The court upheld the necessity for re-investigation in a murder case due to procedural lapses, emphasizing judicial oversight in ensuring fair investigations.

JUDGMENT :

T. S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.

1. This intra-Court appeal by the State is directed against the common order dated 16.01.2023 passed in WPA 6715 of 2018 and CRR 1199 of 2019. The respondents/writ petitioners filed the writ petition praying for transfer of the investigation relating to a case of murder of his parents to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, CBI) to ensure free and fair investigation. The other prayer sought for was to release the dead bodies of the parents directing the State to pay a compensation of Rs. 40 lacs. The criminal revision case being CRR 1199 of 2019 was filed by the accused in the case registered against them which was also disposed of by the common impugned order.

2. We have elaborately heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The question is as to whether the learned Single Judge was right in directing fresh investigation/re-investigation to be done and nominating an Indian Police Service Officer to re-visit the investigation and re-investigate the F.I.R. 87 of 2018 dated 17.05.2018. The said Indian Police Service Officer has been empowered to form a team of Police or other persons or Personnel of her choice and re-verify the alibis of the persons originally named in the complaint and such or other persons may be interrogated afresh, if necessary. This, in fact, was a suggestion from the learned writ court. Further, the learned writ court observed that the named Officer shall be entitled to take all and necessary steps necessary for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion behind the murder of the two victims. The State is in appeal against the said order by contending that the observations made by learned Single Judge that the investigation was perfunctory and it did not meet the normal standards of the investigation and, therefore, the matter is to be re-investigated is not borne out by the records and, in this regard, learned senior counsel representing the State elaborately referred to the statements of various witnesses, accused which were recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate.

4. In this appeal, we are required to see as to whether the learned Single Judge had recorded the reasons as to why and for what purpose the re-investigation had to be ordered. If such view expressed by the learned Single Judge is to arrive at the ultimate conclusion and ordering re-investigation, satisfies the test of reasonableness, this Court will refrain from interfering with this order. If the Court is to examine threadbare the statement of various witnesses at this stage of the matter, it would tantamount to expressing any opinion in the case and the very purpose of ordering re-investigation would stand defeated. Therefore, we are required to see as to whether the prima facie view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order would justify the directions issued. It is to be pointed out that when the writ petition and the criminal revision case were heard together by the learned Single Judge, the State was not represented. However, the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State and the written notes submitted by the I.O. were part of the record which has been taken note of by the learned Single Judge.

5. The parents of the writ petitioner were murdered who belonged to a particular political party. The Panchayat Election was scheduled to be held in the State in the month of May, 2018 and a day before the election i.e. on 13.05.2018, the parents of the writ petitioner were killed and the house was set on fire. A complaint was lodged before the Kakdwip Police Station on 14.05.2018 naming ten persons. It appears that initially the State Police refused to accept the complaint and only after a pressure from the local people, a complaint was received but no F.I.R. was registered. The learned Single Judge noted that the State came with a plea that the Police were busy with election duties and, therefore, the F.I.R. was not registered to be a lame excuse. On 15.05.2018, a Minister of the St