Supreme Court of India
ALSIA PARDHIversusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 807
- Decided
- 6 December 2013
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the State police investigation was infirm, and therefore the investigation must be entrusted to the CBI.
Summary
The appellant, Alsia Pardhi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking the production of his 14‑year‑old niece, Rajnandani, alleging that forest officials had abducted her from a fish market. The State police, acting on the High Court's direction, recorded statements only of the forest officials and ignored eyewitness testimony and statements from local by‑standers, leading the High Court to dismiss the petition as a missing‑person case. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the State police investigation was deficient and whether the circumstances warranted entrusting the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Relying on the conflicting statements of forest officials, the uncatalogued eyewitness statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the vulnerability of the denotified Pardhi community, the Court found that proper and sincere investigative efforts were lacking. Applying the guidelines laid down in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, the Court held that the investigation should be transferred to the CBI. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the CBI was directed to take over the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether the State police investigation into the alleged abduction of the minor girl was infirm and required intervention.
- Whether the facts of the case justify entrusting the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Whether the High Court erred in treating the matter as a missing‑person case and dismissing the habeas corpus petition.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Habeas CorpusEntrustment of investigationCentral Bureau of InvestigationPolice investigation negligenceDenotified tribeSection 164 CrPCWildlife Protection ActFundamental rightsArticle 21Article 226
Judgment
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 815
ALSIA PARDHI A
. v.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2048 of 2013)
I
DECEMBER 6, 2013
B
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]
Investigation - Entrustment of - To CBI - Allegation of
abduction of minor girl belonging to a de-notified tribal C
community - By Goverriment officials - Writ of Habeas
Corpus - Dismissed relying of Report of State police without
taking into consideration statem,~foi the eye-w~ness - On
appeal, held: There is infirmity in· the investigation ·conducted
by the State police - Hence, CBI is appointed to conduct D
investigation in. the case.
The appellant filed a writ petition u/Art. 226 (writ of
Habeas Corpus) praying for pr9duction of his niece, a
minor girl aged 14 years. The -appellant alleged that the E
girl, alongwith another woman 'K'.was picked up from a
fish market by the forest officials. 'K' somehow escaped,
but the officials took away the girl. The appellant also
lodged complaint to the local police as well as to the Chief
Conservator of Forests. Since no action was taken, he
filed the petition. F
The State police, on the direction of the High Court,
investigated the case. They recorded the statement of
forest officials, wherein they had alleged that two women
were arrested by the officials under Wildlife (Protection) G
Act, 1972, but both of them had escaped. Statement of 'K'
was also recorded uls. 164 Cr.P.C., on direction of the
High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition
holding that it was a case of missing person.
. 815. H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R.
A In appeal to this Court, the question for
consideration was whether there was any lapse on the
part of State agency in carrying out the investigation and
whether the facts of the case mandated entrustment of
thp investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
B
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Based on the complaint of the appellant, the
Investigating Officer of the State Police, had only
recorded the statements of the officials of the Forest
C Department. In the light of the conflicting statements by
the forest officers mentioning that initially two persons
were taken into their jeep and they were released by the
Pardhi community, it was proper on the part of the
Investigating Officer concerned, to obtain statement from
D the public who assembled in the fish market at the
relevant time. Admittedly, for the reasons best known to
the police, they had n'ot examined anyone or obtained
statements from the local people available within the area
in question. In the light of the said infirmity and in view
E of the categorical statement of 'K' u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. the
Court is prima facie satisfied that proper and sincere
efforts were not made by the State police in tracing/
producing the girl before the High Court in a habeas
corpus petition. [Paras 20 and 21) [829-B, F-H]
F 2.ln addition, in view of the assertion that the
kidnapped girl belonged to Pardhi community, being a
denotified tribe and also of the assertion that the Pardhi
community people are being constantly harassed by the
police and forest officials, the appellant has made out a
G case for fresh investigation by other agency, viz., Central
Bureau of Investigation. In the writ petition before the
High Court, prayer was made for production of the
abducted girl, but in view of the discussion and prima
facie conclusion in the present appeal, the relief is
H
ALSIA PARDHI. v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 817
moulded and CBI is appointed to investigate and proceed A
further according to law. [Para 22) [830~A-C]
State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors. (2010)
3 SCC 571: 2010 (2) SCR 979 ....:followed. 9
Case Law Reference :
2010 (2) SCR 979 followed Para 6
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal t
Appeal No. 2048 of 2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2012 of the
High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in WP No. 3803 of 201,1.
