Judicial Balance Must Be Struck Between Competing Forces In Criminal Trial: Rajasthan HC Refers Murder Case To CBI For Investigation

The Rajasthan High Court referred a murder case to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) saying that judicial balance must be struck between the competing forces in a criminal trial.

The Jaipur Bench was dealing with a criminal appeal filed under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 i.e., SC/ST Act on behalf of the accused persons.

A Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed, “A judicial balance must be struck between the competing forces in a criminal trial i.e. the interests of the accused and the public and to a great extent that too of the victim, at the same time not loosing sight of public interest involved in the prosecution of persons who commit offenses.”

The Bench added that the investigation so conducted in the offense as alleged has been unfair, tainted, and incomplete, which has pricked the judicial conscience of the Court.

Senior Advocate V.R. Bajwa appeared on behalf of the appellants while Advocate Mohit Balwada appeared on behalf of the respondents.

In this case, the appellants/accused were arrested in connection with an FIR registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 201 of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. As per the senior counsel for the appellants, the FIR was registered with a delay of three days after the incident. The appellants were the young students aged 20 and 23 years with no criminal antecedents.

It was stated that the appellants were merely employees of the lease holder, tasked with the duty to protect and safeguard the river bed from illegal mining of sand. It was further averred that a false and fabricated case was drawn against the appellants by the prosecution. It was also submitted that the accused-appellants have been in judicial custody for a considerable period of time i.e., more than one year, which is an infringement on their liberties enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court in view of the above submissions and whilst referring the case to the CBI for investigation, reiterated that the investigation conducted by the police authorities and CID (CB) up until now, cannot be acted upon, as the same is opposed to the tenets of fair play and justice.

“… this Court is of the view that the investigation in the matter should be referred to the CBI, as the investigation carried out until now, for the reasons mentioned above, cannot be acted upon, as the same is tainted, shoddy and incomplete, thereby casting a shadow of doubt on its integrity and legitimacy. Accordingly, relying upon the aforesaid, it is also expected that whilst further investigation is carried out, the CBI/State shall duly safeguard the interests of the complainant/deceased’s family, in order to prevent witness tampering and undue/illegal practices”, it said.

The Court, therefore, transferred the case to the CBI, Regional Unit Jaipur with immediate effect, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) read with Article 226 of the Constitution.

“However, looking to the fact that the accused-appellants have been in judicial custody since a considerable period of time and the trial is presently ongoing, this Court expects the CBI to culminate its investigation into the matter within an upper period of 60 days. The report of the said investigation be submitted before the concerned Special SC/ST Court having exclusive jurisdiction as envisaged by Section 14 of the Act of 1989, where the trial is presently on-going. Meanwhile, no final adjudication be done until such investigation has culminated. It is made clear that any observations of this Court shall not prejudice the rights and merits of either of the sides”, it further clarified.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title- Abhishek & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2023:RJ-JP:34170)

Appearance:

Appellants: Sr. Advocate V. R. Bajwa, Advocates Sandeep Jain, and Savita Nathawat.

Respondents: GA cum AAG G. S. Rathore, PP S. S. Mehla, Advocate Kirti Vardhan Singh Rathore, ASP Bharat Singh, Advocates Rajesh Kumar, Narayan Meena, Yogendra Chopra, Mohit Balwada, and Umashanker Pandey.

Click here to read/download the Judgment