JUDGMENT :

Jay Sengupta, J.

1. This is a revisional application, inter alia, praying for further investigation or de novo investigation into Hariharpara P.S. Case No. 36/2024 dated 27.01.2024 under Sections 363/302/34 of the IPC and 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act corresponding to C Special Case No. 31 of 2024 pending before the Learned Special Court, POCSO Act, Berhampore, Murshidabad.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted as follows. The 13-year-old daughter of the petitioner went missing on 22.01.2024 at around 8 PM. Despite all efforts to find her, she could not be located, compelling her to lodge a complaint on 24.01.2024, upon which Hariharpara Police Station Case No. 35/2024 was registered. Shockingly, on 27.01.2024 at around 1 PM, her daughter's dead body was discovered in a field in a decomposed condition with severe injuries, and her mobile phone was missing. A second FIR, being Hariharpara P.S. Case No. 36/2024, was then registered for offences under Sections 363/302/34 of the IPC. After her body was sent for postmortem to Murshidabad Medical College & Hospital, it was found that several injuries were not mentioned in the report, prompting her to approach this Court through WPA 3364 of 2024. This Court was pleased to direct a fresh postmortem at SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, and further directed the police to add the relevant POCSO sections, which the police had failed to include despite clear evidence of sexual assault. Subsequently after the order of this High Court it was added. Even after the SSKM report, the investigation remained superficial, and though a chargesheet (C.S. No. 173/2024 dated 05.04.2024) was filed, it was evidently the product of a negligent and biased inquiry. Throughout the investigation, the petitioner and her family have faced continuous pressure from the accused persons and their associates. On 18.07.2024, the petitioner had to lodge a complaint against the Learned Public Prosecutor, who attempted to coerce her into withdrawing the case with threats and monetary inducements. The police have failed to recover her daughter's mobile phone, did not identify the place of occurrence, ignored crucial call records and tower locations, and shielded politically influential persons, including the father of the main accused and the local MLA whom she had specifically named in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Given the political influence, intimidation, and the deliberate lapses in investigation, it has become clear to the petitioner that a fair and impartial probe cannot be expected from the local police. The chargesheet is incomplete and compromised, and even her plea for reinvestigation was rejected by the Learned Trial Court on the ground that such relief can only be sought before this Court. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to seek the intervention of this Court to set aside the defective chargesheet and direct a fresh, independent investigation by the CBI so that justice for her daughter may finally be secured. The daughter of the petitioner had a mobile phone with her having number 8609198136 and the same was not recovered by the Police authority. There are several lacunas in the investigation. The same are being pointed as follows. a) Mobile phone of the victim has not been recovered; b) In chargesheet at Item No.21 police has mentioned about 2 phone numbers but owners of those has not been made an -accused/witness; c) Place of occurrence is still not identified; d) The main accused was shown as juvenile without any proper medical document and/or ossification test; e) The father of the main accused is in custody, but he was not arrested by the police initially inspite of knowing everything, the petitioner went to the office of the Superintendent of Police and as per her information he was arrested but strangely police did not take him in police custody for interrogation. From this the intention and action of the police is clear; f) Father of the main accused i.e