2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 7424

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Tirthankar Ghosh, J
Latika Ghose – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
W.P.A. No. 35802 of 2013

High Courts, under Article 226, have authority to transfer investigations to independent agencies when local police investigations are biased, disregard substantive ocular evidence, or demonstrate a pattern of shielding public servants, thereby violating the fundamental right to a fair investigation under Article 21.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Investigative bias - Right to fair investigation is an integral facet of the right to life - High Courts possess extraordinary, original, and discretionary power to ensure justice reaches where it is found, particularly when local authorities are implicated in misconduct - Such powers are not subject to archaic constraints and serve to prevent the abuse of power or neglect of duty by public authorities. (Para 35, 40)

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 173(8) - Further investigation - Power of Court to order transfer or further investigation - When investigative agencies repeatedly prepare reports that disregard material ocular evidence and rely exclusively on inconclusive medical or expert opinions to shield an accused, such instances reflect a lack of impartiality requiring judicial intervention to maintain the credibility of the criminal justice system. (Paras 44, 46, 52)

(C) Evidence Act - Medical evidence versus Ocular evidence - Medical reports are of advisory character and are not substantive evidence of facts - Courts and investigators must prioritize credible ocular testimony over technical opinions when the latter completely rules out possibilities or when multiple expert opinions remain contradictory - Disregarding eyewitnesses to favor biased interpretation of medical data is a violation of the principles of fair investigation. (Paras 31, 39, 40)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a widow, sought a writ of mandamus for an independent investigation into the death of her husband, who died following a police firing incident during public disturbances. Despite conducting multiple investigations, the state agencies consistently submitted final reports that were criticized for shielding the accused public servant. The investigative process was marked by the suppression of eyewitness accounts and an undue reliance on conflicting forensic and medical expert opinions to justify a dismissal of charges.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the failure to record statements of vital witnesses and the deliberate disregard for ocular evidence in favor of vague expert opinions suggested a pre-conceived intent to protect the accused. The court observed that the repeated submission of flawed reports demonstrated that the state agency lacked the required independence. Consequently, the court held that an independent investigation was the only mechanism to ensure justice and protect the fundamental rights of the victim's family, as the previous investigations failed to meet the standards of fairness and objectivity.

Issues: Whether the investigation into the death of the victim was conducted in an unfair and biased manner necessitating the intervention of the High Court and whether, in light of the repeated failures of local police authorities, the investigation should be transferred to an independent central agency.

Ratio Decidendi: An independent investigation serves as a vital tool to preserve the rule of law when allegations of serious misconduct are leveled against law enforcement. When an investigation remains perfunctory and the investigative agency acts as a shield rather than a seeker of truth, the High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, is obligated to rectify the failure by transferring the proceedings to a neutral agency to uphold the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial.

Result: Writ petition allowed; investigation transferred to an independent central agency.