MITHILESH KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

                       [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1362


A                   MITH ILESH KUMAR SINGH
                                  V.

                      STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 240 of 2011)
B
                       DECEMBER 11, 2014
          [T. S. THAKUR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND
                        R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
C       Investigation- Transfer of- From local police to Central
  Bureau of Investigation (CBI) - In the case of mysterious
  death of a college girl - Sought by the father of the girl
  (petitioner)-Alleging that the death was result of ragging by
  the senior students and that there were deficiencies and
  contradictions in the findings of the investigating agency -
0
  Held: Per Majority: In view of sensitivity of the case and the
  circumstances pointed out by the petitioner, the investigation
  needs to be transferred from local police to CBI - Per
  Minority: In the present' case, the materials show that proper
E investigation was conducted by the local police - Handing
  over of instigation to CBI can be done only in exceptional
  circumstances - There is no special situation in the present
  case warranting investigation by CBI.
           Investigation- Fairness and propriety of- Requirement
F   for - Held: Per Thakur, J. : In an adversarial system of
    administration ofjustice, fairness of investigation is the very
    first requirement for the fairness of a trial.
        Investigation- Transfer of - From one agency to another
  - Criteria for - To be adopted by the Court - Held: Per
G Thakur, J. : The court, in exercise of its extra-ordinary power
  should transfer the investigation only when there is
  reasonable apprehension about justice becoming a victim
  because of shabby or partisan investigation - The sensibility
  of the victims or their next kin is not wholly irrelevant - The
H
                                1362
  MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                1363


hallmark of a transfer is the perceived independence of the A
transferred more than any other consideration.
      Allowing the Writ petition, the Court
      HELD: MAJORITY OPINION : .
      PER T.S. THAKUR, J.                                     B
        1. Importance of a fair and proper investigation
 cannot be understated. In an adversarial system of
 administration of justice, fairness of investigation is the
 very first requirement for the fairness of a trial. A trial C
  based on a partisan motivated, one sided, or biased
  investigation can hardly be fair. That is because while
. the trial·itself may be procedurally correct, the essence
  and the purpose thereof may be vitiated by an unfair or
  ineffective investigation. [Para 3][1369-D-F]
                                                               D
          2. It is only when there is a reasonable
  apprehension about justice becoming a victim because
  of shabby or partisan investigation that the Court may
  step in and exercise its extra ordinary powers. The
  sensibility of the victims of the crime or their next of kin E
  is not wholly irrelevant in such situations. Unless the
  Court sees any design behind the prayer for transfer,
  the same must be seen as an attempt only to ensure that
  the truth is discovered. The hallmark of a transfer is the
  perceived independence of the transferee more than any F
  other consideration. Discovery of truth is the ultimate
  purpose of any investigation and who can do it better
  than an agency that is independent. [Para 9][1373-E-H;
  1374-A-B]
       3. Transfer can be ordered once the Court is G
satisfied on the available material that such a course will
promote the cause of justice, in a given case. In the
present case circumstances leading to the death of
young college student girl have become the subject
                                                            H
1364      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 13 S.C.R.

 A matter of investigation. The issue is sensitive not only
   because of loss of an invaluable human life but also
   because of the reasons which are sought to be
   attributed for the sordid affair. The circumstances which
   the petitioner has referred to in the writ petition and the
 B written submissions as also the contentions that were
   urged before this court in the course of the hearing may
   or may not be conclusive in their import but those
   circumstances need to be suitably looked into by an
   independent investigating agency like the CBI lest an
 c incomplete, indifferent or ineffective investigation leads
   to failure of justice. Therefore, the investigation is
   directed to be transferred to the Central Bureau of
   Investigation. Therefore, the investigation is directed to
   be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
 o [Paras 12, 13 and 14][1375-C-H]
         Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6
         SCC 1 : 2010 (4) SCR 103; Nirmal Singh Kah/on
         v. State of Punjab (2009) 1 SCC 441 : 2008 (14)
         SCR 1049 ; Sasi Thomas v. State and Ors. (2006)
 E       12 SCC 421 : 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 450; Zahira
         Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat
         and OrS. (2004) 4 sec 158 : 2004 (3) SCR 1050;
         Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2010) 12
         SCC 254 : 2010 (10) SCR 651 ; State of West
 F       Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for protection of
         Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. (2010) 3
         SCC 571 : 2010 (2) SCR 979 ; lnder Singh v. State
         of Punjab (1994) 6 SCC 275 ; R.S. Sodhi
         Advocate v. State ofU.P & Ors. 1994 (Supp) (1)
 G       SCC 143 ; State of Punjab v. CBI (2011) 9 SCC
         182 : 2011 (11) SCR 281 ; Subrata Chattoraj v.
         Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 768 - relied on.


