Accused Must Not Be Subjected To Re-Investigation Simply Because It Was Less Than Satisfactory: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that, simply because the investigation was less than satisfactory, the accused should not be subjected to the same once more.
The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Madras High Court by which it dismissed the Petition for quashing the case under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The two-Judge Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol elucidated, “This Court has observed in Kailash Gour v. State of Assam that any benefit accruing from faulty investigation ought to be given to the accused. The necessary corollary thereof being that simply because the investigation was less than satisfactory, the accused should not be subjected to the same once more.”
The Bench said that, there exists a clear difference between retrial and reinvestigation and that retrial implies that the judicial process that starts after the investigation of the crime is complete shall be redone from the start, whereas the latter implies that the police and other investigating authorities are once again required to collect and examine evidence in order to present charges before a Court, so that the trial can commence on such freshly collected evidence.
AOR K. K. Mani represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Rupesh Kumar, ASGs Vikramjit Banerji, and Archna Pathak Dave represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case -
In June, 2013, a case was registered under Sections 364A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused/Appellant wherein it was alleged that the accused kidnapped the 4-year-old child from Gandhi International Matriculation School, Mangalam by using his motorcycle and after murdering her, threw away the dead body in well. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 304A IPC and death penalty for the offence under Section 302 IPC subject to the confirmation by the High Court. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon him. It further directed the transfer of all relevant documents to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Subsequently, the CBI re-registered the case and the Appellant filed a Petition before the High Court seeking quashing of the chargesheet but the High Court dismissed the same. Hence, he was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “Section 386(b) of Cr.P.C, extracted supra, as also the judgments referred to in the earlier portion of this judgment, unanimously speak of retrial and not reinvestigation. Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C provides for further investigation with the permission of the magistrate, but not reinvestigation. Such a concept, as it appears, is only invoked in extraneous circumstances. The mere observation that the investigating authorities may have taken a lackadaisical ethical approach does not warrant the accused being put through the wringer once more for the same offence.”
The Court added that the transfer to CBI must take place in special circumstances, or else the agency, being with limited resources shall be overburdened and rendered ineffective.
“… this Court is of the view that the right enshrined in Article 20(2) of the appellant stands violated. … Since this Court has come to the conclusion as above, there survives no need to examine the applicability of Section 300 of Cr.P.C and other provisions of law where the principle of double jeopardy stands enshrined”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and quashed the impugned Order.
Cause Title- P. Manikandan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1007)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR K. K. Mani, Advocates T. Archana, and Rajeev Gupta.
Respondents: ASGs Vikramjit Banerji, Archna Pathak Dave, Senior Advocate Rupesh Kumar, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Saransh Kumar, Meera Patel, and Ishaan Sharma.
