SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

1. The Supreme Court in Sidhartha Vashisth alias Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as (2010) 6 SCC 1 commenting on the necessity of insisting upon the fairness of investigation observed at paragraph 197 of the report:-

“197. ......The criminal justice administration system in India places human rights and dignity for human life at a much higher pedestal. ……The investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance with the basic rule of law. These are the fundamental canons of our criminal jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity with the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

2. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab & Others reported as (2009) 1 SCC 441 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “fairness of the investigation is meant not only for the accused but even for the victim.” In paragraph 28 of the report the Supreme Court expounded:-

“28. An accused is entitled to a fair investigation. Fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But the State has a larger obligation i.e. to maintain law and order, public order and preservation of peace and harmony in the society. A victim of a crime, thus, is equally entitled to a fair investigation.”

3. I would be failing in my duty if I did not refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported as (2004) 4 SCC 158 where the Supreme Court considered how justice itself can become a victim if the investigation is not fair. The Court in paragraph 18 of the report expressed thus:-

18. ….. When the investigating agency helps the accused, the witnesses are threatened to depose falsely and the prosecutor acts in a manner as if he was defending the accused, and the court was acting merely as an onlooker and when there is no fair trial at all, justice becomes the victim.”

4. The present is a case where after having heard counsel for the parties over two days and examining all the material placed on record including the statements of the witnesses to the dastardly crime as encapsulated in the video clipping furnished on behalf of the Delhi Police, in my view, the impression I gather is that the investigation thus far, three months after the alleged commission of the offence, is that the Special Investigating Team (SIT) has concentrated on exonerating the police officers concerned rather than discovering the truth.

5. It would be hyperbole to state that the state of affairs that has emerged from having heard the present case shocks the judicial conscience of this Court.

6. The present petition filed on behalf of Rabia @ Mamta and Sant Ram, who are the widow and the father-in-law of the deceased victim Shahnawaz Chaudhari, prays as follows:-

“In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) For a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No.1 to form a Special Investigation Team preferably comprising of officers from another State to investigate into the incident and prosecute the offending police persons;

(b) For a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No.2 to conduct a departmental enquiry into the incident and terminate the services of the police officers found guilty, and in the meantime suspend them;

(c) For a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents herein to pay compensation of Rs.5 crores to petitioner No.1 and her child;

(d) For any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the interest of justice.”

7. At the first listing of the present petition on 16.10.2015, on a submission made on behalf of Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, lear