 H
  MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                1365


     PER ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Concurring)                   A
      4. It is true that the prayer for transfer of investigation
from State police to C.B.I. can be allowed only in rare
and exceptional circumstances when fair investigation
by State police does not inspire confidence on account
of any external influence or otherwise. There can be no 8
cast iron parameters and whether an exceptional
situation has arisen, may be determined by the Court by
taking an overview of the fact situation of a particular
case. In the present case, it is not necessary to blame
the college authorities or the local police but the C
apprehension of the petitioner and his prayer for transfer
of investigation also cannot be rejected. The death of a
young girl student has taken place in mysterious
circumstances. According to the petitioner, the statement
of the girl was not recorded even though it could have D
 been done and thus, truth has not come out. In these
 circumstances, it will be appropriate that the matter is
 investigated by th~ C.B.I. [Para 4][1377-D-G]
     State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Committee for
                                                               E
     Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and
     Qrs. (201 O) 3 sec 571 : 201 o (2) SCR 979 -
     followed.
      MINORITY OPINION:
      PER R. BANUMATHI, J.                                     F

     5. On lodging of the complaint by the petitioner,
police have registered the case u/s. 306 IPC. Based upon
the statement of witnesses, medical report and other
materials, the investigating officer of the State Police G
found that it is a case of suicide and filed the final report.
The materials of the case show that proper investigation
has been conducted. [Para 9][1381-C, D-E]

                                                               H
1366         SUPREMECOURTREPO~TS                   [2014] 13 S.C.R.

 A      6. Handing over investi~ation to the CBI can be
   ordered only in an exception.ii situation and such an
   order is not to be passed as a routine merely because a
   party has levelled vague aller;ations. The present case
   is not such an exceptional situation warranting special
 B investigation by the CBI. The v-Jrit petition is dismissed.
   [Paras 10 and 11][1381-F; 1382-E-F]
            State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for
            Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal &
            Ors. (201 O) 3 sec 571 : 201 a (2) scR 979 -
 c          followed.


       In the Judgment of T.S. Th:;.;~:
 D     2010 (4) SCR ~03                                    Para 3
       2008 (14) SCR 1049                                  Para4
       2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 450 relied on                   Para 5
       2004 (3) SCR 1050            rcli.:j on             Para 6
 E 2010 (10) SCR 651                                       Para 7
       2010 (2) SCR 979             ref0, red to           Para 8
       (1994) 6 sec 21s                                    Para 10
       1994 (Supp) (1) SCC 143 n.. !i.:,; on               Para 10
 F     2011 (11) SCR 281            relied on              Para 11
       (2014) s sec 768             relied 011             Para 11
       In the Judgment of Adarsh , ,· 0,11: t Goel, J. :
 G 2010 (2) SCR 979                                        Para 4
       In the Judgement of R. Banumcit:1i. J.
       2010 (2) SCR 979             foilowcd               Para 10


 H
  MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                          1367


     CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition                    A
(Criminal) No. 240 of 2011.
         Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
       K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. fa,dv .. Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi,
Mukesh Chauhan, Harish Pandey, fvlayank Upadhyay, Jitendra              B
Tripathi, Ranjan Narayan, Mod. Kharati, B.V. Balaram Das,
E.C. Agarwala, Baldev Atreya, Deepak Gupta, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Amit Sharma, Sand·eep Singh, Deepak Goel, V.N.
Raghupathy, Advs. for the appearing parties.
     The Judgments of the Court ·.vere delivered by                     C