Prashant Bhushan for the Appellant. D
Vibha Datta Makhija, Saurabh Mishra, Archi Agnihotri for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1. Leave granted,
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the 'High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 3803 of 2011 whereby the Division F
Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the
appellant herein.
3. Brief facts:
(a) On 10.02.2011, at about 4 p.m., a .posse of forest G
officials of the Betul Range, District Betul, forcibly to0k away
one Kusum, W/o Taarbabu Pardhi and Rajnandani, D/o Ankit
Pardhi, aged about 14 years, from the fish market in their jeep.
When the persons present at the site tried to resist the force
of the forest officials, Kusum somehow managed to jump from H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R.
A the jeep but the minor girl Rajnandani was wrusked away by
them.
(b) Alsia Pardhi-the appellant herein, being the uncle of
the kidnapped minor girl, on 13.02.2011, made a complaint to
the SHO, Kotwali Betul, alleging that the minor girl is in the
8
custody of the officials of the Forest Department and requesting
to register a case of kidnapping against them.
(c) On 14.02.2011, the appellant and his community
members made a complaint to the Chief Conservator of
C Forests, Forest Range, Betul-Respondent No. 3 herein,
requesting him to take punitive action against the forest officials
and to get the minor girl released.
(d) When all the efforts in tracing the girl failed, the
0 appellant, on 24.02.2011, approached the High C.ourt by filing
a writ of habeas corpus praying that Rajnandani be directed
to be produced before the Court and the Superintendent of
Police - Respondent No. 2 herein be directed to register an
FIR against the forest officials involved in kidnapping and illegal
E detention of the minor girl as well as against those who have
been instrumental in shielding and protecting the accused.
(e) On 01.03.2011, the High Court directed Respondent
No. 2 herein to either produce the corpus of the missing girl or
to submit the progress report. On 19.04.2011, the High Court,
F considering the seriousness of the matter, directed the
appellant to produce Kusum before the CJM, Betul, on
02.05.2011, on which date, the CJM, Betul shall record her
statement and send it to the Court.
G (f) On 02.05.2011, the statement of Kusum was recorded.
Vide order dated 13.07 .2011, the High Court, taking note of
the fact that Kusum also alleged against the forest officials who
caught Rajnandani along with her, held that the matter deserves
to be investigated fairly and effective steps need to be taken
H by the State for production of Rajnandani before the Court and
ALSIA PARDHI v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 819
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
also directed Respondent No. 2 to take effective steps to A
produce the minor girl on the next date of hearing.
(g) On 10.08.2011, i.e., on the next date of hearing, the
Deputy Advocate General for the State filed a report in the
matter and submitted that as per the report of the Police, B
Rajnandani was not detained by the Forest Officials. The High
Court, after perusing the record and considering the report to
be doubtful, granted further opportunity to the police to produce
corpus of Rajnandani and also directed that in case
Respondent No.2 fails to produce her on the next date of
hearing, it would be compelled to direct the <;;entral Bureau of C
Investigation (CBI) to take up the investigation into its hands.
On 27.08.2011, Respondent No. 2 again submitted a progress
report. The High Court, being not satisfied with the report,
directed the Superintendent of Police, Betul to appear in
person on the next date of hearing. On 12.09.2011, when the D
Superintendent of Police, Betul explained the circumstances in
which the investigation was being conducted, the High Court
observed that no proper investigation had been done by the
police with the forest officials against whom the allegations had
been made and gave one more chance to the Respondent No. E
2 to produce Rajnandani before the Court. On 17.10.2011,
Respondent No. 2 again filed a progress report before the
Cour:t--inwhich it was stated that Rajnandani had tried to contact
rier father thrice from different mobile numbers but still the
police officials were not able to trace her. F
(h) On 07 .04.2012, Respondent No.2 filed an affidavit
accepting the statements of forest officials and did not give any
weightage to the statement of the eye-witness Kusum. It was
also stated that the police accepted the version of the forest G
officials verbatim.
