LexBHARATI TAMANG versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 525 BHARAT! TAMANG v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Crl.} No.159 of 2012) OCTOBER 08, 2013 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] A B Investigation - Entrustment of - To independent investigating agency - Murder of political leader - C Investigation by State Police, CID and CBI - Dissatisfied with the investigation, writ petition by wife of the deceased seeking investigation by higher authorities of CBI - Alleging that investigation was faulty - Held: In order to ensure that the criminal prosecution is carried on without any deficiency, Court D can constitute Special Investigation Team - The courts can also monitor such investigation - The proceedings/ investigation in the present case was not carried out in a satisfactory manner - Therefore, it is directed that investigation shall be continued by CBI, but shall be E monitored' by Joint Director, CBI - The pending Sessions case in Darjeeling, shall be transferred to the Sessions Court in Calcutta - The Calcutta Sessions Court shall be at liberty to approach Supreme Court and seek appropriate <Jjrections. Investigation - Deficiency in - Role of Court - Held: If F deficiency in investigation. and prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil which try to hide the realities or covering the obvious deficiency, courts to deal with the same with iron hands within framework of law. Evidence - Admissibility of - Held: Test of admissibility of evidene lies in its relevancy - Evidence placed as a result of even an illegal search or· seizure is not liable to be shut out, unless there is an implied or express prohibition in the G 525 H 526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A consitution or other law - In the facts of the case, plea objecting to the reliance on intercepted transcription of the telephonic conversation on the ground of its being violative of constitutional rights and being in violation of s. 5 of Telegraph Act rlw. r.419(A) of Telegraph Rules, is r.ot correct B as investigation has not yet concluded and truthfulness or otherwise of the intercepted conversation is yet to be ascertained by Forensic report. Petitioner, the wife of a deceased political leader filed C the present writ petition questioning the investigation conducted, in respect of death of her husband, by State police, CID and CBI. She prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet by CID and CBI respectively and the proceeding emanated therefrom. She further sought for appointment of D independent Special Investigation Team to conduct an investigation de novo. The case of the petitioner was that her husband, the deceased, President of political party Akhil Bhartiya E Gorkha League (ABGL), was brutally murdered under the gaze of general public, police and security personnel, by the supporters of the rival party i.e. Gorkha Jan Mukti Morcha (GJMM). The petitioner alleged that respondent- assailants used to threaten the deceased. She relied on F transcripts of official intercepts of phone conversations between the President and General Secretary of GJMM and their local cadres.' The respondents-assailants interalia contended that that they cannot be implicated in the case; and that G reliance on intercepted transcription of the telephonic conversation would be hit by s. 5 of Telegraph Act rlw. r.419A of Telegraph Rules. Plea of CBI was that it is not able to get much H support from local public, due to fear psychosis. CBI BHARATI TAMANG v. UNION OF INDIA 527 submitted that in order to have an effective investigation A and prosecution of the accused in a successful manner, it would be more appropriate to transfer the case from Darjeeling to Calcutta. Passing the order and keeping the petition pending 8 for passing necessary orders if and when required, by the Court HELD: 1. The test of admissibility of evidence lies in its relevancy. Unless there is an express or implied constitutional prohibition or other law, evidence placed C 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 D appropriately within the framework of law. It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.