      T. S. THAKUR, J.
     1. I have had the advantage cf auing through the order
proposed by my noble sister Banum;:,thi J. I regret to say that I
have not been able to persuade myself L) agree to the dismissal         o
of the writ petition which in my opi11io: 1, ciises sensitive issues
touching not only the fairness of irr:c:stigation in a case
involving death of a young coilsge student in suspicious
circumstances but also whether the sordid episode was a-result
of ragging of the deceased by her ser1ior colleagues which              E
the college authorities failed to prevern despite being informed
about the same. Given the circurnsl°"nces pointed out by the
petitioner it may be premature ir.,,· u-,is Court to hold that the
investigation conducted by the loc<;I poi ice was fair or that the
deceased jumped from the four storeyed college hostel to                F
commit suicide as she was carrying an unwanted pregnancy.
The petitioner who is the unfortunc:;te f3ther of the deceased
has attempted to point out cL:rtc,ir1 deficiencies and
contradictions in the findings of the investigating agency which
in my opinion need to be investi~j:J'.•::ci in a dispassionate          G
attempt to discover the truth, by an u ;lside agency like the
CBI.
     2. The facts in the backdro', ha :e been stated by my
erudite sister in the order propose:i by her. it will, therefore,
                                                                        H
1368       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A serve no purpose to repeat them over again. That the deceased
   and her sister were admitted to the college as freshers is not
   in dispute. That she sustained injuries because of a fall from
   the fourth floor of the college hostel where she was staying
   with her sister is also not in dispute. That she was moved first
B to Dulet hospital and later to Sawai Man Singh hospital is also
   a fact not in dispute. That three days after her fall from the
   building she passed away is also admitted. What called for a
  fair and proper investigation was whether she fell because of
   ragging by the seniors as alleged by the petitioner or she
c jumped to commit suicide. The case of the respondents which
   includes the state of Rajasthan, the police and the college
  where she was studying, appears to be that she committed
  suicide because of an unwanted pregnancy which she was
  carrying. Reliance in support of that version is placed upon
o the medical record of the hospital, which appears to suggest
  that (a) she was 14 weeks pregnant and, (b) the pregnancy
  was aborted within 24 hours of her death. The record also
  suggests that the petitioner had declined to consent to the
  removal of the foetus from the womb of the deceased despite
E being counselled about the consequences that would follow,
  should that procedure be not followed. From the medical record
  it appears that no removal~of foetus was conducted by the
  doctors for want of consent by the father of the-.deceased. What
  is alleged is that the post mortem report does not establish in
F clear terms the presence of a pregnancy or a 14 week old
  foetus. This according to the petitioner belies the story that the
  deceased was pregnant which could give her a possible
  reason to commit suicide. The Petitioner's case also is that a
  complaint about harassment by the ragging had been made
G to the college authorities who did not act in the matt~r. The
  petitioner alleges that the deceased had remained unattended
  on the ground after the fall for about half an hour because of
  the negligence of'the college autl-.orities. There is also an
  allegation that although the deceased had sustained serious
H injuries which eventually proved fatal no complaint or report
   MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                     1369
                 [T. S. THAKUR, J.]

was lodged by the college authorities with the police. No A
statement or dying declaration of the deceased was recorded
during the time she was in the hospital even though she was
conscious and oriented. The medical record has been,
acco~ding to the petitioner, fabricated as the college is owned
and run by influential people in the state of Rajasthan, apart B
from the fact that a senior doctor in the hospital is related to
one of the respondents. There are also allegations of the college
authorities having pressurized the younger sister of the
deceased not to disclose the true facts to anyone for otherwise
she will face consequences. All told the petitioner is totally c
dissatisfied and disillusioned with the investigation conducted
by the State Police. That is why he prays for a fair and proper
investigation into the episode to bring the truth to light so that
justice is done not only at the stage of investigation but even at
the trial which depends so much on the fairness of the o
investigation.            ·
        3. Importance of a fair and proper investigation cannot
  be understated. In an adversarial system of administration of
 justice, fairness of investigation is the very first requirement
  for the fairness of a trial. A trial based on a partisan motivated, E
  one sided, or biased investigation can hardly be fair. That is
  because while the trial itself may be procedurally correct, the
  essence and the purpose thereof may be vitiated by an unfair
  or ineffective investigation. This Court has in several
. pronouncements, emphasized the importance of the fairness F
  of the investigation. Reference, in this regard, may be made
  to the decision of this Court in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT
  of Delhi) (2010) 6SCC1 where this Court while dealing with
  the fairness of the investigation said:
                                                                  G
       "The criminal justice administration_ system in India
       places human rights and dignity for human life at a
       much higher pedestal. In our jurisprudence an accused
       is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty, the alleged
       accused is entitled to fairness and true investigation H
1370          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.

