On 16th Sep
2020, the Supreme Court in the case of Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. The State of
Rajasthan comprising of Justice R.F, Nariman, Justice Navin Sinha, and Justice
Indira Banerjee set aside the closure report and direct a de novo investigation
by a fresh team of investigators to be headed by a senior police officer of the
State consisting of efficient personnel well conversant with the use of modern
investigation technology.
Facts
The deceased aged 21 years, a
3rd-year student at the National Law University Jodhpur, was the only son of
the Petitioner. She seeks justice to unravel the mystery of her son’s homicidal
death, dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the State Police. The
investigation has reached a dead-end without the identification of the offenders.
The prayer in the writ petition is therefore for a mandamus to transfer the
investigation from the State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
Petitioner Submissions
The Petitioner in its Submissions submits before the Court that the “This Court on 08.07.2020 directed that the investigation must be completed within a period of two months and the final report be filed in this Court. The investigating officer thereafter in hot haste has filed a closure report which is thoroughly unsatisfactory and raises more questions with regard to the nature of investigation done by him than it seeks to answer.”
Petitioner sought to persuade
Court not to allow the closure report but to set it aside and order a fresh
investigation for resolution of the crime and the offender.
Respondent Submissions
Respondent submits before the Court that the “inquest proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were commenced promptly. A large number of witnesses have been examined by the Special Investigation Team constituted pursuant to the order of the High Court. There has been no deficiency in the investigation. All possibilities have been investigated and the necessary evidence collected and analyzed. Despite the best efforts the offenders could not be traced or found.”
Lastly, The respondent submits
that there was no occasion for this Court to either direct further or fresh
investigation. The closure report may be allowed to be filed before the court
concerned and the law may take its course.
Join our Social Feeds for Daily Quizzes & More Here
Supreme Court Findings
The Supreme Court in its findings stated that “we have gone through the closure report also dated 03.09.2020 filed pursuant to our order dated 08.07.2020. The closure report accepts it as a homicidal death but concludes that there is no clue who the offenders were.”
Normally when an investigation
has been concluded and a police report submitted under Section 173(2) of the
Code, it is an only further investigation that can be ordered under Section
173(8) of the Code. 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
Judgment
The Supreme Court in its judgment stated that:-
- To set aside the closure report and direct a de
novo investigation by a fresh team of investigators to be headed by a
senior police officer of the State consisting of efficient personnel well
conversant with the use of modern investigation technology also.
- No officer who was part of the investigating team
leading to the closure report shall be part of the team conducting de novo
investigation.
- Much time has 15 passed and there is undoubtedly
an urgency in the matter now.
- We, therefore, direct that such fresh
investigation must be concluded within a maximum period of two months from
today, and the police report be filed before the court concerned
whereafter the matter shall proceed in accordance with the law.
0 Comments