(i) On 09.04.2012, the High Court, by accepting the
progress report dated 07.04.2012, without taking note of the··
statement of the eye-witness Kusum, dismissed the writ
H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R.
A petition. The High Court also held that the present case is not
of illegal and forceful confinement warranting issue of a writ of
habeas corpus but is a case of missing person. It was also held
that there is no allegation in the petition to the effect that
Rajnandani has been subjected to wrongful confinement either
B by the forest authorities or the police.
U) Being aggriP.ved, the appellant herein has filed this
appeal by way of special leave.
4: Heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the
C appellant and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel
for the State of M. P.
5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether
there is any lapse on the part of the State agency in carrying
D out the investigation and the facts and materials mandate for
entrusting the investigation to the CBI?
6. Before going into the merits of the claim of both the
sides, it is useful to refer the decision of the Constitution Bench
of this Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Committee
E for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors.,
(2010) 3 sec 571 in respect of entrusting the investigation to
the CBI in respect of a cognizable offence when the State has
already initiated enquiry through its ~gency. The Constitution
Bench, after referring earlier decisions, formulated guidelines
F in paragraphs 68 and 69 which are as under:
"68. Thus, having examined the rival contentions in the
context of the constitutional scheme, we conclude as
follows:
G (i) The fundamental rights, enshrined in Part Ill of the
Constitution, are inherent and cannot be extinguished by
any constitutional or statutory provision. Any law that
abrogates or abridges such rights would be violative of the
basic structure doctrine. The actual effect and impact of
H the law on the rights guaranteed under Part Ill has to be
ALSIA PARDHI v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 821
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
taken into account in determining whether or not it destroys A
the basic structure.
(ii) Articie 21 of the Constitution in its broad perspective
seeks to protect the persons of their lives and personal
liberties except according to the procedure established by
8
law. The said article in its broad application not only takes
within its fold enforcement of the rights of an accused but
·also the rights of the victim. The State has a duty to enforce
the human rights of a· citizen providing for fair and impartial
investigation against any person accused of commission. C
of a cognizable offence, which may include its own officers.
In certain situations even a witness to the crime may seek
· ·for and shall be granted protection by the State.
(iii) In view of the constitutional scheme and the jurisdiction
conferred on this Court under Article 32 and on the High D
Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution the power of
j1Jdicial review being an integral part of tlie basic structure
of the Constitution, no Act of Parliament can exclude or
curtail the powers of the constitutional courts with regard
to the enforcement of fundamental rights. As a matter _of E
fact, such a power is essential to give practicable content
to the objectives of the Constitution embodied in Part Ill
and other parts of the Constitution. Moreover, in a federal
constitution, the distribution of legislative power~ between
Parliament and the State Legislature involves limitation on F
legislative powers and, therefore, this requires an authority
other than Parliament to ascertain whether such limitations
are transgressed. Judicial review acts as the final arbiter
not only to give effect to the distribution of legislative powers
between Parliament and the State Legislatures, it is also G
necessary to show any transgression by each entity.
Therefore, to borrow the words of Lord Steyn, judicial
review is justified by combination of "the principles of
separation of powers, rule of law, the principle of
constitutionality and the reach of judicial review".
H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R.
A (iv) If the federal structure is violated by any legislative
action, the Constitution takes care to protect the federal
structure by ensuring that the Courts act as guardians and
interpreters of the Constitution and provide remedy under
Articles 32 and 226, whenever there is an attempted
B violation. In the circumstances, any direction by the
Supreme Court or the High Court in exercise of power
under Artici6 32 or 226 to llphold the Constitution and
maintain the rule cf law cannot be termed as violating the
federal structure.
c (v) Restriction on Parliament by the Constitution 'and
restriction on the executive by Parliament under an
enactment, do not amount to restriction on the power of
the Judiciary under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.