 A           and fair trial and the prosecution is expected to play
             balanced role in the trial of a crime. The investigation
            should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious
             to ensure compliance with the basic rule of law. These
            are the fundamental canons of our criminal
 B          jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity with the
            constitutional mandate contained in Articles 20 and 21
            of the Constitution of India. "
        4. In Nirmal Singh Kah/on v. State of Punjab (2009)
   1 SCC 441, this Court held that fairness of investigation is
 C important not only for the accused but even for the victim. This
   Court said:
            "An accused is entitled to a fair investigation. Fair
            investigation and fair trial are concomitant to
 D          preservation of fundamental right of an accused under
            article 21 of the constitution of India. But the state has a
            larger obligation to maintain law and order, public order
            and preservation of peace and harmony in the society.
            A victim of a crime thus is equally entitled to a fair
            investigation."
 E
             5. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Sasi
       Thomas v. state and Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 421, where fairness
       of investigation was recognized as an important facet of the
       rule of law. The Court said:
 F          "Proper and fair inl(.estigation on the part of the
            investigating officer is the backbone of rule of law. A
            proper and effective investigation into a serious offence
            and particularly in a case where there is no direct
            evidence assumes great significance as collection of
 G          adequate materials to prove the circumstantial
            evidence becomes essential. Unfortunately, the
            appellant has not been treated fairly. When a death has
            pccurred in a suspicious circumstance and in particular
            when an attempt had been made to bury th.e dead body
 H          hurriedly a'!d upon obtaining apparently an incorrect
  MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                     1371
                [T. S. THAKUR, J.]

     medical certificate, it was expected that upon A
     exhumation of the body, the investigating authorities of
     the State shall carry out their statutory duties fairly."
     6. Reference may also be made to Zahira Habibul/a H.
Sheikh and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others (2004)
4 SCC 158, where the Court held that justice can become a B
victim if the investigation is not fair. The Court observed:
     "When the investigating agency helps the accused, the
     witnesses are threatened to depose falsely and the
     prosecutor acts in a manner as if he was defending the       c
     accused, and the court was acting merely as an
     onlooker and when there is no fair trial at all, justice
     becomes the victim."
     7. I may lastly refer to the decision of this Court in
Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and ors. (2010) 12 SCC, 254,         D
where the Court reiterated the legal position in the following
words:
      "The investigation into a criminal offence must be free
      from objectionable features or infirmities which may
      legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the          E
      accused that investigation was unfair and carried out
      with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the
      Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation
      avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any
      of the accused. The Investigating Officer should be fair     F
      and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of
      fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must
      dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The
      Investigating Officer "is not to bolster up a prosecution
      case with such evidence as may enable the court to           G
      record conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished
      truth". (Vide R.P Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960
      SC 866; Jamuna Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar
      AIR 1974 SC 1822; and Mahmood Vs. State of UP
      AIR 1976 SC 69).                                             H
1372         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 13 S.C.R.

 A          40. Therefore, ifthe Court, comes to the conclusion that
       the investigation has been done in a manner with an object
       of helping a party, the court may direct for further investigation
       and ordinarily not for re-investigation.
            41. The expression ordinarily means normally and it is
 8          used where there can be an exception. It means i., the
            large majority of cases but not invariably. "Ordinarily"
            excludes "extra-ordinary" or "special circumstances".
            (vide: Kai/ash Chandra Vs. Union of India AIR 1961
            SC 1346; Eicher Tractors Ltd., Haryana Vs.
 c          CommissionerofCustoms, Bombay AIR 2001SC196;
            and State of A.P Vs. Sarma Rao & Ors. AIR 2007 SC
            137).
            42. Thus, it is evident that in exceptional circumstances,
 D
            the court in order to prevent the miscarriage of criminal
            justice, if considers necessary, it may direct for
            investigation de nova wherein the case presents
            exceptional circumstances.
            45. Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also
 E          part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles
            20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore,
            investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as
            it is the minimum requirement of rule of law.
            Investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct
 F          an investigation in tainted and biased manner. Where
            non- interference of the court would ultimately result in
            failure of justice, the court must interfere. In such a
            situation, it may be in the interest of justice that
            independent agency chosen by the High Court makes
 G          a fresh investigation."
         8. Such being the importance of fair and proper
   investigation, this Court has in numerous cases arising out of
   several distinctly different fact situations exercised its power
   of transferring investigation from the State/jurisdictional police
 H to the Central Bureau of Investigation under Delhi Police
  MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                          1373
                [T. S. THAKUR, J.]

