When Accused Says Who Should Investigate Case, It Raises Serious Question: Supreme Court
It raises questions when the accused tells who should investigate the case, the Supreme Court of India commented on Thursday. A Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy orally observed, "when there's a single word itself from the accused as to who is to investigate the case, that raises a serious question". The Court made this remark while hearing an SLP moved by...
It raises questions when the accused tells who should investigate the case, the Supreme Court of India commented on Thursday.
A Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy orally observed, "when there's a single word itself from the accused as to who is to investigate the case, that raises a serious question".
The Court made this remark while hearing an SLP moved by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court which directed the transfer of a dowry-death case investigation.
The High Court had failed to note there were no special features warranting the transfer of investigation to CBI in the present case, CBI contended.
"The allegations are only against the husband and the in-laws of the deceased relating to the mental and physical torture and harassment meted out by them to the deceased".
As the senior counsel was not available, Advocate Ashima Gupta made submissions on behalf of the CBI. She argued that the High Court had seriously erred in transferring the investigation on the sole ground that the State government did not follow certain procedures during the investigation.
After hearing the submissions, the bench began dictating its order, only to be interrupted by the counsel for the accused. He said that there was no requirement for a CBI inquiry as the State government was already looking into the case.
This made the Bench suspicious.
"There are repercussions in a CBI investigation. Because CBI investigates only serious cases", the counsel submitted.
"A person has died an unnatural death. What can be more serious? It's a death, sir", Justice Maheshwari said.
"Unnatural death is not sure, there was no injury", the counsel argued.
"304B can happen even without a single injury", the Bench replied while adding that CBI should not be burdened with normal cases.
"You must have faith in the objectivity of the CBI", it further said.
It then proceeded to pass its judgment.
"There are no detailed reasons in the order impugned for which the High Court said transfer to CBI. Originally, such transfers of investigation should be the matter of course, only with circumspection. But in the peculiar facts of the case, we are disinclined to interfere in the order."
It also asked the CBI to conclude the investigation at the earliest and asked the state government to transfer the relevant documents within a week.
After passing the order, the Bench also appreciated Gupta for arguing the case well.
"Appreciation is for young lawyers. You need to work and contribute. You have to earn it with your performance", the Bench said.
As the matters drew to a close, the Bench once again said that it isn't comfortable with orders directing the transfer of cases just for askance. However, in peculiar cases, there's no other option.
Advocates Nitin Singh and Ankur Yadav appeared for the original complainant.
Case Title: CBI vs Deshraj Singh and Ors | SLP (Crl) No. 9275/2019