DHARAM PAL versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 194 · Decided: 29-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
[2016] l S.C.R. 194 
DHARAM PAL 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2016) 
JANUARY 29, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.173 - Investigation, 
transfer of - Rape of appellant's daughter and after few days murder 
of his wife - Acquittal of accused persons in rape case - Appeal 
thereagainst pending before the High Court - In murder case, 
appellant provided with security as threats received by him -
Recommendation for transfer of cases to CBI - Whether situation 
calls for issuance of direction for transfer of the investigation to 
the CBI - High Court declined to so direct as trial had commenced 
and some witnesses were examined - On appeal, Held: Constitutional 
Courts can direct for farther investigation or investigation by some 
other investigating agency - The power to order fresh, de-novo or 
re-investigation being vested with the Constitutional Courts, the 
commencement of a trial and examination of some witnesses cannot 
be an absolute impediment for exercising the said constitutional 
power which is meant to ensure a fair and just investigation - Order 
E 
of High Court set aside and CBI directed to conduct the 
investigation. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. As the facts would reveal there was a request by 
F 
the Additional Chief Secretary for handing over the investigation 
to the CBI; that departmental action was taken against the 
investigating authorities for negligent investigation; that the 
concerned ASI was reverted to the post of Head Constable; and 
that apart, certain material witnesses were not examined by the 
investigating agency without any rhyme or reason. The reasoning 
G of the High Court was as the trial has commenced, there cannot 
be a transfer of the case to another investigating agency. [Para 
16] [204-B-C] 
2. Section 173 Cr.P.C. empowers the Police Officer 
conducting investigation to file a report on completion of the 
H 
investigation with the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance 
194 
DHARAM PAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 
195 
of the offence. Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. empowers the office-in-
A 
charge to conduct further investigation even after filing of a report 
under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. if he obtains further evidence, oral 
or documentary. Thus, the power of the Police Officer under 
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is unrestricted. 
The Magistrate has no 
. power to interfere but it would be appropriate on the part of the 
investigating officer to inform the Court. [Para 17] [204-D-E] 
B 
3. The constitutional courts can direct for further 
investigation or investigation by some other investigating agency. 
The purpose is, there has to be a fair investigation and a fair trial. 
The fair trial may be quite difficult unless there is a fair 
investigation. The direction for further investigation by another C 
agency has to be very sparingly issued but in the facts of the 
instant case, the said power needs to be exercised. The purpose 
of justice commands that the cause of the victim, the husband of 
the deceased, deserves to be answered so that miscarriage of 
justice is avoided. Therefore, in this case the stage of the case 
D 
cannot be the governing factor. [Para 20] [205-F-G] 
4. It is the bounden duty of a Court of law to uphold the 
trnth and truth means absence of deceit, absence of fraud and in 
a criminal investigation a real and fair investigation, not an 
investigation that reveals itself as a sham one. It is not acceptable. 
E 
It has to be kept uppermost in mind that impartial and truthful 
investigation is imperative. The order of the High Court is set 
aside, and it is directed that the CBI shall conduct the 
investigation and file the report before the trial judge. The said 
investigation report shall be considered by the trial judge as per 
law. Till the report by the CBI is filed, the trial judge shall not 
F 
proceed with the trial. [Paras 21, 22] [206-C-D, G] 
State of West Bengal & others v. Committee for 
Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and 
Others (2010) 3 SCC 571 :2010 (2) SCR 979 -
distinguished. 
Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat and Others (2011) 5 
SCC 79: 2011 (5) SCR 729; K. V. Rajendran v. 
Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai 
and Others (2013) 12 SCC 480: 2013 (9) SCR 199; 
Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2009) 6 SCC 
G 
H 
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
346: 2009 (5) SCR 482; Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali 
(2013) 5 SCC 762: 20

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.