IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's duty to ensure fair investigation and prosecution, as well as the power of the Constitutional Court to direct re-investigation in exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Shailesh Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III appearing for the State and Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 (Union of India).

2. This petition has been filed for a direction to hand over the case to CBI or Special Branch of CID Officers for further investigation with regard to the death of the husband of the petitioner namely late Bramhadev Singh.

3. Mr. Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 12.06.2021, about 10-11 tribal men of the Piri Village gathered in front of the house of one Rajeshwar Singh in the morning (around 8 O’clock) to go for hunting as a part of celebrating ‘Nem Sarhul’, an annual tribal celebration widely celebrated by the tribals in the State of Jharkhand. He submits that the tribal villagers as part of the custom and tradition, hunt small animals from the forest like rabbits, boars etc. to feed their guests. He further submits that for hunting they used a ‘bhartua gun’, which is a locally made gun filled with gunpowder before firing and only a single shot can be fired, which is traditionally used to hunt small animals and to scare animals to save the crop. He further submits that on the even day, six people in group of 10-11 people were formed and in one of the group, Bramhadev Singh was aged about 24 years, the deceased and husband of the petitioner was there. He submits that the first group, moved towards the forest for about 50 feet, then suddenly the security personnel started firing from the other side without giving any warning. He further submits that some of the persons saved their lives by way of hiding themselves behind the mahua tree, Bramhadev, Dinatha and all four raised their hands by placing the gun on the ground and shouted that they were common people, not Maoist, and requested not to shoot. Bramhadev by way of taking out his t-shirt and pant, raised his hands and pleaded to prove that he was completely innocent villager, but the firing continued. He further submits that Dinanath Singh was first hit by a bullet in the hand and then Bramhadev Singh, who is the deceased husband of the petitioner was hit, who fell on the ground as soon as he was shot. He further submits that seeing the tragedy, the other persons fled away from the place of occurrence.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that Bramhadev’s aunt Panpatiya Devi, reached the spot to see Bramhadev, she was chased away and verbally abused by the security forces. He further submits that villagers saw that the security force personnel came from the forest towards the village and lifted Bramhadev Singh and carried him across the river and the villagers reported that the said Bramhadev was alive by then, because his hands and feet were trembling. He further submits that the security forces placed Bramhadev on the ground across the river and again shot him and the security forces then changed his cloths, after this Bramhadev is seen wearing a pair of blue jeans and yellow t-shirt, which has been widely published in the newspaper as a part of cover-up by the security which amounts to a fake encounter, upon an innocent villager. He further submits that in these backgrounds, the petitioner and the elder brother of the victim were offered an amount of Rs. 30,000/-to Rs. 35,000/-in cash and also promised a job by the local police and they admitted before the family members that they had made a mistake and requested them to take the money and forgive them. He submits that in the aforesaid background, the local police on seeing that the petitioner was not ready to compromise, they have given threats and went ahead by way of lodging of a false case, being Garu P.S. Case No. 24 of 2021 on 13.06.2021 against the six villagers. He submits that the petitioner has made a complaint against the police officials and wrote to the Officer-in-Charge of Garu Police Station, Latehar, despite of