2013 (10) TMI 1297 - SC - Indian Laws

To conduct an investigation de novo into the conspiracy and gruesome murder - Request for appointment of an independent Special Investigation Team - Held that - In the decision of Ram Jethmalani and others Vs. Union of India and others reported 2011 (7) TMI 844 - Supreme Court of India (to which one us Justice S.S. Nijjar was a party) considering the nature of grievances expressed by the writ petitioner, constituted a High Level Committee as an Special Investigation Team in order to ensure that an effective investigation is carried out and the culprits were brought to book. From the various decisions relied upon by the petitioner counsel as well as by respondents counsel, the following principles can be culled out - The test of admissibility of evidence lies in its relevancy - Unless there is an express or implied constitutional prohibition or other law, evidence placed as a result of even an illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out - If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil which try to hide the realities or covering the obvious deficiency, Courts have to deal with the same with an iron hand appropriately within the framework of law - 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 miscarriage of justice - In order to ensure that the criminal prosecution is carried on without any deficiency, in appropriate cases this Court can even constitute Special Investigation Team and also give appropriate directions to the Central and State Governments and other authorities to give all required assistance to such specially constituted investigating team in order to book the real culprits and for effective conduct of the prosecution - While entrusting the criminal prosecution with other instrumentalities of State or by constituting a Special Investigation Team, the High Court or this Court can also monitor such investigation in order to ensure proper conduct of the prosecution - n appropriate cases even if the chargesheet is filed it is open for this Court or even for the High Court to direct investigation of the case to be handed over to CBI or to any other independent agency in order to do complete justice - In exceptional circumstances the Court in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice and if considers necessary may direct for investigation de novo. Having noted the various relevant features, we find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceeding of the case by the prosecution either by the State Police or by the CID and after it was taken over by CBI was not carried out in a satisfactory manner. The very fact that after the occurrence took place on 21.05.2001 there was serious lapse in apprehending many of the accused and the absconding of the prime accused Nicol Tamang and Dinesh Subba till this date disclose that there was total lack of seriousness by the prosecution agency in carrying out the investigation. The circumstances pointed out on behalf of the petitioner, namely, the absconding of many of the accused between May, 2010 and February, 2013 was a very relevant circumstance which gives room for suspicion in the mind of this Court as to the genuineness with which the case of the prosecution was being carried out. The submission that the murder took place due to political rivalry cannot be a ground for anyone, much less, the investigation agency to display any slackness or lethargic attitude in the process of investigation. Whether it be due to political rivalry or personal vengeance or for that matter for any other motive a murder takes place, it is the responsibility of the police to come up to the expectation of the public at large and display that no stone will remain unturned to book the culprits and bring them for trial for being dealt with under the provisions of the criminal law of prosecution. Any slackness displayed in that process will not be in the interest of public at large and therefore as has been pointed out by this Court in the various decisions, which we have referred to in the earlier paragraphs, we find that it is our responsibility to ensure that the prosecution agency is reminded of its responsibility and duties in the discharge of its functions effectively and efficiently and ensure that the criminal prosecution is carried on effectively and the perpetrators of crime are duly punished by the appropriate Court of law. In as much as the petitioner only seeks for handling of the case of murder of her deceased husband by the prosecuting agency, namely, the CBI here with utmost earnestness against all the accused who were involved in the crime, we feel that by issuing appropriate directions in this writ petition and by monitoring the same the grievances expressed by the petitioner can be duly redressed and the interest of the public at large can be duly safeguarded. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Faulty investigation by State Police, CID, and CBI.
2. Request for quashing of charge sheets.
3. Appointment of an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT).
4. Request for further/fresh investigation by a DIG level Officer of CBI.
5. Transfer of the case from Darjeeling to Calcutta for a fair trial.
6. Monitoring of the investigation by the Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Faulty Investigation by State Police, CID, and CBI:
The petitioner, widow of the deceased, alleged that the investigation into the murder of her husband was faulty. The investigation was initially conducted by the State Police, then by CID, and later by CBI. The petitioner claimed that despite the public nature of the crime and the presence of several eyewitnesses, the investigation was deliberately sluggish to allow the real culprits to escape. The petitioner highlighted that the investigation lacked seriousness, as evidenced by the delay in arresting many accused, including the prime accused who remained absconding for years.

2. Request for Quashing of Charge Sheets:
The petitioner sought the quashing of Charge Sheet No.76 of 2010 submitted by CID and Supplementary Charge Sheet No.04(3) dated August 20, 2011, filed by CBI. The petitioner argued that the charge sheets were inadequate and failed to include all relevant charges, such as conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.

3. Appointment of an Independent Special Investigation Team (SIT):
The petitioner requested the appointment of an independent SIT comprising senior officers to conduct a de novo investigation into the conspiracy and murder of her husband. The petitioner argued that an independent investigation was necessary due to the lack of progress and seriousness shown by the existing investigating agencies.

4. Request for Further/Fresh Investigation by a DIG Level Officer of CBI:
Alternatively, the petitioner sought further or fresh investigation by a DIG level officer of CBI into the aspects highlighted by her. The petitioner emphasized the need for a thorough investigation to uncover the truth and bring the real culprits to justice.

5. Transfer of the Case from Darjeeling to Calcutta for a Fair Trial:
The petitioner argued that due to the prevailing law and order situation in Darjeeling and the influence of the accused, a fair trial could not be conducted there. The petitioner requested the transfer of the case to Calcutta to ensure a fair and impartial trial.

6. Monitoring of the Investigation by the Court:
The petitioner urged the Supreme Court to monitor the investigation to ensure that it was conducted effectively and without any bias. The petitioner highlighted the need for the Court's intervention to ensure that the investigating agencies performed their duties diligently and brought the real culprits to justice.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court, after considering the various issues and submissions, issued the following directions:

I. Transfer of Case:
The Sessions case pending in Darjeeling was ordered to be transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Calcutta Civil and Sessions Court. The transfer was to be effected within two weeks from the date of the order.

II. Commencement of Proceedings:
The Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Calcutta Civil and Sessions Court was directed to commence the proceedings forthwith upon receipt of the records and material objects from the Sessions Court, Darjeeling.

III. Continued Investigation by CBI:
The investigation was to continue to be carried out by CBI, closely monitored by Mr. Rajiv Singh, Joint Director, CBI. The CBI was directed to ensure that all required evidence was gathered and no stone was left unturned in proceeding with the case.

IV. Comprehensive Report by CBI:
The CBI was directed to submit a comprehensive report before the transferred Court (Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Calcutta Civil and Sessions Court) within three months from the date of the order. The trial was not to proceed until the comprehensive report was filed and all accused were brought before the Court.

V. Monitoring by Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court retained the writ petition for passing necessary orders if required in the future. The CBI was directed to file a copy of its comprehensive report before the Supreme Court.

VI. Liberty to Approach Supreme Court:
The Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Calcutta Civil and Sessions Court was given the liberty to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate directions to ensure compliance with the Court's orders.

VII. Support from Government Agencies:
The State Government, Central Government departments, and other agencies were directed to render required support to the CBI and the trial Court without causing any delay.

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a thorough and unbiased investigation to ensure that justice was served and the real culprits were brought to book. The Court's directions aimed to address the deficiencies in the investigation and ensure a fair trial.