Establishment Act. There was mercifully no challenge to the A
power of this Court to direct such a transfer and in my opinion
rightly so as the question whether this Court has the jurisdiction
to direct transfer stands authoritatively settled by the
Constitution bench of this Court in State of West Bengal &
Ors. v. Committee for protection of Democratic Rights, B
West Bengal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 571.
        9. Even so the availability of power and its exercise are
two distinct matters. This Court does not direct transfer of
investigation just for the asking nor is transfer directed only to
satisfy the ego or vindicate the prestige of a party interested        C
in such investigation. The decision whether transfer should or
should not be ordered rests on the Court's satisfaction whether
the facts and circumstances of a given case demand such an
order. No hard and fast rule has been or can possibly be
prescribed for universal application to all cases. Each case            D
will obviously depend upon its own facts. What is important is
that the Court while exercising itsjurisdiction to direct transfer
remains sensitive to the principle that transfers are not ordered
just because a party seeks to lead the investigator to a given
conclusion. It is only when there is a reasonable apprehension          E
about justice becoming a victim because of shabby or partisan
 investigation that the Court may step in and exercise its extra
ordinary powers. The sensibility of the victims of the crime or
their next of kin is not wholly irrelevant in such situations. After
 all transfer of investigation to an outside agency does not imply      F
 that the transferee agency will necessarily much less falsely
 implicate anyone in the commission of the crime. That is
 particularly so when transfer is ordered to an outside agency
 perceived to be independent of influences, pressures and pulls
 that are common place when State police investigates matters           G
 of some significance. Th~ confidence of the party seeking
 transfer in the outside agency in such cases itself rests on the
 independence of that agency from such or similar other
 considerations. It follows that unless the Court sees any design
 behind the prayer for transfer, the same must be seen as an            H
           ,



1374        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 13 S.C.R.

 A attempt only to ensure that the truth is discovered. The hallmark
   of a transfer is the perceived independence of the transferee
   more than any other consideration. Discovery of truth is the
   ultimate purpose of any investigation and who can do it better
   than an agency that is independent.
 B        10. Having said that we need to remind ourselves ;hat
   this Court has, in several diverse situations, exercised the
   power of transfer. In lnder Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)
    6 SCC 275this Court transferred investigation to the CBI even
   when the investigation was being monitored by senior officers
 C of the State Police. So also in R.S. Sodhi Advocate v. State
   of U.P. & Ors. 1994 (Supp) (1) SCC 143 investigation was
   transferred even when the State police was doing the needful
   under the supervision of an officer of the rank of an Inspector
   General of Police and the State Government had appointed a
 D one member Commission of Inquiry headed by a sitting Judge
   of the High Court to enquire into the matter. This Court held
   that however faithfully the police may carry out the investigation
   the same will lack credibility since the allegations against the
   police force involved in the encounter resulting in the killing of
 E several persons were very serious. The transfer to the CBI,
   observed this Court, "would give reassurance to all those
   concerned including the relatives of the deceased that an
   independent agency was looking into the matter."
 F      11. Reference may also be made to the decision of this
  Court in State of Punjab v. CBI (2011) 9 SCC 182 where
  this Court upheld the order transferring investigation from the
  State Police to the CBI in connection with a sex scandal even
  when the High Court had commended the investigation
  conducted by the DIG and his team of officers. In Subrata
G Chattoraj v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 768, this Court
  directed transfer of the chit fund scam in the states of West
  Bengal and Orissa from the state police to the CBI keeping in
  view the involvement of several influential persons holding high
  positions of power and influence or political clout.
H
  MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                    1375
                [T. S. THAKUR, J.]