D (vi) If in terms of Entry 2 of List II of the Seventh Schedule
on the one hand and Entry 2-A and.Entry 80 of List I on
the other, an. investigation by another agency is permissibl&
subject to grant of consent by the State concerned, there
is no reason as to why, in an. exceptional situation, the
E Court would be precluded from exercis!ng the same power
which the Union could exercise in terms of the provisions
of the statute. In our opinion, exercise_ of such power by
the constitutional courts would not violate the doctrine of
separation of powers. In fact, if in such a_ situation the Court
F fails to grant relief, it would be failing in its constitutional
duty.· ·
(vii) When the Special Police Act itself provides that
subject to the consent by the State, CBI can take up
investigation in relation to the crime which w~s otherwise
G within the jurisdiction of the State police, the Court can also
exercise its constitutional· power of judicial review and
direct CBJ to take up the investigation within the jurisdiction
of the State. Th,e power of the High Court under Artiale 226
of the Constitution- cannot be taken away, curtailed or
H
ALSIA PARDHI v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 823,
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police Act. Irrespective A
of there being any statutory provision acting as a restriction
on the powers of the Courts, the restriction. imposed by
Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the
·Union, cannot be read as restriction on the powers of the.
constitutional courts. Therefore, exercise of power of B
judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion, would not
amount to infringement of either the doctrine of separation
· of power or the federal structure.
69~ In the final analysis, our answer to the question C
referred. is that a direction by the High Court, in
exercise'of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
·constifUtio_n, to CBI to investigate a cognizable
offence alleged to have been committed within the
territory eta 'State without the consent of that State
will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the D
Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation
of power and shall be valid in law. Being the
protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court
and the High Courts have not only the power and
· jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the E
· fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part Ill in general
and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular,
·. .
. zealously and vigilantly."
. .7 After;saying so, the Constitution Bench has also outlined F
paragra~hto'which reads thus:
;;_;,; ... ;.-~:Jhl"s extraordinary power must be exercised
. sparirigr}i; cautiously and in exception situations where it
becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill
confidence in investigations or where the incident may G
have national and international ramifications or where such
an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and
enforcing the fundamental rights .................. "
8. In the light of the principles enunciated by the H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 16 S.C.R.
A Constitution Bench, le.t us consider whether the appellant has
made out a case for interference by this Court.
9. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant
has brought to our notice that the High Court proceeded on a
B wrong assumption that there is no allegation in the petition to
the effect that Rajnandani had been subjected to wrongful
confinement either by the forest authorities or the police in spite
of the fact that the appellant had made a· specific allegation
against the forest officials. It is also stated that the High Court
has failed to take note of the statement of the eye-witness
C Kusum under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short 'the Code') wherein she had stated that the for-est
officials abducted herself and Rajnandani but she somehow
managed to escape and the officials took Rajnandani with
them. Finally, it is pointed out that Pardhi community, being a
D denotified tribe, is constantly harassed by the police and forest
officials due to the stigma attached to them and are often
arrested for any crime committed in the nearby area. He further
pointed out that the investigating agency chose to believe the
version of the accused officials rather the eye-witness account
E who was abducted along with the minor girl.
1Q. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel for
the·State, by filing status report, highlighted that the concerned
police authorities have already registered a case and intensive
F efforts are being made by them to trace the girl in question who
is missing since 10.02.2011. It is further pointed out that in view
of the categorical reports by the police and of the fact that the
police authorities have already registered a case of missing
girl and are taking all possible steps to trace out Rajnandani,
G the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition for issuance
of a writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, there is no need for
fresh investigation. or entrusting the same to the CBI in
particular.
11. It is seen from the materials placed that on 10.02.2011,
H at around 4.00 p.m., forest officials of the Betul Range, District
ALSIA PARDHI v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 825
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
Betul, came to the fish marke~ and forcibly took away Kusum A
and Rajnandani. It is also the claim of the appellant that when
the. people present there tried to resist the force of the forest
officials, Kusum jumped from the jeep but Rajnandani was
whisked awa.Y by the forest officials. It is also the assertion of'
the appellant that Rajnandani-the kidnapped minor girl is his B
niece (sister's daughter).
12. On behalf of the State, it is claimed that on 10.92,2011,
the forest officials got a tip off that some of the members of
the Pardhi community are illegally indulging in the sale of
prohibited species of animals in the fish market at Betul. When C
the forest officials reached the spot, they found 2.-3 women
selling the prohibited species, consequently, they were arrested
and the prohibited species wer~ seized. However, before taking
any action by the forest officers, about 100-150 members of
the Pardhi community had suddenly assembled and resisted D
their detention and mar1aged to free all of them except one
Sangeeta Pardhi who was able to slip away after causing injury
to the lady Forest Guard Sunanda Tekam. The said claim of
the Forest officials has strongly been.disputed by the appellant
and their community people. E
13. It is useful to refer the letter dated 13.02.2011 by Alsia
Pardhi, President of the. Pardhi Rehabilitation Sangh, Betul
addressed to the SHO, Kotwali Betul, which reads as under:
"Pardhi Rehabilitation Sangh, Betul F
Utkrisht School Maidan, _Pardhi Camp Betul (M.P.)
