A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment addresses the constitutional scope of judicial intervention in criminal investigations where the process itself stands compromised. The Supreme Court was confronted with a prolonged, inconsistent, and demonstrably deficient investigation into the homicidal death of a young law student. The State Police, despite overwhelming circumstantial indicators of homicide, attempted to portray the death as accidental or suicidal for nearly three years. The belated registration of the FIR under Section 302 IPC, failure to secure the crime scene, non-examination of critical witnesses, and disregard for technological evidence such as CCTV footage, mobile location data, and digital trails collectively undermined the credibility of the investigation.

The Court reaffirmed that a fair investigation is an inseparable facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It emphasized that the constitutional courts are not powerless once a police report under Section 173(2) CrPC is filed. In exceptional circumstances, particularly where the investigation appears tainted, biased, or designed to shield offenders, courts may direct de novo investigation, even after commencement of trial.

The closure report filed pursuant to the Court’s direction was found to be a hasty exercise lacking bona fides, raising more questions than answers. The Court underscored that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, especially in cases affecting public confidence in the criminal justice system. Consequently, the closure report was set aside, and a fresh investigation by a new team of State police officers was ordered.

Keywords: Fair Investigation, Article 21, De Novo Investigation, Closure Report, Judicial Review, Criminal Justice

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arose from the unexplained death of a 21-year-old student of National Law University, Jodhpur, whose body was found on railway tracks in August 2017. The background reveals systemic inertia, investigative apathy, and reluctance on the part of the State machinery to acknowledge the homicidal nature of the incident. Initially, the death was portrayed as accidental or suicidal, allegedly due to depression, without any scientific or forensic substantiation.

Despite serious injuries on the body and contradictory circumstantial evidence, no FIR was registered for nearly ten months. The inquest under Section 174 CrPC remained inconclusive. The persistent efforts of the victim’s parents ultimately led to registration of an FIR under Section 302 IPC, but even thereafter, the investigation stagnated.

The High Court’s intervention failed to bring closure, as it passed an open-ended direction without monitoring compliance. It was only after the Supreme Court’s intervention under Article 32 that the police hurriedly submitted a closure report. This background contextualizes the constitutional question before the Court: whether a demonstrably flawed investigation can be allowed to stand merely because a police report has been filed.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On the evening of 13 August 2017, the deceased left the university campus with friends to dine at a restaurant located approximately 300 meters away. The next morning, his body was discovered on railway tracks behind the restaurant. The body bore nine ante-mortem injuries, blood was present on clothing but absent at the site, and only one slipper was found, suggesting displacement of the body.

Railway authorities confirmed that five trains passed during the intervening night, and no driver reported any accident. A witness who visited the spot at 6:30 a.m. saw no body, raising doubts about the time and place of death. Despite these indicators, the police failed to seal the crime scene or collect digital evidence.

The entry register of the hostel bore the deceased’s initials, indicating return to campus, which was casually explained away as an error by a friend. No CCTV footage or mobile tower data was analyzed. A nearby warehouse caretaker was not examined on the ground of being deaf, a justification the Court found absurd.

After prolonged inaction, a closure report was filed only when directed by the Supreme Court. Ironically, the report acknowledged homicide but claimed inability to identify offenders, contradicting earlier State affidavits asserting accidental death.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a fair investigation forms an integral part of the right to life under Article 21?
ii. Whether constitutional courts can order de novo investigation after filing of a closure report?
iii. Whether prolonged investigative delay and inconsistencies justify judicial interference?

F) PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Petitioner submitted that the investigation was marked by deliberate inaction and bias. They highlighted failure to secure the crime scene, examine key witnesses, collect digital evidence, and register the FIR promptly. It was argued that the closure report was a mere formality intended to shield the real perpetrators. Reliance was placed on precedents recognizing fair investigation as a constitutional mandate.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Respondent submitted that a Special Investigation Team had examined numerous witnesses and exhausted all possible leads. It was contended that inability to trace offenders does not imply mala fides. The State argued that no case was made out for transfer or fresh investigation.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 21, Constitution of India
ii. Section 302, Indian Penal Code
iii. Sections 174, 173(2), 173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure

I) JUDGMENT 

The Court rejected the closure report, holding that it lacked bona fides and was the product of a hurried and defensive investigation. It reiterated that fair investigation is as vital as fair trial. Relying on Kashmeri Devi, Babubhai, Bharati Tamang, Zahira Sheikh, Pooja Pal, and Dharam Pal, the Court affirmed its power to order de novo investigation even after filing of a police report.

The Court found that the investigation attempted to portray homicide as accident for years and reversed its stand only under judicial pressure. Such conduct, according to the Court, erodes public confidence in the rule of law. Accordingly, the closure report was set aside, and a fresh investigation by a new team of State police officers was ordered to be completed within two months.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

A tainted or unfair investigation violates Article 21, and constitutional courts possess inherent powers to order de novo investigation in exceptional cases to prevent miscarriage of justice, even after submission of a final report.

b) OBITER DICTA

Justice must inspire confidence. An investigation that appears designed to avoid truth cannot be sustained merely on procedural completion. Victim-centric justice demands judicial vigilance.

c) GUIDELINES

i. De novo investigation may be ordered where investigation lacks objectivity.
ii. Filing of charge-sheet or closure report is not a bar.
iii. No officer involved in the earlier investigation shall be part of the fresh team.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration, [1988] 3 SCR 700
2. Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, [2010] 10 SCR 651
3. Bharati Tamang v. Union of India, [2013] 14 SCR 525
4. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, [2004] 3 SCR 1050
5. Pooja Pal v. Union of India, [2016] 11 SCR 560
6. Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, [2016] 1 SCR 194

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973