      12. Suffice it to say that transfers have been ordered in A
varied situations but while doing so the test applied by the
Court has always been whether a direction for transfer, was
keeping in view the nature of allegations, necessary with a
view to making the process of discovery of truth credible. What
is important is that this Court has rarely if ever viewed at the B
threshold the prayer for transfer of investigation to CBI with
suspicion. There is no reluctance on the part of the Court to
grant relief to the victims or their families in cases, where
intervention is called for, nor is it necessary for the petitioner
seeking a transfer to make out a cast iron case of abuse or C
neglect on the part of the State police, before ordering a
transfer. Transfer can be ordered once the Court is satisfied
on the available material that such a course will promote the
cause of justice, in a given case.
       13. In the case at hand circumstances leading to the death D
of young college student girl have become the subject matter
of investigation. The issue is sensitive not only because of loss
of an invaluable human life but also because of the reasons
which are sought to be attributed for the sordid affair. The
circumstances which the petitioner has referred to in the writ E
petition and the written submissions as also the contentions
that were urged before us in the course of the hearing may or
may not be conclusive in their import but those circumstances
need to be suitably looked into by an independent investigating
agency like the CBI lest an incomplete, indifferent or ineffective F
investigation leads to failure of justice.
      14. In the result, I allow this petition and direct transfer of
investigation in FIR No.463 of 2011 registered in the Bagru
Police Station, Jaipur to the Central Bureau of Investigation. G
The Director of CBI shall ensure that the investigation is
assigned to officers competent to handle the same and take
such follow up action as is permissible in accordance with law.
I make it clear that I have expressed no opinion as to the merits
                                                                   H
1376       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A of the case or the complicity of anyone associated with the
   incident directly or indirectly. Observations made in this order
   shall be treated to have been made only for the purposes of
   deciding whether or not an order of transfer is justified. No
   Costs.
 B       ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
          1. I have perused the orders proposed by my esteemed
   brother Hon'ble T.S. Thakur, J. and my esteemed sister Hon'ble
   R. Banumathi, J., taking differing views in the matter of
 c justification for the prayer of the petitioner for transfer of
   investigation of F.l.R. No.463 of 2011, registered at Police
   Station Bagru, Jaipur, Rajasthan from Rajasthan Police to the
   Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). I am inclined to agree
   with the operative part of the order proposed by Hon'ble T.S.
 0 Thakur,J.
           2. The matter relates to unfortunate death of a young girl
    student on 81h September, 2011. A case was registered under
    Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that
   the deceased, who was admitted to Engineering Course at
 E Jaipur, was harassed by the senior students of the Institute.
    She was taken to fourth fltlor and made to see downwards
    even though she was scared and felt dizziness. She fell down
    to the ground and suffered injuries. She was not properly
    attended and she died on account of injuries and negligence.
 F To cover up the truth and to save the reputation of the college,
    false medical record was prepared to show that she had
    fourteen weeks' pregnancy on account of which she committed
    suicide by jumping from the fourth floor. According to the
    petitioner, the local police did not conduct fair investigation
 G and filed final report wrongly declaring the case to be that of
    suicide. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court
    for a direction to shift the investigation to C.B.I. so that truth
    could be ascertained and justice done. The case of the college
    authorities and the local police, on the other hand, is that she
 H
  MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                         1377
            [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

