The Jharkhand High Court allowed a petition seeking an investigation into a murder case of six family members and held that where the constitutional court is satisfied that the investigation has not been conducted in a proper and objective manner, a fresh investigation with the help of an independent agency can be considered to secure the ends of justice and the entire investigation and the closure report lacked bona fides and de novo investigation was required in the present case.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed for direction to transfer the investigation to CBI for independent and impartial investigation with regard to a case registered under Sections 302/306/120(B)/34 of the IPC wherein the accused is alleged to have murdered six members of a family.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the six members of the family have been murdered which has shocked the conscience of the entire country. It was further contended that the photographs of the dead bodies which had been placed on record suggested that the case was not that of suicide. Further, it was contended that suicidal notes were found at six different places in six different envelopes, which creates doubt, Further, the apartment from the beginning was not sealed properly the crime scene was visited by several persons, and the late arrival of the police after getting information was also doubtful. It was further argued that the matter was not investigated properly and it appeared to be a matter of influence the case of murder was given the colour of suicide and the investigation was not going in the right direction.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the matter was being investigated and the same had been reviewed by the higher official. It was further contended that all the directions had been complied with and the final form was submitted considering that the family was facing a financial crunch thus it was a pre-planned suicide and there was no illegality in the investigation by the CID and the court may not exercise its power under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that the theory of financial crunch in the family which had been submitted in the final form itself appeared to be prima facie incorrect as the deceased was paying premiums as well as the loan amounts of the flats.
On the question of whether the chargesheet filed in a criminal case by the state investigating agency can be referred to the CBI for further investigation, the court stated that the transfer of the investigation to the CBI or any other specialised agency, notwithstanding the filing of the charge-sheet, would be justified only when the court is satisfied that on account of the accused being powerful and influential, the investigation has not proceeded in a proper direction or it has been biased. The court further stated that the investigation of a criminal case after the charge-sheet has been filed in a competent court may affect the jurisdiction of the competent court under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C and it is imperative that the said power be exercised only in situations of high public interest.
The court further stated that normally when an investigation has been concluded and police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., it is only further investigation can be ordered under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, but where the constitutional court is satisfied that the investigation has not been conducted in a proper and objective manner, fresh investigation with the help of an independent agency can be considered to secure the ends of justice and the power may also be exercised if the court comes to the conclusion that the investigation has been done in a manner to help someone escape the law and the court in these exceptional circumstances, may order de novo investigation.
It was further stated that the victim has a fundamental right to a fair investigation and fair trial and thus, the mere filing of the charge sheet and framing of the charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation if the facts warrant. The court further stated that it is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be a miscarriage of justice.
The court observed that in the present case, the position of the dead body and the theory of financial crunch prima facie appears to be incorrect which is in contradiction of the final form and considering the wide media coverage of the case, the closure report appears to be a clear hasty action leaving much to be desired regarding the nature of the investigation. The court concluded that the entire investigation and the closure report lacked bona fides and de novo investigation was required in view of the interest of justice.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition, set aside the closure report and directed a de novo investigation by a fresh team of investigators who were directed to complete the investigation within a period of four months.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: W.P. (Cr.) No. 394 of 2018
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Mr. Achyut Swaroop, Ms. Priyanka, Mrs. Shaurya and Mr. Amar Deep
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kerketta, Ms. Ruby Pandey, Mr. Anil Kumar, Ms. Chandana Kumari and Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
