SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1618

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Shri Vinod Ram - Petitioner
Versus
The Union Territory, Administration Of Andaman And Nicobar Islands And Another - Opposite Parties
CRR/17/2023
Decided On : 15-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mit Guha Roy
For the Opposite Party : Ms. A. S. Zinu, Mr. Arul Prasanth

The court emphasized the necessity of fair investigation in criminal proceedings and clarified the powers of the Magistrate to order further investigation under specific circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 156(3) and 173(8) - Criminal investigation - The petitioner sought further investigation after the initial report was filed, claiming the investigation was not fair. The court emphasized the need for a fair investigation and clarified the distinction between further investigation and reinvestigation. The learned Magistrate's order rejecting the further investigation was upheld as it was found to be in accordance with law. (Paras 1, 2, 10, 12, 15, 25)

(B) Further Investigation - The Supreme Court reiterated that the power to order further investigation lies with the court and is necessary to ensure justice, particularly when there are allegations of a tainted investigation. (Paras 15, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed to have been assaulted by an influential individual, leading to a lack of proper investigation. Initial complaints were filed by the petitioner’s wife due to his health issues. (Paras 3, 4, 7)

Findings of Court:
The court found that both investigations concluded with a lack of evidence, and the learned Magistrate's decision was justified. (Paras 11, 26)

Issues: Whether the investigation was fair and whether the Magistrate had the authority to order further investigation post-cognizance. (Paras 9, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a fair investigation is paramount and that the Magistrate retains the authority to direct further investigations under certain circumstances. (Paras 19, 24)

Result: Revision dismissed; the order of the learned Magistrate affirmed.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred against an order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair in connection with G. R. Case No. 253 of 2021 corresponding to Aberdeen Police Station case No. 72 of 2021 under Sections 332/353/325/326/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code disposed of by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair by rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for further investigation for the second time.

2. The petitioner/alleged victim’s case is that on his prayer under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Aberdeen P.S. Case no. 72 of 2021 under Sections 332/353/325/326/379/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the opposite party no. 2.

3. On the date of incident, the opposite party no. 2 was posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, South Andaman at Port Blair in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman, where the petitioner was posted as a Multi Tasking Staff (M.T.S.) and he had the responsibility to open and close the office by taking/giving the keys from residence of the Deputy Commissioner. On 25.05.2021 (date of incident) over an issue regarding the said work, the petitioner was allegedly abused and brutally assaulted by the opposite party no. 2, as a result, the petitioner allegedly suffered severe injuries, including a fracture in the left hand. The petitioner/alleged victim has stated that the Investigating Officer did not collect all the medical and other relevant papers from him and without conducting a free and fair investigation submitted a final report in the case leading to the discharge of the accused.

4. It is stated that as the petitioner was not keeping well, his wife filed the complaint on the next day with the police but as no action was taken, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was registered and the investigation ended in a final report.

5. On a ‘Narazi’ petition being filed by the petitioner, a further investigation was directed by the Magistrate. The further investigation also ended in a supplementary final report for lack of evidence.

6. A second ‘Narazi’ petition was filed by the petitioner as per leave granted by the High Court.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that his wife was forced to write a letter withdrawing the case by the authorities concerned.

8. The second ‘Narazi’ petition has been rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide the Order dated 28.08.2023 under revision.

9. Hence, the revision on the ground that the investigation in this case has not been free and fair, considering the influential position of the accused, inspite of there being sufficient materials against him making out a prima facie case for the offence alleged.

10. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Opposite Party No. 2 and the learned Counsel for the State, it appears from the materials on record that :

    (i) The witnesses to the alleged incident have not supported the petitioner’s case.

    (ii) Admittedly no complaint was lodged on the date of the alleged incident (25.05.2021).

    (iii) Initial written complaint was filed by the petitioner’s wife on 26.05.2021 before the police authorities (on the next date of incident).

    (iv) Page 48 of the supplementary affidavit is the medical paper when the petitioner was first examined on 26.05.2021, (on the next day after the date of incident).

    (v) The statement of the doctor who first examined the petitioner is very specific and she (Dr. Priya Krishnan) reiterated her statement by stating...

    “I fully corroborate my previous statement given before previous I.O. of this case. As you said now that the victim Vinod Ram is now alleging that he told to me that he was beaten by his boss. But in this regard, I once again tell you that when the victim brought to this hospital he was not told initially regarding beating by his boss instead he and those staff brought him here told me that he fell o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top