The main legal point established in the judgment is that transferring an investigation to CBI requires rare and exceptional circumstances, as highlighted in the Narmada Bai and State of Maharashtra cases.

1. The petitioner is the wife of accused Thandayuthapani, facing trial under Section 302 of IPC. A case in Crime No.154 of 2011 was registered against the husband of the petitioner under Sections 294(b), 452, 506(i) and 307 IPC, which was later on converted to Section 302 IPC. The case was registered on the statement of deceased Suguna on 26.06.2011.

2. It is the submission of the petitioner that the deceased deposed that Thiru Thandayuthapani and his brother Kothandapani abused the deceased and threatened to hang her for not severing illicit relationship of her husband with Tamil Selvi, daughter of the second accused.

3. Being ashamed by this allegation, she attempted to commit suicide, and entered her house where accused ran after her and by pouring kerosene put her on fire. She was brought to the hospital on 26.06.2011 and her declaration was recorded where she named the accused persons, including husband of petitioner.

4. It is the submission of the petitioner that the case was foisted against the husband of petitioner on account of previous enmity to cover up the dispute between the deceased and her husband Karunamurthy, who is addicted to all vice and is a drunkard. It is also submission of the petitioner that on the date of alleged occurrence, i.e. 25.06.2011, husband of the deceased Karunamurthy under the influence of alcohol, had trespassed into the house of petitioner, where her daughter Tamilselvi was alone and he tried to misbehave with her, which resulted in huge crowd gathering, on account of alarm by daughter of the petitioner.

5. It was on account of this that wordy quarrel picked up between the family of petitioner and the family of the deceased with village people. The deceased thereafter picked up quarrel with husband of petitioner and due to sudden emotion, that deceased committed suicide, by pouring kerosene in the presence of her family members and relatives, who were called at the instance of husband of the deceased to check his immoral activities.

6. The submission of the petitioner is that if the family members of the deceased were interested in saving her life, then they should have prevented the incident from taking place in front of them.

7. Furthermore, if the deceased wanted to make dying declaration, she could have done so at the hospital itself in the present of the Magistrate, Doctors and independent witnesses and not in her house in the presence of Police. The dying declaration is, therefore, said to be suspicious.

8. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent is conducting enquiry in biased manner, and has implicated the husband of petitioner and his brother with collusion of the family of the deceased, as the second respondent has not taken into consideration the real facts and recorded evidence of the witnesses, who saw the incident.

9. The petitioner therefore filed a detailed representation for handing over the investigation to CBCID, so that fair investigation could be conducted to bring out the truth.

10. The reading of affidavit shows that the petitioner is pleading defense to the crime, and has levelled vague allegations, which lacks material particulars to allege that respondent is conducting enquiry in the biased manner. The investigating agency cannot be changed on such vague allegations or on the defense to prosecution case.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that investigation deserves to be transferred to CBI or any independent agency, because the petitioner has no faith in the Police. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narmada Bai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2011 (3) Supreme 153, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that where investigation by the State Police is not in the proper direction due to involvement of high police officials, it is always open to the Court to hand over the investigation to an independent