ALSIA PARDHI versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 16 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 06-12-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 16 S.C.R. 815 
ALSIA PARDHI 
. v. 
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2048 of 2013) 
I 
DECEMBER 6, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI 
AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Investigation - Entrustment of - To CBI - Allegation of 
abduction of minor girl belonging to a de-notified tribal C 
community - By Goverriment officials -
Writ of Habeas 
Corpus - Dismissed relying of Report of State police without 
taking into consideration statem,~foi the eye-w~ness - On 
appeal, held: There is infirmity in· the investigation ·conducted 
by the State police - Hence, CBI is appointed to conduct D 
investigation in. the case. 
The appellant filed a writ petition u/Art. 226 (writ of 
Habeas Corpus) praying for pr9duction of his niece, a 
minor girl aged 14 years. The -appellant alleged that the 
E 
girl, alongwith another woman 'K'.was picked up from a 
fish market by the forest officials. 'K' somehow escaped, 
but the officials took away the girl. The appellant also 
lodged complaint to the local police as well as to the Chief 
Conservator of Forests. Since no action was taken, he 
filed the petition. 
F 
The State police, on the direction of the High Court, 
investigated the case. They recorded the statement of 
forest officials, wherein they had alleged that two women 
were arrested by the officials under Wildlife (Protection) 
G 
Act, 1972, but both of them had escaped. Statement of 'K' 
was also recorded uls. 164 Cr.P.C., on direction of the 
High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition 
holding that it was a case of missing person. 
. 
815. 
H 
A 
B 
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 
In appeal to this Court, the question for 
consideration was whether there was any lapse on the 
part of State agency in carrying out the investigation and 
whether the facts of the case mandated entrustment of 
thp investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Based on the complaint of the appellant, the 
Investigating Officer of the State Police, had only 
recorded the statements of the officials of the Forest 
C Department. In the light of the conflicting statements by 
the forest officers mentioning that initially two persons 
were taken into their jeep and they were released by the 
Pardhi community, it was proper on the part of the 
Investigating Officer concerned, to obtain statement from 
D the public who assembled in the fish market at the 
relevant time. Admittedly, for the reasons best known to 
the police, they had n'ot examined anyone or obtained 
statements from the local people available within the area 
in question. In the light of the said infirmity and in view 
E of the categorical statement of 'K' u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. the 
Court is prima facie satisfied that proper and sincere 
efforts were not made by the State police in tracing/ 
producing the girl before the High Court in a habeas 
corpus petition. [Paras 20 and 21) [829-B, F-H] 
F 
2.ln addition, in view of the assertion that the 
kidnapped girl belonged to Pardhi community, being a 
denotified tribe and also of the assertion that the Pardhi 
community people are being constantly harassed by the 
police and forest officials, the appellant has made out a 
G case for fresh investigation by other agency, viz., Central 
Bureau of Investigation. In the writ petition before the 
High Court, prayer was made for production of the 
abducted girl, but in view of the discussion and prima 
facie conclusion in the present appeal, the relief is 
H 
ALSIA PARDHI. v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 
817 
moulded and CBI is appointed to investigate and proceed 
A 
further according to law. [Para 22) [830~A-C] 
State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Committee for 
Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors. (2010) 
3 SCC 571: 2010 (2) SCR 979 ....:followed. 
9 
Case Law Reference : 
2010 (2) SCR 979 
followed 
Para 6 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal t 
Appeal No. 2048 of 2013 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2012 of the 
High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in WP No. 3803 of 201,1. 
Prashant Bhushan for the Appellant. 
Vibha Datta Makhija, Saurabh Mishra, Archi Agnihotri for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1. Leave granted, 
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and 
D 
E 
order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the 'High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 3803 of 2011 whereby the Division 
F 
Bench of the High Court dismissed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.