Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
Jyotsna Roy —Petitioner
versus
State of West Bengal and Ors. —Respondents
W.P.A. 201 of 2019
Decided on 21.1.2021
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 173(8)—Crime investigation—Unnatural death case—Petitioner seeks order for re-investigation or fresh investigation by an independent agency, preferably Central Bureau of Investigation, on the ground that investigation has not been conducted in a satisfactory manner—Question whether investigation has been carried out in an appropriate manner requires to be determined from statements made in affidavit-in-opposition of respondents who are material to investigation— There are several loopholes in manner of collecting vital evidence in the case—For dislodging presumption of homicidal death, it was imperative that evidence is collected for establishing that death occurred as a result of an accident—None of presumptions have reached a conclusion either in support of an unnatural death or death by accident. (Paras 7, 10 and 13)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 173(8)—Constitution of India—Article 227—Fair investigation—Unnatural death case—Fair trial wholly depends on quality of investigation—If there are several loopholes in investigation or an absence of collection or preservation of crucial evidence, investigation becomes superficial and perfunctory—Fair trial is a sine qua non for instilling faith in public that truth behind a crime will be revealed through an impartial investigation—An investigation has to be fair, untainted and independent—Any investigation which ex facie raises suspicion of not having been conducted with due diligence or dedication, taking all relevant and crucial evidence into account, must be revisited—Role of a court is to ensure that investigating agencies have attended to concerns raised and have considered material facts and evidence for answering issues raised—Court, for less a Writ Court, is not equipped by way of expertise to take on task of monitoring an investigation—That must be left to specialized agencies—Right to an unbiased and complete investigation is as much that of an accused as of victim and victim’s family—Fairness of a truth-finding mission is substratum of a civilized society—Since document produced by petitioner points to an “intelligence” angle in connection with Narcotics trade, investigation should be transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation to be conducted afresh—Central Bureau of Investigation directed to start investigation—Petitioner has already suffered protracted investigation in hands of answering respondents—If required, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) may take assistance of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). (Paras 21 and 22)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the wife of one Mr. Rabindra Nath Roy, who was in service under the capacity of Sub-Inspector of the G.D. Cell of Sashastra Seema Bal (Intelligence Bureau) at Panitanki, Nepal Border. The dead body of the said Rabindra Nath Roy was found beside a railway track between Naxalbari Station and Batasi Hault Station with several injury marks all over the body. Rabindra Nath Roy died at the age of 52 years.
2. The material respondents are the police authorities, Siliguri and Jalpaiguri as well as the Inspector-in-Charge of Siliguri, Darjeeling.
3. The petitioner initially prayed for a direction on some of the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 7th May, 2019 and for appropriate directions on the respondents to ensure justice by punishing the culprits, responsible for the death of the petitioner’s husband.
4. This writ petition has been pending for some time and several orders have been passed by the learned Judges sitting in Circuit for directions on the police to complete the investigation into the death of Rabindra Nath Roy, the petitioner’s husband.
5. On 9th September, 2019, this Court expressed its views for the delay in conducting the investigation and directed that the railway authorities should pay the costs imposed by an order of a learned Single Judge of 20th August, 2019, before the returnable date. On the returnable date i.e. 11th September, 2019, the respondent no.7 being the Inspector-in-Charge, Siliguri Town, was directed to complete the investigation within four weeks from date and a report of completion with particulars of the specific facts to be filed on 5th November, 2019 before the next Circuit Bench. On 15th November, 2019, an order was passed by a learned Judge noting that the death of Rabindra Nath Roy at the age of 52 years and while in service was not a fact to be taken lightly, by reason of which, a verifiable independent report of an expert should be collected in the course of the investigation. On 15th November, 2019, an order passed by a learned Single Judge noted that a final report of the investigation has been submitted by the investigating officer and the petitioner was given liberty to move an application under The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the A.C.J.M., Siliguri. An order was passed on 21st January, 2020 thereafter directing the Assistant Commissioner, Siliguri Commissionarate to file his affidavit within a specified timeframe and the railway authorities to file an application for expunging their names from the array of parties in the writ petition.
6. When this matter is taken up today by this Bench, the status of the proceedings at present is the following: The final investigation report has been filed by the investigating officer, the petitioner has filed an application before the A.C.J.M., Siliguri under Section 173 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and the parties herein have filed their respective affidavits in the writ petition.
7. The petitioner now seeks an order for re-investigation or fresh investigation by an independent agency, preferably Central Bureau of Investigation, on the ground that the investigation has not been conducted in a satisfactory manner.
8. The question before this Court is whether the facts in the present proceeding warrant an order for fresh investigation by another agency on the contention of the petitioner that the cause of the death of the petitioner’s husband should be ascertained and the culprits then should be brought to book if the cause of death is found to be unnatural. The investigation has been conducted by respondent no.7 being the Inspector-in-Charge, Siliguri, Joint G.R.P.S., Siliguri, and a final report has been filed sometime in September, 2019.
9. The submission made on behalf of the parties centers on the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1,3,4,5,7 & 9 being the State of We
SupremeToday
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
