NANI KANYA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by Smti. Bullo Kanya (actual name withheld) for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to conduct further investigation of Ziro P.S. Case No. 63/2016, (State of A.P.-vs-Dr. Moli Riba), corresponding to G. R. Case No.103/2016, under sec. 342/354/506 Indian Penal Code, which is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Yupia.

(2.) The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated hereinbelow:-

(3.) The petitioner having gone through the final report noticed many flaws and defects. Then having been dissatisfied with the manner of investigation, she has submitted one representation on 22/11/2016, for further investigation of the case by a superior officer stating that she is not satisfied with the final report/Charge-Sheet and the way investigation is being carried out by the concerned I.O. But, nothing has been done upon the same. The pleaded imputation of the petitioner is that the I.O. has dropped sec. 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code from the case and thereafter he laid the Charge-Sheet, and that she has not been informed by the I.O. about the filing of the final report/Charge-Sheet under Sec. 173 of the Cr.P.C. and that the 'Sorry' message, which she received from Mobile No. 8794520263, at around 3.00 PM, belongs to the accused Dr. Moli Riba and she found the same from the true caller mobile application and the investigating officer did not even try to seize the mobile and sim card and nor he tried to investigate the origin of the message so contained in her mobile and as such, vital evidence of the case has been overlooked by the concerned I.O. It is her further contention that in the office chamber of District Medical Officer, CCTV was installed in the month of July prior to the incident but the same was found to be missing and the accused Doctor called her to his office chamber in between 1.30 to 2.00 hrs when all the staffs left for lunch break and the investigating officer did not try to find out as to why the CCTV has not been installed in the office and that the statement recorded by the I.O. under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. are similar in words except the name, designation age of the witnesses and in her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned CJM, Ziro, she has specifically stated about the CDR in Mobile handset of the accused person, but the I.O. never tried to collect the same and that the scope of further investigation is wide open in the view of Sec. 173 (8) Cr.P.C. and that she has also preferred one petition before the learned CJM, Yupia on 26/5/2017, for further investigation, but the same was dismissed on the ground that she has not taken leave of the Court to conduct or assist prosecution as provided under Sec. 302 (2) of Cr.P.C. and that cognizance has already been taken and there is no scope for direction for further investigation. It is also pleaded that further investigation may be carried out by adopting modern techniques like Test of Narco Analysis or polygraph or Brain mapping. It is the further contention of the petitioner that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guaranteed fair trial which includes a fair investigation and without a fair investigation, fair trial is not all possible. Therefore, it is contended to direct the respondent authority to constitute a special investigation team or to direct to conduct further investigation to unearth the truth of the case, which is pending trial before the learned CJM, Yupia.