jumped from the fourth floor and the college authorities took all A
possible steps for her treatment. Reliance has also been
placed on medical report to the effect that she had fourteen
weeks' pregnancy and on account of that she wanted to end
her life. As a result of her fall, pregnancy was aborted but she
did not agree to the removal of fetus which led to septicaemia B
and her death.
       3. We have given anxious consideration to the issue. At
this stage, the only question is whether apprehension of the
petitioner that investigation by local police may not be fair has
some basis and whether his prayer for transfer to C.B.I. ought C
to be accepted.
      4. It is true that the prayer for transfer of investigation
from State police to C.B.I. can be allowed only in rare and
exceptional circumstances when fair investigation by State            0
police does not inspire confidence on account of any external
influence or otherwise as held in State of West Bengal and
others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights,
West Bengal and others 1. There can be no cast iron
parameters and whether an exceptional situation has arisen            E
may be determined by the Court by taking an overview of the
fact situation of a particular case. In the present case, we do
not consider it necessary to blame the college authorities or
the local police but we are also unable to reject the
apprehension of the petitioner and his prayer for transfer of
investigation. The death of a young girl student has taken place      F
in mysterious circumstances. According to the petitioner, the
statement of the girl was not recorded even though it could
have been done and thus, truth has not come out. In these
circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, it           G
will be appropriate that the matter is investigated by the C. B. I.
       5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and investigation
of F.l.R. No.463 of 2011, registered at Police Station Bagru,
Jaipur, is transferred to the C.8.1.
1(2010) 3 sec 571                                                 H
1378        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A         6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
           R. BANUMATHI, J.
          1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
   seeking writ of mandamus to initiate an independent
 B investigation by the Central Bur~au of Investigation (CBI) into
   the death of his daughter S.S., a student of B. Tech 151 Yearof
   Rajasthan College of Engineering for Women, Jaipur, who
   succumbed to injuries which she sustained by falling from the
   1\flhfloor railing of her hostel room.
 C          2. Briefly stated case of the petitioner is as ~ollows:- The
     petitioner is a resident of Bihar and is working at
     Visakhapatnam. Petitioner's two daughters, namely, S.S. and
     T.S., took admission in B.Tech on 25.8.2011 in Rajasthan
     College of Engineering for Women, Jaipur and were admitted
  D in the college hostel. Petitioner contends that on 2.9.2011 his
     two daughters were ragged by two s~nior girls of 2"d year and
     the same was informed to him by his daughter S.S. over phone.
   · S.S. is also stated to have called up her maternal aunt to inform
     her about the incident. To enquire further, her aunt (Raj Kumari
  E Devi) went to the hostel and met Shalini, Chief Warden, who,
     in turn, assured her that the matter would be looked into and
     steps would be taken. On 6.9.2011, S.S. is said to have
     informed her younger sister T.S. that she was not well and so
     she would not be attending classes and T.S. went to college.
  F On the same day at about 12.30 P.M., it is alleged that two
     senior girls again caught S.S. for ragging by making her climb
     on the railing of the fourth floor forcing her to look towards the
     ground and while doing so, S.S. fell down and sustained
     injuries, and she remained as such on the ground for about
 G half an hour. After someone noticed her, she was taken to
     "Dulet Hospital" where she was given first aid treatment and
     she was referred to Sawai Man Singh (SMS) Hospital, Jaipur.
     The petitioner contends that his younger daughter T.S. was
     threatened by the college authorities and warned not to
. H disclose the fact of ragging or else her career would be ruined.
  MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                      1379
               [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

