The Code does not provide for re-investigation of a case, and the High Court should not ordinarily issue a direction for re-investigation after filing the charge sheet, unless in exceptional circumstances.

1. In OWP No. 1016/2011, petitioner Mohd. Aroof Khan seeks direction for re-investigation in FIR No. 16 of 2011 of Police Station, Surankote in which police has submitted charge-sheet for commission of offences under sections 302 RPC & 27/30 Arms Act against accused Sarwar Khan, respondent herein, in the year 2011 and trial is pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Poonch. In CRTA No. 30/2012, petitioner, Razia Begum Khan seeks transfer of the trial of the case to a court of competent jurisdiction at Jammu or at any other place. Both the matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Learned counsels for the parties have been heard and record perused.

OWP No. 1016/2011:

3. The prosecution case shorn of all unnecessary details is that on 20.03.2011 at 8.15 pm Police Station, Surankote received a source information that Mohd. Aroof Khan (for short the deceased) died because of an accidental gunshot by the accused in 'Dera-Gali' jungle where they had gone for hunting. On this information offences under sections 304 RPC and 27/30 Arms Act were registered as FIR No. 16/2011 and investigation was entrusted to Munshi Khan, ASI. Accused was arrested on 28.03.2011. In the course of investigation the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), Rajouri-Poonch Range constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Dy. S. P. Surankote. The SIT after investigation found that the accused was nourishing enmity with the deceased under the disguise of friendship, he had taken the deceased to the jungle for hunting under a pre-planned scheme and fired at him through his 12 bore gun from a distance of about 42 feet with the intention of causing his death. He left the deceased, who was struggling for his life, in the jungle and came to his house after travelling a distance of 13/14 kms on foot and lodged report to the police at Thanamandi. The SIT, thus, concluded that the accused had shot dead the deceased through a 12 Bore Gun which belonged to his father.

4. After completion of investigation SHO Police Station, Surankote submitted charge-sheet for commission of offence under section 302 RPC & 27/30 Arms Act against the accused in the committal court and after committal the case came up for trial before the court of Sessions Judge, Poonch on 01.06.2011. On 20.07.2011 P.P. filed an application before the trial court for a direction to SSP, Poonch for further investigation of the case. Accused filed objections to this application. During the pendency of that application the petitioner filed this writ petition in this Court and on 11.10.2011 the P.P withdrew the application filed by him because of pendency of this petition. On 12.10.2011 learned Sessions Judge after examining the record of the case and hearing both sides framed charges under section 302 RPC and 27/30 Arms Act against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and the prosecution entered its evidence. On 06.06.2012, this Court in this writ petition ordered that pendency of the writ petition shall not stand in the way of trial court proceedings and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. On 12.10.2012, mother of the deceased filed aforementioned transfer application in this Court and this Court by the order passed on 17.10.2012, while issuing notice to the respondents, stayed the proceedings before the trial court.

5. In seeking re-investigation of the case the petitioner, who is brother of the deceased, has alleged that the investigation even by the SIT had been a mere eye wash inasmuch as the statements of material witnesses were not recorded in terms of section 161 Cr. P.C. or section 164-A and the real culprits have been left out. It is contended on the basis of the photographs of the dead body produced by the petitioner that the deceased did not die only due to accidental gunshot at his temple as a shot was fired at his hip also. Petitioner has also challenged prosecution version that the gunshot had been fired from