SUDIPTA LENKAversusSTATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.

                     [2014] 3 S.C.R. 693


                       SUDIPTA LENKA
                                v.
              STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.
            (Writ petition (Civil) No. 957 of 2013)

                       MARCH 12, 2014

      [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOi AND
                  N.V. RAMANA, JJ]

     CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950:

      Art. 32 - Writ petition seeking transfer of investigation of
case to CBI - Sexual harassment of a contractual Government
teacher - Victim stated to have been set ablaze resulting into
her death - Held: Power of constitutional court to transfer
investigation to CBI should be exercised only in situations
befitting, judged on the touchstone of high public interest and
the need to maintain the Rule of Law -Insofar as the facts and
circumstances following the death of the deceased is
concerned, in view of the charge-sheet filed and the
departmental action taken against the erring officials, there
is no necessity of any further direction in the matter, at this
stage - As regards the events preceding the death of victim,
the same, prima facie, disclose some amount of laxity and
indifference - Therefore, even while noticing that disciplinary
action has been taken against certain officials, State
Government should hold a detailed administrative inquiry to
ascertain whether any other official or authority, at any level,
is responsible for not attending to the grievances raised by
the deceased and to take necessary action in the matter
accordingly - Public interest litigation.

    A Siksha Sahayika (contractual government teacher)
in Odisha was set ablaze on 27.10.2013. She was
removed to the hospital where she succumbed to the
burn injuries. Referring to the several newspaper reports
                            693
   694     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A published with regard to the incident, the petitioner, a
  young law student filed the instant petition under Art. 32
  of the Constitution of India stating the details that led to
  the incident, i.e., the deceased was sexually harassed by
  a Sub Inspector of Schools; she lodged a complaint
B before the local police on 18.07 .2013, and forwarded
  petitions to various authorities and institutions of the
  State; some family members of the accused threatened
  the deceased to withdraw her complaint; the deceased
  lodged yet another complaint with the police on
c 19.09.2013. The petitioner further claimed that no steps
  were taken by the authorities concerned to provide the
  deceased with any security; no action was taken against
  the accused and no steps were taken to transfer the
  deceased from her place of posting. The petitioner
  alleged that perpetrators of the crime enjoyed political
0
  patronage and the accused had close proximity to a
  Member of Parliament and also a Minister. The petitioner
  sought a direction for the transfer of the investigation of
  the case involving the death of the said Siksha Sahayika
  from the State agency to the Central Bureau of
E Investigation and the monitoring of such investigation by
  the Supreme Court.

       The State Government filed a counter affidavit stating
  that on the basis of the complaint dated 18.7.2013 filed
F by the deceased against the said Sub Inspector of
  Schools, Case No. 60 dated 18.07.2013 u/s 354/409 IPC
  was registered; that the complaints lodged by the
  deceased against the family members of the accused
  were acted upon and Case No. 62 dated 19.07.2013 and
G No. 70 dated 16.08.2013 were registered against them;
  that in respect of the incident involving the death of the
  deceased, Case No. 92 dated 28.10.2013 was registered
  and the said Sub Inspector of Schools was arrested.
  Further, the dismissal from service of the lnspector-in-
H Charge and an Assistant Sub Inspector of the Police
 SUDIPTA LENKA v. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. 695

Station concerned, two officials of the Education A
Department and also the accused were highlighted as
incidents of consequential action taken by the State,
besides the ex gratia payment of Rs. 10 lakhs to the
parents of the deceased. It was also evident that no
material could be unearthed in the investigation of the B
case to show the involvement of any person, wielding
political or bureaucratic power and influence, in
connection with the incident that had occurred.

     The questions for consideration before the Court
were: (i) whether after filing of charge-sheet u/s 302/1208 C
IPC against the accused and keeping open the
investigation u/s 173 (8) Cr.P .C. there would be any
justification to entrust further investigation of the case to
the Central Bureau of Investigation; and (ii) whether any
direction for determination of the liability of any officer or D
authority of the State who had the occasion to deal with
the matter would be called for?
    Disposing of the petition, the Court
                                                             E
     HELD: 1:I Transfer of the investigation to the Central·
Bureau of Investigation or any other specialised agency,
notwithstanding the filing of the charge-sheet, would be
justified only when the court is satisfied that on account
of the accused being powerful and influential the
investigation has not proceeded in a proper direction or F
it has been biased. Further investigation of a criminal
case after the charge-sheet has been filed in a competent
court may affect the jurisdiction of the said court u/s 173
(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, it
is imperative that the said power, which, though, will G
always vest in a Constitutional Court, should be exercised
only in situations befitting, judged on the touchstone of
high public interest and the need to maintain the Rule of
Law. [para 9] [707-C-F]
                                                              H
    696       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A       Gudalure M.J. Cherian vs. Union of India 1991 (3) Suppl.
    SCR 251 = (1992) 1 SCC 397; Punjab &Haryana High Court
    Bar Association vs. State of Punjab 1994 AIR 1023 = 1993
    (3) Suppl. SCR 915 = (1994) 1 SCC 616; Rubabbuddin
    Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat 2010 AIR 3175 = 2010 (1) SCR
8         =
    991 (2010) 2 sec 200; and Disha VS State of Gujarat and
    Others, 2011AIR3168 = 2011 (9) SCR 359=(2011)13 sec
    337 • relied on.

