Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
A. K. GANGULY, C.J. AND I. MAHANTY, J.
Kabita Das
Versus
State of Orissa.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12626 of 2007
Decided on : 24 -4 -2008
SUPERVISION OF INVESTIGATION - SCOPE - SECOND SUPERVISION REPORT - VALIDITY - INTERFERENCE BY MLA - POLICE INVESTIGATION - ROLE OF MLA - LIMITS - POLICE INVESTIGATION - FURTHER INVESTIGATION - SCOPE - ARREST OF ACCUSED - NECESSITY - CHARGE SHEET - FILING - PROCEDURE.
Fact of the Case:
The case relates to the murder of Bhagirathi Das by 19 accused persons. The investigation was supervised by the Addl. S. P., Jajpur, who found it to be a true case against all the accused persons. Three accused persons were arrested and charge-sheeted. The remaining 16 accused persons were absconding. Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur, met the Director General of Police (DGP) and requested for transfer of investigation to the Crime Branch. The DGP directed the I. G. of Police, CID, CB to look into the matter and issue a Test Note. The I. G. of Police, CID, CB, turned down the request of the MLA for transfer of investigation, confirming the Supervision Note issued by the Addl. S. P., Jajpur. The DGP also agreed with the views expressed by the I. G. of Police, CID, CB. Thereafter, the MLA again met the DGP and handed over a handwritten note regarding the alleged alibis of some of the accused persons. The DGP directed the I. G. of Police, Central Range, to issue a Test Note. The I. G. of Police, Central Range, went to the spot for supervision and directed that the prosecution witnesses should be sent for polygraph test. The polygraph test indicated no deceptive response in respect of four out of five prosecution witnesses. However, the I. G. of Police, Central Range, directed a thorough verification of the liability of twelve accused persons by verifying versions of neutral witnesses, alibis and verification of their locations. A charge sheet was filed against seven accused persons in view of the test report of the I. G. of Police, Central Range.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Test Report issued by the I. G. of Police, Central Range was not bona fide in the eye of law and should not be acted upon since it had emanated from a direction issued by the DGP who not only had already affirmed the earlier Supervision Note issued by the Addl. S. P. Jajpur, but was acting on the request of MLA, Jajpur to verify the alibi of twelve accused persons which the MLA disowns. The Court further held that the direction to the I. G. of Police, Central Range by the DGP to issue a "Test Report" in the present case is wholly without any lawful authority. The Court also held that the role played by the concerned MLA Dr. Parameswar Sethi in trying to deflect the course of investigation amounts to interference with the course of justice and that he should not either directly or indirectly try to interfere with the course of investigation in any manner.
Issues: 1. Whether there is any scope for a second "Supervision Test Report", even after the original supervision of the Addl. S. P., Jajpur had been affirmed by all the superior officers, i.e., up to the rank of D. G. of Police? 2. Veracity of the Test Report issued by the I. G. of Police, Central Range based upon views and facts that emanate out of apparent interference by Dr. Paramesware Sethi. MLA., Jajpur.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. There is no scope for a second "Supervision Test Report", even after the original supervision of the Addl. S. P., Jajpur had been affirmed by all the superior officers, i.e., up to the rank of D. G. of Police. 2. The Test Report issued by the I. G. of Police, Central Range based upon views and facts that emanate out of apparent interference by Dr. Paramesware Sethi. MLA., Jajpur is not bona fide in the eye of law and should not be acted upon.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed with a direction to the appropriate authority to take action against all the accused persons, in accordance with law based upon the "Supervision Note" issued by the Addl. S. P., Jajpur. Accordingly, all actions taken till date on the basis of "Test Report" (2nd Report) of the I. G. of Police, Central Range are quashed. Directions are further issued to take action immediately in accordance with direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Dalmia v. C.B.I. (2008 Cri LJ 337) (supra) and since the Investigating Officer has found prima facie evidence against all the accused persons, law does not require that filing of Charge Sheet must await the arrest of the accused persons.
