POOJA PAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 560 · Decided: 22-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2016] 11 S.C.R. 560 
POOJA PAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 77 of2016) 
JANUARY22, 2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ,] 
Constitution of India - Arts.20, 21 and 32 - Remedial 
intervention - Murder - Entrustment of investigation to an 
C 
i11stru111entality other than the local I State police agencies -
Appellant's husband gunned down in a public place in broad 
daylight .,- Deceased was a sitting ML.A. of U.P. State Assembly, 
having defeated respondent no.5, in the bye elections held a few 
months earlier - In the FIR filed by the appellant soon after the 
incident, she named respondent no.5 to be the assailant who shot 
D 
appellant's husband in the head, being acco111panied by others -At 
that time, respondent no.4, brother of respondent no.5 ·was a member 
of the Parliament - Allegation of appellant that respondenr no.4 
was involved in the conspiracy to eliminate her husband - Writ 
petition filed by appellant seeking investigation by CBI into the 
E incident on ground of perceived involvement of the State 
administration and the police in particula1; in the perpetration of 
th"e cri111e and their passive and indifferent disposition in taking 
steps as required in law - Dismissed by High Court - Held: If 
investigation is neither effective nor purposeful nor objective nor 
fair, it would be the solemn obligation of the courts, if considered 
·F 
necessary, to order further investigation or re-investigation as the 
case may be, to discover the truth so as to prevent miscarriage of 
justice - No inflexible guidelines or hard and fast rules as such can 
be prescribed by way of uniform and universal invocation - The 
decision is to be conditioned to the attendant facts and circumstances 
G - On facts, notwithstanding pendency of the trial, and availability 
of power of the courts below u/ss.311 and 391 CrPC rlw s.165 of 
the Evidence Act, CBI directed to undertake a de-nova investigation 
in the incident in view of the exceptional features of the case, and 
in order to rule out any possibility of denial of justice to the parties 
and 111ore i111portantly to instill and sustain the confidence of the 
H 
560 
POOJA PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
community at large - CBI to submit report before trial court, within 
six months - Trial court to thereafter conduct and conclude the 
trial within six months - Criminal law - Investigation. 
Administration of Justice - Judiciary - Purpose of - Held: A 
court of lmv has to be an involved participant in the quest for truth 
and justice and is not expected only to officiate a formal ritual in a 
proceeding forseeing an inevitable end signaling travesty of justice. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. As fundamentally, justice not only has to be 
done but also must appear to have been done, the residuary 
jurisdiction of a court to direct further investigation or 
reinvestigation by any impartial agency, probe by the state police 
notwithstanding, has to be essentially invoked if the statutory 
agency already in-charge of the investigation appears to have 
been ineffective or is presumed or inferred to be not being able 
to discharge its functions fairly, meaningfully and fructuously. As 
the cause of justice has to reign supreme, a court of law cannot 
reduce itself to be a resigned and a helpless spectator and with 
the foreseen consequences apparently unjust, in the face of a 
faulty investigation, meekly complete the formalities to record a 
foregone conclusion. Justice then would become a casualty. 
Though a court's satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and 
effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the 
precondition for a direction for further investigation or 
reinvestigation, submission of the charge-sheet ipso f(lc/o or the 
pendency of the trial can by no means be a prohibitive impediment. 
The contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be 
singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of 
further investigation or reinvestigation to unravel the truth and 
mete out justice to the parties. [Para 76] [604-D-H; 605-A] 
561 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
1.2. It is judicially acknowledged that fair trial includes fair 
investigation as envisaged by Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution 
G 
of India. Though, well demarcated contours of crime detection 
and adjudication do exist, if the investigation is neither effective 
nor purposeful nor objective nor fair, it would be the solemn 

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