To
The SHO
Kotwali Betul G
Subject: Regarding kidnapping of Pardhi girl By Forest
Officials.
Sir,
H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 16 S.C.R.
A On Thursday, 10.2.2011 at 4 p.m. from near the
Fish Market, Kusum W/o Tar Babu and Rajnandani D/o
Ankit Pardhi, aged 14 years sitting in the Fish Market were
being forcibly taken away by the Forest Officials of Betul
Range in their jeep. After resistance by Pardhi community,
B they released Kusum but Forest Officials succeeded in
forcibly kidnapping Rajnandani. On our reaching Range
Office and in spite of repeatedly asking, the officials of
Forest Department are not ready to tell anything. The
parents of victim have been very upset and shocked after
c strenuous efforts to locate their daughter. We have come
to know that the girl is in the custody of Forest
Department.
You are, therefore, requested that the case of
kidnapping may be registered against officials of Forest
D Department and Rajnandani may be got freed.
Dated: 13.2.2011
Applicant,
Sd/- Alasia
E (Alasia Pardhi)
President
Pardhi Rehabilitation Sangh
Betul (M.P.)
Winesses:-
F
1. Sangita W/o Alasia
2. Saudagar S/o Sadashiv
3. Param Singh S/o Balwant
4. Guni Bai W/o Nandu Dhimar
G Mohila Mission School, Patel Ward
5. Gudiya W/o Kamal
Bhagrati Bai W/o Savne Dhimar, Mohila Mission School,
Patel Ward
Saudagir, Suddi, Kapurri, Lalita, Rajesh, Salim, Babu,
H
ALSIA PARDHI v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 827
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
Alagwanti Laxmi, 'Latia, Gajra, Kusandi, Langad, Vatia; A
Kusandi, Langad, Vatia, Guddi, Anita, Rukhmani, Lagde,
Manji, Bharat Singh, Kishori, Nana Saheb, Durgesh, Sanju,
Ritu, Kesho, Bugda, lndura, Rahul"
14. Again, on 14.02.2011, i.e., on the next day, similar letter
8
was sent by the appellant to the Chief Conservator of Forests,
Forest Range, Betul regarding kidnapping of minor Pardhi girl
by forest officials. ·. ···
15. An analysis of the above letters shows that there.is a ·
specific reference about the picking up of two persons, viz., C
Kusum and Rajnandani.
16. After filing of the Writ Petition before the High Court,
pursuant to the request made, the High Court directed the
petitioner therein to produce Kusum before the Chief Judicial D
Magistrate, Betul on 02.05.2011 for recording of her statement.
Her statement before the Magistrate is also relevant, which
reads as under:
"As per Order of the f-ion'ble High Court in Writ Petition
No. 3803/11. E
Witness No. 1 for ... Deposition taken on 02.05.2011.
Witness apparent age 25 years.
States on affirmation that my name is Kusum wife of Tar F
Babu, Occupation - Labour, address Utkrisht School
Ground, Betul, Distt. Betul.
The incident is about two three months old. I had gone to
Betul to buy fish. There woman named Nandin.i was selling G
partridges when vehicle of Forest Department came there·,
the staff in the Forest Department vehicle apprehended
Nandiili, when I went for her rescue, the Forest Staff
apprehended me too and put me in the vehicle, then after
some time, I got down from the vehicle and went to my H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R.
A Dera and I shouted in the Dera that Forest staff are taking
away Nandini, Forest staff has taken away Nandini and
since then whereabouts of Nandini is not known.
RO& AC Typed out on my direction
Sd/- Sd/-
B K.C. Yadav K.C. Yadav
Chief Judicial Magistrate Chief Judicial Magistrate
Betul. Betul"
17. In her statement, Kus um stated that the forest officials
picked up both of them viz., herself and Rajnandani, and after
C some time she somehow managed to jump from the vehicle.
