellant kidnapped the deceased child from School, using his Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle Plus bearing registration no. TN25-L-2391 and after murdering her, he disposed of her body in the well.
4.3 Thereafter, after completion of the investigation, the Mangalam Police Station, filed chargesheet on 28th November 2013 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court–II, Thiruvannamalai, who took cognizance thereof and assigned PRC No.51 of 2013, and committed the case to the Learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai8 [hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”], where SC No. 102 of 2015 was assigned.
4.4 In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined witnesses PWs 1 to 20 and exhibited P-1 to P-16 and M.O. 1 to M.O. 8. Upon consideration of evidence, the Trial Court, vide judgment dated 31st January 2018, on the basis of the last seen theory held that the appellant was guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364A and 302 of the IPC. Sentence awarded to the appellant was life imprisonment and fi
