The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's emphasis on fair and transparent investigation, the need for victims or their relatives to participate in the criminal justice system, and the invocation of the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure a fair trial.

L.C. Bhadoo, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles. 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India being dissatisfied and aggrieved by unfair investigation conducted by respondent No. 5 in Crime No. 87/2002 registered at Police Station Mungeli in respect of murder of his son namely Somesh Kumar Soni.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner and his son Somesh Soni were engaged in the business's of video shooting and photography. They were running the shop at Mungeli. The petitioner's son was also doing the business of running taxi. On 9-3-2002 main accused Akhilesh Singh Thakur engaged the taxi of Somesh Soni for the purpose of his marriage and he also engaged Somesh Soni for photography and videography. On that day in between 12.00 noon and 1.00 p.m. when Somesh Kumar Soni demanded money for purchase of diesel for his taxi from accused Akhilesh Singh Thakur, that annoyed Akhilesh Singh and at that very moment, he took gun from his companion and fired a shot on the head of Somesh Soni, as a result of which Somesh Soni died on the spot. Report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station, Mungeli. The police after registering the case under Crime No. 87/2002 took up the investigation, and after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet on 10-6-2002 against Akhilesh Singh, Anil alias Annu and Vishnu Prasad Nai for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C.

3. The case of the petitioner is that after killing of his son, Akhilesh Singh and his associates, who were present on the spot, with a view to suppress the evidence created anarchy on the spot and compelled the shopkeepers of the shops situated around the place of incident, to close the shops and to ran away. The petitioner's further case is that at the time of incident Somesh Soni was covering the said ceremony through his video camera, whereas one of his associates was covering same through still photography and in the video shooting the incident has been recorded up to stage when Akhilesh Singh took the 12 bore gun and fired at Sumesh Soni. This information was given to the Investigating Officer, he collected the video cassettes also but did not prepared the Panchanama for the same and same has not been tendered into evidence in the trial Court during the proceedings. The petitioner's further case is that in connection with 14 other cases registered against Soni community relating to the incident happened after the murder of Somesh Soni, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Although these persons were eyewitnesses to the incident of murder of Somesh Soni, but their statements have not been recorded in Crime No. 87/02 relating to the murder of Somesh Soni. Thereafter, the police instead of collecting the cogent evidence started harassing the family members of the petitioner by registering case against them, which alleged to have been taken place after the murder of Somesh Soni.

The petitioner sent various letters (Annexure P-2) to the respondents' authorities for not conducting fair investigations of the murder of Somesh Soni, and for not collecting entire evidence available in connection with the murder of Somesh Soni. Therefore, it has been prayed that entire record be called for and it be directed that investigation may be handed over to an independent agency like CID or CBI on the alternative the policy may be directed to collect the entire evidence available on the record in connection with the murder of Somesh Soni.

4. Return has been filed on behalf of the State in which it has been mentioned that it is incorrect to say that fair investigation has not been conducted in the matter and it has also been denied that witnesses to the incident have not been examined. It has further been mentioned in the return that video cassette in question has been taken into possession and same has been filed along with the charge-sheet before the trial Court.

5.