Further, he claimed thatthe statement of his younger daughter A
T.S. recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal •
Procedure was obtained under coercion and threat of false
charges being implicated against her and her sister.
      3. S.S. sustained grievous injuries in her legs and spinal
cord and after regaining her consciousness after three hours 8
of being admitted in the hospital, she narrated the incident to
T.S. The petitioner reached the hospital on the evening of
7.9.2011 when the deceased recounted the incident to him.
On 8.9.2011at7.30 P.M., S.S. succumbed to injuries. The
petitioner contends that despite the fact that S.S. remained C
alive for three days and was in her full senses, under the
influence of college authorities police have not recorded the
statement of S.S. Petitioner alleges that the medical report of
the victim was prepared on the instruction and connivance of
the college authorities making a false allegation and chastising D
the character of the deceased. The petitioner approached the
Chief Minister of Rajasthan, Chairman of National Human
Rights Commission and the Chairman of National
Commission for Women in a bid to get justice, but of no avail.
                                                                      E
      4. Invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India,
petitioner has filed this writ petition, stating that grave injustice
has been done to his daughter which is in violation of the
fundamental rights. The petitioner contends that the college
authorities have connived with the police and the hospital so· F
as to save the college from being levelled allegations of
ragging. The petitioner contends that the investigation
conducted by the State police is biased and therefore seeks
direction to entrust the investigation to CBI.
     5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, namely, the police authorities G
and the State of Rajasthan, have filed their counter affidavits
contending that none of the statements of the sister of
deceased, other friends, Principal of the college, chief warden,
warden and other staff and members revealed about any
incident of ragging. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contend that H
1380          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A considering the pain and agony of the family of the deceased,
   they conducted a fair investigation in a proper manner so as
   to sub-serve the best interest of justice. It is averred that the
   investigation of the case was conducted under the direction of
   the senior officers and during investigation no evidence of
 B ragging was found and it was found to be a case of suicide
   and to that effect, final report was filed before the Court of
   Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur.
               6. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, namely, the college authorities,
       filed counter affidavit denying each and every averment in the
 C     petition. According to the college authorities, immediately
       after the incident S.S. was taken to "Dulet Hospital" which is
       hardly 500 metres from the campus. After first aid, S.S. was
       referred to Sawai Man Singh (SMS) Hospital, Jaipur where
       she was admitted in the emergency ward and doctors had
 D     given her immediate treatment. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7
       further stated that all the risk factors were explained to the
       petitioner by the doctors about septicaemia and infection and
       other complications if unwanted substances are not removed
       from the uterus of S.S. by induction. The respondents also
 E     contend that the college authorities constituted a committee
       on 6.9.2011 itself to investigate the matter with regard to the
       ragging and the committee found that the deceased was having
       medical problems like nausea, vomiting and headache and
       there was no incident of ragging, as alleged by the petitioner.
 F     It is averred that the allegations levelled in the petition are totally
       baseless and unfounded. According to Respondent Nos. 5 to
       7', the complaint was thoroughly investigated by the police and
       on finding that there was no evidence of ragging, the police
       filed a final report in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
 G     Jaipur.
        7. Respondent No.8, namely, Central Bureau of
   Investigation, prayed that the investigation in the instant case
   should be left with the State police with the directions that a
 H Special Investigation Team be constituted to reach some
    MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                   1381
                 [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

 logical end as the instant case does not fall in the category of A
 rare cases.
        8. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel
 for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents
 who have reiterated the respective averments made in the writ
 petition and the counter affidavits. We have also perused the B
 medical report of S.S., histopathological report, final report
 filed by the State Police and other materials on record.
        9. By perusal of the materials, it is seen that on lodging
  of the complaint by the petitioner on 9.9.2011, police have c
  registered the case in F.l.R. No. 463/2011 under Section 306
  of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Bagru, Jaipur. The
  State police recorded the statement of the sister of deceased,
  other classmates, principal of the college, chief warden,
  warden and other staff, doctors and all the concerned persons. 0
  Based upon the statement of witnesses, medical report and
  other materials, the _investigating officer found that it is a case
  of suicide and filed the final report. I am refraining from entering
  upon the details thereof, lest, it may prejudice any party. Upon
. consideration of the materials, in my view, proper investigation E
  has been conducted.
       10. Observing that handing over investigation to the CBI
 can be ordered only in an exceptional situation and such an
 order is not to be passed as a routine merely because a party
 has levelled vague allegations, a Constitution Bench of this F
 Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for
 Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors., (2010)
 3 sec 571, in paragraph (70) held as under:-
       "70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary
       to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by G
       Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing
       any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-
       i mposed limitations on the exercise of these
       constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power
                                                              H
1382          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A           under the said articles requires great caution in its
             exercise. Insofar as· the question of issuing a direction to
             CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned,
             although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to
             decide whether or not such power should be exercised
 B           but time and again it has been reiterated that such an
             order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely
             because a party has levelled some allegations against
             the local police. This extraordinary power must be
           · exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional
 c           situations where it becomes necessary to provide
             credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where
             the incident may have national and international
             ramifications or where such an order may be necessary
             for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental
 o           rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large
             number of cases and with limited resources, may find it
             difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and
             in the process lose its credibility and purpose with
             uAsatisfactory invest' ·;ations."
 E            11. Having regard to the materials on record, in my
       considered view, the case in hand is not such an exceptional
       situation warranting special investigation by the CBI. The writ
       petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to
       work out the remedy in accordance with law.
 F

       Kalpana K. Tripathy                             Writ petition allowed.