The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the prosecution to prove its case, the criticism of investigating officer's deliberate lapses, and the court's authority to order an inquiry against the investigating officer and re-investigation under the direct supervision of a DCP.

PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)

1. Session case No.10/2012 (FIR No.64/2012 under Sections 302/392/201/411 IPC, PS Nand Nagri) pertaining to murder of Ashok (deceased) was solved by the investigating agency with all promptness. Prosecution of the two accused was conducted on the basis of material which the prosecution considered to be sufficient to connect them with offence to prove their guilt. On conclusion of trial, both the accused earned honorable acquittal. But what followed thereafter was persecution of prosecution and investigating agency.

2. The petitioner before this Court is DCP (North-East) who was compelled to impugn the directions issued by learned ASJ in the judgment dated 23.02.2015 directing the Commissioner of Police for taking action against the IO as well re-investigation of the matter.

3. The directions/orders impugned before this Court are glaring examples of overstepping of jurisdiction not only by the learned ASJ-03 who passed the judgment but also by his successor who vigorously perpetuated the wrong which has been caused by his predecessor.

4. On the night intervening 14/15.02.2012, the Watchman/Guard at District Park, A-Block, Nand Nagri noticed a dead body in the park. Information was given to local police and recorded vide DD No.9A. The local police visited the spot and found the blood oozing from the nose of the dead body. One slip of Ramala Sehkari Chini Mill - Baghpat, one matchbox and one blood stained lungi were recovered from the spot. The investigating officer made all possible efforts to establish the identity of the deceased and for that purpose, hue and cry notices were published. On 18.02.2012, the identity of the deceased was established to be as Ashok and was identified by his brother Ishwar (PW-8) and daughter Pooja (PW-7) on the basis of photograph shown to them. On 19.02.2012 postmortem was conducted and opinion given about cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem compression of neck by a hard blunt object.

5. Record also reveals that mobile handset of deceased was missing and on surveillance, it was found that the said handset was used on Mobile No.9540668276, SIM was in the name of one Bunty (PW-6) but used by Mohan Lal (PW-5), who were questioned. PW-5 Mohan Lal disclosed that this handset was offered to him for sale by accused Badlu Paswan but deal could not materialize. At the instance of Badlu Paswan, one blood stained lungi was recovered from the bushes of Tikona Park, A-Block, Nand Nagri.

At the instance of co-accused Rinku Sharma, one mobile phone of make NOKIA bearing IMEI No.351545/04/362914/5 was recovered. During TIP, the mobile phone was identified to be belonging to the deceased. Both the accused persons were sent to face trial.

6. During trial, twenty three witnesses were examined by the prosecution and none of them has been stated to have turned hostile. The learned ASJ was of the opinion that both the accused persons deserve honorable acquittal. Paras 67 to 71 of the judgment dated 23.02.2015 by learned ASJ are essential for disposal of this writ petition, hence extracted as under:-

‘67. In view of these overall facts and circumstances, I find that the prosecution has not only failed to prove its case against both the accused but, there is a high probability that the accused were falsely implicated in this case as the investigation in all angles of the matter was deliberately not done. Therefore, both the accused are honorably acquitted of the charges framed against them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Sureties stand discharged.

68. Before parting, I find it necessary that a finding regarding the conduct of investigation needs to be given in this case in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. Kishanbhai, etc. 2014 (1) SCALE 177 wherein it is held that:

“21. On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the concerned investigating/prosecuting official(s) responsible for such acquittal must necessarily be identified. A fin