However, the forest staff took Rajnandani and her whereabouts
is not known to her. As rightly pointed out, her statement under
Section 164 of the Code before a Magistrate has not been
properly looked into by the High Court.
D
18. It is the grievance of learned counsel for the appellant
that the police authorities have inquired only the forest officials
and in spite of the fact that many local people were 'also present
in the fish market, they were not inquired and their statements
E were not recorded.
19. In the light of the above allegation, we perused the
statements recorded by the police. It is clear that one Durgesh
Kushram, Forest Guard, Office of Forest Range Betul, in his
statement, mentioned that two women were found selling Titar
F and Bater and they were apprehended by the lady Forest Guard
Sunanda Tekam. He also stated that the people of Pardhi
community resisted the action being taken and got freed both
women by-manhandling the Forest Guard Sunartda Tekam and
started stone pelting at their party. In the same way, one Sanjay
G Dhote, another Forest Guard, has also made a similar
statement about taking of two women and how both were got
·freed by manhandling the Forest Guard. Yogesh Chaudhary,
Chandra Shekhar Singh arid Pandhri Nath, Forest Guards, also
made similar statements. One Laxmi Prasad Gautam, Forest
H
ALSIA PARDHI v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 829
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
Range Officer, in his statement, also reiterated the same. A
Similarly, all other officials of the forest department made
similar statements. ·
20. A perusal of the above shows that based on the
complaint of the appellant, the 1.0. has only recorded the
8
statements of the officials of the Forest Department. It is not
clear as to why the police authorities did not inquire about the
same from the persons present at the spot when both the
women were picked up from a busy fish market and also in the
light of the statement of Kusum before the Magistrate under
Section 164 ofthe Code specifically alleging that she alone C
managed to escape and Rajnaadani was taken in a vehicle by
the forest officials.
21. It is relevant to note that the statements of Forest Range
Officers., Betul:viz.,.Dhanraj Singh, Pandari Nath, L.P. Gautam D
as well as the lady Forest Guard Sunanda Tekam nave been
recorded and as per their statements, on interrogation, only one
lady, viz., Sangeeta Pardhi was to be taken into custody against
the offence under the Wildlife "(Protection) Act, 1972 being
committed by her on 10.02.201\ but she escaped and no E
other lady or person had~been taken into custody by them.
Though they stated that one person was taken i.n the jeep but
even. that person got released by their cor:nmunity people. In the
light of the conflicting statements by the officers mentioning that
initially two persons were taken inttj thei.r jeep and they were F
released by the Pardhi community, it was p,roper on the part of
the 1.0. concerned to obtain statement from the public who
assembled in the fish market at the relevant time. Admittedly,
for the reasons best known to the police, they had not examined
. anyone-or obtained $tatements from the local people available G
within.the area in question. In the light of the said infirmity and
in view of the categorical statement of Kusum under Section
164 of the Code before the Magistrate, we are pritna facie
satisfied that proper and sincere efforts were not made by the
State police in tracing/producing the girl before the High Court H
in a habeas corpus petition.
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 16 S.C.R.
A 22. In addition to the above relevant aspect and of the
assertion that the kidnapped girl-Rajnandani belongs to Pardhi
community, being a denotified tribe and also of the assertion
that the Pardhi community people are being constantly
harassed by the police and forest officials, we feel that the
B appellant has made out a case for fresh investigation by other
agency, viz., Central Bureau of Investigation. Though in the writ
petition before the High Court, a prayer was made for
production of the abducted girl Rajnandani, in view of our
discussion and prima facie conclusion, we mould the relief and
c appoint the CBI to investigate and proceed further according
to law.
23. The analysis of the materials placed before us clearly
brings the case within the principles laid down by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in CQmmittee for Protection
D of Democratic Rights (supra). W-e hereby direct the
respondents to hand over all the documents to the CBI within
a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. The CBI is directed to investigate the case in question,.
viz., whereabouts of Rajnandani who is alleged to have been
E taken by the forest officials on 10.02.2011 and submit its report
before the court concerned, within a period of six months
thereafter. It is further made clear thijlt the above discussion is
only for entrusting the investigation to the CBI and we have not·
expressed anything on the merits of the case.
F
24. With the above observations, the appeal is allowed.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Habeas Corpus"Sign in to search