Sex CD Scandal: SIT Head Not Even Willing To Look Into Investigation Carried Out During His Long Leave, Says Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday observed that IPS officer Soumendu Mukherjee who was appointed as the head of the Special Investigation Team to probe the alleged sex CD scandal involving former State Minister Ramesh Jarkiholi is not even willing to look into the investigation carried out during his long absence for three months by other members of the team.

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N S Sanjay Gowda had earlier raised questions at the legality of the probe as the SIT Chief has been on leave since April 28.

During the hearing today, after perusing the additional statement of objections filed by the SIT, the court had asked the counsel appearing for SIT to take instructions from the head of SIT on whether he would relook into the investigations carried out in his absence.

Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi appearing for the state government submitted that due to the absence of the head of SIT, the investigation is not vitiated. To which the court orally said "The minimum we expected is if the investigation is continued without the head of the investigation when he resumes he will re-look at the investigations so far. Why is the state government not taking this fair stand?

It added, "In umpteen number of sensitive cases, either the state or the court says let the investigation be examined by a senior officer. It is not new."

The matter was passed over for some time to enable the counsel for SIT to take instruction from the head of SIT. Subsequently, the SIT counsel informed the court that the head of the SIT wants to stick to statements made in the additional statement. It is stated in the affidavit filed by SIT that

"Pursuant to the directions issued by this court on April 5, directing the respondent SIT to place on record the report of investigation in sealed cover.,IPS Officer Soumendu Mukherjee submitted the reports of all three cases. The said report was considered by the court on April 17, thereafter SIT was directed to submit further reports."

Further, it says that,

"In the absence of the head of SIT as he was on medical leave, the Joint Commissioner of Police being the next in rank of the head of SIT, continued the overall supervision of investigation in pursuance of section 2 (o) of CrPC." Moreover, "Head of SIT duly authorised the Joint Commissioner of police to submit reports to Honourable High Court as he was discharging the functions of overall supervisions of the investigations."

The bench in its order noted: "Inference which can be drawn is that the head of SIT is not even willing to look into the investigation carried out during his long absence for about three months by other members of the team. We note here that our query was regarding the pending investigation and not regarding the case where the final report is filed."

It added ,

"We also note that no document is placed on record to show order was passed by the government appointing any other police officer as head of SIT in absence of Soumendu Mukherjee. Infact, in a note dated June 16, head of SIT has said that he is not able to supervise the investigation personally and therefore he had authorised IPS Sandeep Patil to submit reports to this court. We make it clear that said query was made by us only in the light of the fact that the head of SIT had admittedly not supervised the investigation."

Following which the court also observed that, "There are various issues raised in this petitions including the issue of legality and validity of order passed by Honourable home minister constituting SIT, issue of locus of one of the petitioners in one of the petition is also raised. Therefore these petitions will have to be heard and disposed of finally. For that purpose, we direct that petitions shall be listed on September 3."

The court went on to note that the query made by it to the head of SIT was only with the object of ascertaining whether there is an effort by the head of SIT to ensure that proper investigation is carried out.

It may be noted that soon after the incident came to light, accused Jarkiholi had written a letter to the State Home Department on March 10. Accordingly, a note was issued by the office of the Home Minister, following which the Commissioner of Police, on March 11, issued the order constituting the SIT. The petitions have challenged the constitution of the SIT to probe the cases.

The court continued the interim relief granted earlier by which it has restrained the SIT from submitting its final report.

'SIT Did Not Leak The Investigation Report to The Press'

In its additional statement of objection, the SIT has said that,

"Investigating officers of the cases have conducted investigation with utmost sincerity and have also maintained utmost secrecy in the matter under the aid, advice and guidance of the head of SIT. Even the investigation reports submitted are in sealed cover and the same has not been disclosed to anybody, much less the press. None of the officers of the SIT or investigation officer have held any press conferences in this regard, much less disclosing the progress of the investigations to any press or media personally."

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising appearing for the victim in the case had on the last hearing brought to the notice of the court a news report published in the July 27 edition of the Indian Express. Citing the report titled "SIT finds no evidence to prosecute Karnataka BJP MLA Ramesh Jarkiholi in sexual assault case", she had said, " Even before it is served to the parties or could be taken up it has been extensively reported that SIT has found no substance in her complaint of rape."

The SIT in its affidavit said "SIT and its officers are not aware about the source of the information for the Indian Express to publish the new item." The SIT said when two suspects had filed bail applications before the city civil court seeking anticipatory bail the SIT had filed a detailed statement of objection opposing the bail petitions.

The SIT had divulged the findings of the investigation while opposing the anticipatory bail. The statement of objection file is a public document. The possibility of the same being used as a source of new items cannot be ruled out. That apart, in the B report already filed in respect of case in Cr No 61/2021, which is also a public document, the investigating officer of the said case has given his findings for filing B report and the contents of the B report could have been used as a source of the news item. That apart there is no occasion for the SIT to disclose any of the investigation contents to anybody much less the press.