2015 (11) TMI 130 - SC - Indian Laws

Infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 - Non apprehension of accused who set ablaze the deceased - Held that - Transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other specialised agency, notwithstanding the filing of the chargesheet, 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. Further investigation of a criminal case after the chargesheet has been filed in a competent court may affect the jurisdiction of the said Court under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence it is imperative that the said power, which, though, will always vest in a Constitutional Court, should be exercised only in situations befitting, judged on the touchstone of high public interest and the need to maintain the Rule of Law. - Following the death of Itishree Pradhan is concerned, in view of the chargesheet filed and the departmental action taken against the erring officials, we do not feel the necessity of any further direction in the matter, at this stage. We are, therefore, inclined to take the view that the power of this Court to refer a matter to Central Bureau of Investigation for further investigation, after filing of the chargesheet by the State investigating agency, ought not to be invoked in the present case. Instead, the course of action that would be now mandated by law against the accused Netrananda Dandasena should be allowed to reach its logical conclusion at the earliest. At the same time the investigation that has been kept open against the unidentified accused should be completed without delay. - Trial of accused Netrananda Dandasena shall not be held up on that count or on any other count and the same shall proceed forthwith and be concluded within the earliest possible time. - Petition disposed of.

Issues Involved:
1. Justification for entrusting further investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) after the filing of a chargesheet.
2. Determination of liability of any officer or authority of the State for inaction or negligence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification for entrusting further investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) after the filing of a chargesheet:

The petitioner, a young law student, filed an application under Article 32 of the Constitution, citing a serious infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 due to the tragic incident involving Itishree Pradhan. The petitioner argued that despite multiple complaints by the deceased against the accused, Netrananda Dandasena, no effective action was taken by the authorities, leading to her being set ablaze and subsequently dying from her injuries. The petitioner sought a transfer of the investigation to the CBI, alleging political patronage and insufficient action by the state authorities.

The State of Odisha, in its counter affidavit, detailed the actions taken, including the registration of multiple cases against the accused and his family, and the subsequent arrest of Netrananda Dandasena. It was argued that the promotion of the accused was based on recommendations made prior to the incident. The State also highlighted the dismissal of several officials and the payment of ex-gratia to the deceased's parents.

The Court noted that the deceased had made three dying declarations implicating the accused and an unidentified person. The chargesheet was filed against Netrananda Dandasena, and the investigation remained open to identify the other perpetrator. The Court referenced previous judgments, emphasizing that the power to direct further investigation by the CBI post-chargesheet should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where the investigation's fairness is in doubt or high public interest demands it.

The Court concluded that in the present case, the investigation by the state agency had led to the filing of a chargesheet and disciplinary actions against erring officials. Therefore, it did not find it necessary to transfer the investigation to the CBI. Instead, it directed that the trial of the accused should proceed without delay, and the investigation to identify the other perpetrator should be completed promptly under the supervision of the Superintendent of Police, Rayagada.

2. Determination of liability of any officer or authority of the State for inaction or negligence:

The petitioner alleged that the deceased's multiple complaints to various authorities, including the local police, Superintendent of Police, State Women Commission, Odisha Human Rights Commission, Director General of Police, and the Chief Minister, did not yield any protective action, which emboldened the accused and led to her death. The petitioner argued that the inaction by the authorities demonstrated a lack of concern for the deceased's rights and necessitated an investigation into the liability of these officials.

The State countered by detailing the actions taken against the officials, including dismissals and disciplinary measures. However, the Court acknowledged that the events preceding the death of Itishree Pradhan indicated some amount of laxity and indifference by the authorities.

The Court directed the State to conduct a detailed administrative inquiry to ascertain the responsibility of any other officials or authorities who failed to act on the deceased's complaints or provide her with necessary security. The Court emphasized that this inquiry should determine whether any further action is warranted against such officials based on the findings.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was disposed of with the Court appreciating the efforts of the young law student in seeking justice for the deceased and upholding the Rule of Law. The Court directed the prompt completion of the ongoing investigation and the trial of the accused, while also mandating an administrative inquiry into the potential negligence of state officials.

← Previous Next →