ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not conducting investigation in a fair and transparent manner by considering the dying declaration in Crime No. 63 of 2016 pending on the file of Shankarampet (A) Police Station, Medak District as illegal and for a consequential direction to respondent No. 3 to investigate the said crime, arrest respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and file charge sheet/final report against them.

2. Heard Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Sridhar Lonkala, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

3. FACTS:

(i) the petitioner herein has lodged a complaint on 13.05.2016 with respondent No. 3 complaining the suspicious death of his brother-Mahenderkar Pandarinath, who received severe burn injuries and fall on the road side.

(ii) on receipt of the said complaint, respondent No. 3 has registered a case in Crime No. 63 of 2015 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.

(iii) during the course of investigation, on 25.03.2017, respondent No. 3 has obtained dying declaration of the deceased recorded by XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (for trial of Communal Disturbances), Nampally, Hyderabad.

(iv) thereafter, considering the said dying declaration, respondent No. 3 has altered the section of law from Section 174 of Cr.P.C. to Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and also filed an alteration memo to that effect.

(v) despite altering the section of law from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 302 read with 34 of IPC basing on the dying declaration, respondent No. 3 has not conducted fair investigation and he has not apprehended respondent Nos. 4 to 7 herein and others who involved in the said offence.

(vi) in the dying declaration, names of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were specifically mentioned by the deceased and the role played by them in commission of offence.

(vii) respondent No. 3 has blatantly ignored the said dying declaration.

(viii) the petitioner herein has submitted representations to respondent No. 2, dated 30.05.2016 and 20.06.2016 with a request to instruct respondent No. 3 to conduct and complete investigation in a fair and transparent manner.

(ix) respondent No. 2 has instructed respondent No. 3 to complete investigation and submit report by 15.06.2020.

(x) even then, respondent No. 3 has not conducted and completed the investigation in fair and transparent manner, and on the other hand, he is trying to help respondent Nos. 4 to 7 by conveniently ignoring the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate which is a crucial piece of evidence.

(xi) therefore, the present writ petition.

4. ORDER, DATED 21.08.2020:

In this writ petition, this Court vide order dated 21.08.2020, observing that tardiness adopted by the respondent authorities in conducting investigation, taking necessary action in the crime, directed respondent No. 2 to look into the matter, place before the Court instructions/counter to indicate as to why respondent No. 3 authority has not taken any action kept pending the investigation for such a long time and also as to why respondent No. 3 authority should not be divested of the power to investigate into the above crime registered and to transfer to another investigating authority or agency.

5. CONTENTS OF COUNTER AND ADDL. COUNTER OF RESPONDENT No. 2:

Respondent No. 2 has filed counter on 26.09.2020 stating that they have already sought expert’s opinion and waiting for the same. It is further stated that there is variation from the statements of the complainant, eye-witnesses and other circumstantial witnesses. There is doubt in the mind of Investigating Agency that dying declaration was not voluntary and was not made by free will of the deceased and it was made at the best of others. As such, the police a