Back
2014 Supreme(Cal) 715
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS & ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, JJ.
The State of West Bengal
Versus
Nepal Krishna Roy & Others
A.S.T.Nos. 407 & 408 of 2014 (Appellate Side)
Decided on: 03-12-2014
For the Appellant:Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay, Sr. Advocate with Abhratosh Majumdar, Government Pleader, Manjit Singh, Public Prosecutor, T.M. Siddiqui, Bhashkar Prasad Vaishya, Sabyasachi Mondal, S. Bandopadhyay, Shuvro Lahiri, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Advocate with Tapash Ghosh, Uday Sankar Chatterjee, Tanmay Chowdhury, S.S. Chatterjee, Phiroze Edulji, Rajdeep Biswas, Ajay Chaubey, Avinash Kankani, A. Mukherjee, S. Sinha Roy, Deepak Prahladka for Swarswati & Sibani, Advocates.
Headnote:
INVESTIGATION - Further Investigation - Power of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Scope and Limitation - Held, the court can order a post charge-sheet further investigation only if there was any deficiency in the SIT investigation. The court did not indicate what was the deficiency. The judgment gives a person of reasonable prudence the impression that the court ordered further investigation simply because Anubrata was not arrested and sent up for trial as an accused in the case. This could not be a ground for ordering a further investigation of the case; for the court cannot engage an investigating agency for hounding a person.
Fact of the Case:
In this case, the petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the CBI to investigate a murder case. The petitioners alleged that the police investigation was biased and incomplete, and that the CBI should be directed to conduct a further investigation. The State opposed the petitions, arguing that the police investigation was thorough and complete, and that there was no need for a further investigation by the CBI.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners had not established any deficiency in the police investigation, and that there was no need for a further investigation by the CBI. The court noted that the police had arrested several suspects, collected evidence, and filed a charge sheet. The court also noted that the petitioners had not provided any evidence to support their allegations of bias or incompleteness in the police investigation.
Issues: 1. Whether the court can order a post charge-sheet further investigation only if there was any deficiency in the SIT investigation? 2. Whether the court can engage an investigating agency for hounding a person?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court can order a post charge-sheet further investigation only if there was any deficiency in the SIT investigation. 2. The court cannot engage an investigating agency for hounding a person.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, holding that there was no need for a further investigation by the CBI.
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.
1. The State of West Bengal is the appellant in both the ASTs, which are against a common judgment dated September 24, 2014 whereby a single Judge disposed of two WPs No.33223 (W) of 2013 (Sri Nepal Krishna Roy & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) dated November 6, 2013 and No.19538 (W) of 2014 (Sibani Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) dated July 8, 2014. Both the WPs were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The single Judge judgment ended in the following order:-
“In view of the above, the SIT and the Parui Police Station is directed to hand over and cooperate with the investigation by the CBI. The CBI shall investigate all aspects of the case relating to the killing of Sagar Ghosh and file the report from time to time to the concerned Court having jurisdiction. With utmost expedition, the Court having jurisdiction shall pass necessary orders from time to time on the basis of the reports filed by the CBI depending upon the outcome of the investigation. The petitioners of both the writ petitions are permitted to move the said Court for necessary directions if the circumstances so demands.”
3. The relevant facts stated in the two WPs and the affidavits and police reports filed in them, and revealed by the case diary materials and the charge sheet filed in the criminal court are the following.
4. One Hriday Ghosh, son of one Sagar Chandra Ghosh, of village Bandhnabagram, police station Panrui, district Birbhum filed nomination as a TMC party candidate in the 2013 West Bengal Panchayat Elections. Hriday, however, was not allotted the TMC party symbol, because another TMC party candidate filing nomination for the same Sansad was allotted the TMC party symbol. As a result, Hriday was treated as an independent candidate and he decided to remain in the fray as such.
5. One Anubrata Mondal was the Birbhum District President of the TMC party. Anubrata and one Bikash and others gave speeches at a public meeting held on July 17, 2013. In his speech Anubrata instigated the people hearing him to burn the houses of the independent candidates and bomb the police, if the police protected such candidates. He gave the instigative speech in the presence of a State Cabinet Minister and it was recorded by the press and easily available.
6. On July 18, 2013 house of one independent candidate was burnt. Hriday applied to the District Magistrate for police protection for himself and the members of his family. On the night of July 21, 2013 between 10.30 and 11 Hriday’s house was attacked. The attackers opened fire and seriously injured Hriday’s father Sagar. The officer in charge of Panrui police station registered an FIR No.79/13 dated July 22, 2013 under ss.448/326/307/34 IPC and ss.25/27 Arms Act.
7. In the FIR the following were mentioned. The offences were committed on July 21, 2013 at about 22.45 hrs by (1) Sajal Roy alias Suvo, son of late Samapada Roy;(2) Bhagirath Ghosh, son of Jagabandhu Ghosh; (3) Nepal Roy, son of late Satyakinkar Roy; (4) Manas Roy, son of Nepal Roy; (5) Nabakrishna Roy, son of Sankhajit Roy, (6) Priyaranjan Ghosh, son of Sankhajit Ghosh and others all of Bandhnabagram, police station Panrui, district Birbhum.
8. The FIR reveals the following. The information of the incident was received at the police station on July 22, 2013 at about 04.05hrs. Swarswati Ghosh, Sagar’s wife, was the informant. Swarswati’s written complaint was treated as the FIR. SI Dwija Raj Sahana was directed to take up the investigation. The FIR was signed by Swarswati, and one SI Sampad Mukherjee signed it qua the officer in charge of the police station. It was despatched to the court on July 22, 2013 at 10 a.m.
9. The thing mentioned in the FIR as Swarswati’s written complaint was actually the written information of the incident given to the officer in charge of the police station under Swarswati’s signature. The document reveals that Hriday’s wife Sibani was the scribe thereof, an
