NEETU KUMAR NAGAICH versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1015 · Decided: 16-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1015
NEETU KUMAR NAGAICH
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 141 of 2020)
SEPTEMBER 16, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Investigation:
De novo investigation – Writ Petition before Supreme Court
seeking transfer of criminal case from State Police to CBI – Alleging
several deficiencies in the investigation – On direction by Supreme
Court to conclude the investigation within stipulated time, police
filed Closure Report – Held: A fair investigation is as much a part
of Constitutional right guaranteed u/Art. 21 of the Constitution as
a fair trial – The Constitutional Court has power to direct de novo
investigation in exceptional circumstances in order to prevent
miscarriage of justice – In the facts and circumstances of the case,
entire investigation and the closure report lack bonafide – The interest
of justice requires a de novo investigation, to sustain the confidence
of the society in the rule of law – Therefore, the Closure Report is
set aside and de novo investigation is directed to be conducted by a
fresh team of investigators of State police – Constitution of India –
Art. 21.
Allowing the petition, the Court
HELD: 1. A fair investigation is as much a part of a
constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution as a fair trial, without which the trial will naturally
not be fair. Normally when an investigation has been concluded
and police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C., it is
only further investigation that can be ordered under Section
173(8) Cr. P.C. But where the constitutional court is satisfied
that the investigation has not been conducted in a proper and
objective manner, fresh investigation with the help of an
independent agency can be considered to secure the ends of
justice so that the truth is revealed. The power may also be
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 1015
1015
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
exercised if the court comes to the conclusion that the
investigation has been done in a manner to help someone escape
the clutches of the law. In such exceptional circumstances the
court may, in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice
direct de novo investigation. The power of the constitutional court
to order fresh or de novo investigation could also be exercised
after commencement of the trial and the examination of some
witnesses could not be an impediment. [Paras 9 and 12][1020-H;
1021-A-C; 1024-G]
Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration, (1988) Suppl.
SCC 482 : [1988] 3 SCR 700; Babubhai v. State of
Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 : [2010] 10 SCR 651;
Bharati Tamang v. Union of India, (2013) 15 SCC 578
: [2013] 14 SCR 525; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v.
State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 : [2004] 3 SCR
1050; Pooja Pal v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135 :
[2016] 11 SCR 560; Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana,
(2016) 4 SCC 160 : [2016] 1 SCR 194 – relied on.
2. In the present case, death of the deceased was initially
sought to be passed off as accidental by collision with a train or
suicidal due to depression. The F.I.R. under Section 302, IPC
was registered very much belatedly albeit reluctantly, only at the
persistence of the petitioner and her husband after they repeatedly
approached the higher authorities. Even thereafter the
investigation remained at a standstill till the filing of the counter
affidavit before this Court with the respondents insisting that the
death was accidental and that the nature of injuries could not
attribute a homicidal death. Earlier the husband of the petitioner
had also petitioned the High Court where the respondents insisted
that the death was accidental in nature. The High Court despite
noticing the long pendency of the investigation took a misguided
approach and passed an open ended order to investigate the case
and file a report. In this manner, the investigation remained
inconclusive for nearly three long years with the investigating
agency sanguine of passing it off as an accidental death without
coming to a firm conclusion avoiding to complete the
investigation. It is only when this Court ordered that the
investigation be concluded within a period of two months that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1017
suddenly a very lengthy investigation closure report has been
filed taking a stand that though the death was homicidal there
was no clue. The closure report is therefore, a clear hasty action
leaving much to be desired regarding the nature of investigation,
because if a detaile

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