Judgement
I. MAHANTY, J. :- This writ petition was registered on the basis of a letter addressed by the petitioner Kabita Das, wife of late Bhaguni Das @ Bhagirathi Das of village Izapur, District-Jajpur in the State of Orissa bringing to the notice of this Court that in the night of 28-3-2007 at about 10.30 P. M. at village Izapur, accused Kedar Narayan Parida and nineteen others including his sons attacked her husband late Bhagirathi Das, most heinously in a group to take political revenge and killed him. On the basis of the FIR lodged to that effect, Mangalpur P. S. Case No. 28 of 2007 was registered and on that basis G. R. Case No, 468 of 2007 has been registered in the Court of the S. D. J. M., Jaipur.
2. In her written complaint presented before this Court in person, the petitioner has stated that Kedar Narayan Parida is the main accused in the murder case and his sons are very influential persons of the ruling party. Although four months have elapsed, only three persons, out of nineteen accused persons in the murder case have been arrested and forwarded to the Court. She further alleged that arrest of those three persons and their forwarding to Court has been done on account of a secret understanding between the police and the Government authorities, in order to create an eye wash and in the meanwhile Kedar Narayan Parida and his sons are moving freely in the nearby areas with the knowledge of the police, but the police is not taking any step for arresting them. In the said complaint she further alleged that the accused persons have often visited her village and threatened to kill the witnesses to the incident if they say anything in their statement recorded by the Investigating Officer (in short I. O.). Therefore, she along with her brother-in-law have also intimated the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur and D. G. of Police, Orissa, complaining that no action has yet been taken on her complaint and no protection has been given to her family.
The petitioner's grievance in her application addressed to this Court also contains a prayer for a direction to the police authorities to apprehend the main accused Kedar Narayan Parida and his sons and to take appropriate steps against them in accordance with law.
3. This written application made by the petitioner Kabita Das was registered as Writ Petition (C) 12626 of 2007 and the order dated 4-10-2007 passed in that case runs as follows :-
On 27-7-2007 a petition was presented before us by one Kabita Das claiming to be the widow of deceased Bhagirathi Das of village Ijapur, P. S. Mangalpur, District Jajpur alleging improper investigation into the murder of her husband Bhagirathi Das. A case has been registered being Mangalpur P.S. Case No. 28 dated 29-3-2007 under Sections 147/148/341/326/307/302/506/ 149, IPC. Her complaint basically is that in the said case there are 19 accused persons. Allegations in the F. I. R. have been made against those 19 accused persons, namely, Kedar Narayan Parida, Jyoti Ranjan Parida, Sakti Ranjan Parida, Bibeka Ranjan Parida, Darpanarayan Parida, Pranaya Kumar Ray, Jugal Kishore Ray, Kuna Ray, Ajay Kumar Ray, Asis Kumar Ray, Nityananda Sahoo, Tutu Sahoo, Hrusikesa Sahoo, Kartika Sahoo, Sudhanindhi Sahoo, Sk. Hanif, Santosh Sahoo, Prasanta Jena and Jitendra Parida. But out of those 19 persons only 4 persons have been charge sheeted and those 4 persons are stated to be Ajaya Kumar Ray @ Kunja, Jugal Kishore Ray, Nityananda Sahu and Kartika @ Jyotiranjan Sahoo. Charge-sheet has not been filed against the remaining 15 accused persons though direction has been given to file charge-sheet against 3 more persons, namely, Sudhanidhi Sahoo @ Mangua, Asis Kumar Ray and Pranaya Kumar Ray. So far as other remaining 12 accused persons are concerned, no charge-sheet has been directed to be filed against them.
After the present petition was filed by Kabita Das. which was registered as PIL No. 43 of 2007, this Court directed Mr. P. K. Khuntia, learned Additional Governmen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
