Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Gau) 1441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Nani Kanya — Appellant
Versus
State Of Arunachal Pradesh — Respondent
W.P(C) No. 560 of 2017
Decided on : 03-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
K.Tari, Advocate, T.Ete, Advocate, T.T.Tara, Advocate

The judgment emphasizes the importance of fair investigation in ensuring fair trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It establishes that unless there is a serious irregularity or mala fide exercise of power by the investigating officer, the court should be loathe to interfere with the investigation.

Headnote:
Fair Investigation - Indian Penal Code - Sec. 342/354/506 - Sec. 173(8) Cr.P.C. - The court dismissed the petition seeking further investigation of a case involving allegations of abuse, molestation, and attempted rape. The petitioner, a working lady, alleged that the investigating officer (I.O.) dropped certain sections of the Indian Penal Code from the case, failed to inform her about the charge sheet, and overlooked vital evidence. The respondent authorities denied the allegations and stated that the case was investigated properly. The court found that the investigation was conducted in a fair and objective manner, and there was no serious irregularity or mala fide exercise of power by the I.O. The court held that the trial court may call for the CDR of the mobile phone during trial if necessary.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a working lady, alleged abuse, molestation, and attempted rape by the District Medical Officer (DMO). She sought further investigation of the case, claiming flaws and defects in the investigation conducted by the I.O.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the investigation was conducted properly and the allegations of the petitioner were sufficiently addressed. It held that there was no serious irregularity or mala fide exercise of power by the I.O.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should direct further investigation of the case based on the petitioner's allegations of flaws in the initial investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of fair investigation in ensuring fair trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It held that unless there is a serious irregularity or mala fide exercise of power by the investigating officer, the court should be loathe to interfere with the investigation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims and stating that the trial court may call for the CDR of the mobile phone during trial if necessary.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

This writ petition, under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by Smti. Bullo Kanya (actual name withheld) for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to conduct further investigation of Ziro P.S. Case No. 63/2016, (State of A.P.-vs-Dr. Moli Riba), corresponding to G. R. Case No.103/2016, under sec. 342/354/506 Indian Penal Code, which is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Yupia.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated hereinbelow:-

"The petitioner is a working lady, engaged as Data Entry Operator (for short, 'DEO') on contractual basis, under the District Medical Officer (DMO) Lower Subansiri District, Ziro. On 28/7/2016, at around 13.30 to 14.00 hrs. Dr. Moli Riba, the DMO, Ziro called her to his office chamber for preparing official documents. Then, he abused her, and molested her, and attempted to commit rape upon her, in his office chamber, in broad day light, by kissing her and pressing her breast. She then resisted him and shouted, but, the Doctor closed her mouth and left the room threatening her with dire consequences in the event of reporting the matter to anybody else. Later on, she received one 'Sorry' message from one unknown Mobile No. 8794520263, at around 3.00 PM. Thereafter, on 29/7/2016, the victim woman lodged one FIR with the Officer-in-Charge, Ziro Police Station. The Officer-in-Charge, Ziro Police Station then registered Ziro P.S. Case No. 63/2016, under Sec. 354/376/511/506/342, of the Indian Penal Code and got the same investigated. During investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses, got the victim examined by Doctor and collected the report and on completion of investigation, he laid the Charge-Sheet against the accused Dr. Moli Riba, the then DMO, to stand trial in the Court, under Ss. 354/342/506 of the Indian Penal Code, before the Court of learned CJM, Ziro. Then, being dissatisfied with the manner of investigation, the petitioner preferred this petition for directing respondent authority to conduct further investigation of Ziro P.S. Case No. 63/2016".

3. The petitioner having gone through the final report noticed many flaws and defects. Then having been dissatisfied with the manner of investigation, she has submitted one representation on 22/11/2016, for further investigation of the case by a superior officer stating that she is not satisfied with the final report/Charge-Sheet and the way investigation is being carried out by the concerned I.O. But, nothing has been done upon the same. The pleaded imputation of the petitioner is that the I.O. has dropped sec. 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code from the case and thereafter he laid the Charge-Sheet, and that she has not been informed by the I.O. about the filing of the final report/Charge-Sheet under Sec. 173 of the Cr.P.C. and that the 'Sorry' message, which she received from Mobile No. 8794520263, at around 3.00 PM, belongs to the accused Dr. Moli Riba and she found the same from the true caller mobile application and the investigating officer did not even try to seize the mobile and sim card and nor he tried to investigate the origin of the message so contained in her mobile and as such, vital evidence of the case has been overlooked by the concerned I.O. It is her further contention that in the office chamber of District Medical Officer, CCTV was installed in the month of July prior to the incident but the same was found to be missing and the accused Doctor called her to his office chamber in between 1.30 to 2.00 hrs when all the staffs left for lunch break and the investigating officer did not try to find out as to why the CCTV has not been installed in the office and that the statement recorded by the I.O. under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. are similar in words except the name, designation age of the witnesses and in her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. before the le