       Vineet Narain vs. Union of India 1996 AIR 3386 = 1996
  (1) SCR 1053 = (1996) 2 SCC 199; Union of India vs. Sushi/
C Kumar Modi (1998) 8 SCC 661; Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'La/an'
  (8) vs. Union of India 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 742 = (2006) 6
  sec 613 - held inapplicable.
       1.2 The events relevant to the instant adjudication
D may be divided into two compartments - one before the
  death of the deceased and the second subsequent
  thereto. Insofar as the facts and circumstances following
  the death of the deceased is concerned, in view of the
  chargesheet filed and the departmental action taken
E against the erring officials, there is no necessity of any
  further direction in the matter, at this stage. The power
  of this Court to refer a matter to Central Bureau of
  Investigation for further investigation, after filing of the
  chargesheet by the State investigating agency, ought not
F to be invoked in the instant case. Instead, the course of
  action that would be mandated by law against the
  accused should be allowed to reach its logical
  conclusion at the earliest. At the same time thP.
  investigation that has been kept open against the
G unidentified accused should be completed without delay.
  This Court directs accordingly and casts the
  responsibility in this regard on the Superintendent of
  Police concerned. However, it is made clear that the trial
  of the accused shall not be held up on that count or on
  any other count and the same shall proceed forthwith and
H
 SUDIPTA LENKA v. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.            697


be concluded within the earliest possible time. [para 10 A
& 11] [707-F-G; 708-B-E]

     1.3 The events preceding the incident of death,
however, stand on a slightly different footing. The same,
prima facie, disclose some amount of laxity and 8
indifference. Therefore, even while noticing that
disciplinary action has been taken against certain
officials, this Court is of the view that the State
Government should hold a detailed administrative inquiry
into the matter to ascertain whether any other official or C
authority, at any level, is responsible for not attending to
the complaints, grievances and demands raised by the
deceased either in the matter of action against the
accused or in providing security to the deceased or in
transferring her from her place of posting. On the basis
of the findings and conclusions as may be reached in D
such inquiry, the State is directed to take necessary action
in the matter. [para 12] [708-F-H; 709-AJ
                     Case Law Reference:
                                                            E
   2011 (9) SCR 359             relied on        para 5
   1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 251 relied on             para 8
   1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 915 relied on             para 8
   1996 (1) SCR 1053            held inapplicable para 8    F
   1998 (8) sec 661             relied on        para 8
   1996 (1) SCR 1053            held inapplicable para 8
   2010 (1) SCR 991             held inapplicable para 8    G
   CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.
    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 957 of 2013.
    L. Nageswara Rao, ASG, Mukul Gupta, Suresh Chandra      H
    698      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2014] 3 S.C.R.


A   Tripathy, Sanjeeb Panigrahi, Siddhartha Chowdhury,
    Shibashish Misra, Vansdeep Dalmia, B.V. Balaram Das,
    Suvarna Kashyap, Aseem Swarup for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B         RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. A young law student of Bangalore,
    who belongs to the State of Odisha, has filed the present
    application under Article 32 of the Constitution highlighting what
    she has perceived to be a serious infringement of the
    fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 consequent to a
C   tragic incident wherein one ltishree Pradhan was set ablaze on
    27.10.2013 at a place called Tikiri located in Rayagada District
    in the State of Odisha. The unfortunate victim of the incident
    died on 01.11.2013.

0       2. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid ltishree
  Pradhan (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") joined as
  a Siksha Sahayika (contractual government teacher) in the Tikiri
   Upper Primary School on 18.06.2011. As she was facing
  difficulty in finding accommodation, one Netrananda
E Dandasena, (now an accused and hereinafter referred to as
  "the accused"), who was then serving as Sub Inspector of
  Schools at Tikiri, offered her accommodation in his own house.
  It appears that the deceased was sexually harassed by the
  aforesaid accused which led to a complaint by the deceased
  before the local police on 18.07.2013. The petitioner alleges
F that no action on the said complaint was taken by the local
  police. On 30.07.2013 the deceased had approached the State
  Women Commission and Odisha Human Rights Commission
  for intervention but the said bodies did nothing more than to
  forward her petition to the Superintendent of Police, Rayagada
G for necessary action. According to the petitioner, on 31.07.2013,
  the deceased had approached the Director General of Police
  and on 05.08.2013 she had approached the Superintendent of
  Police, Rayagada; on the same day she had sent a
  representation to the Chief Minister of the State. It is also
H alleged that on the same date i.e. 05.08.2013 the deceased
 SUDIPTA LENKA v. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.                   699
             [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
had filed a complaint before the Collector, Rayagada District.       A
According to the petitioner all the aforesaid approaches made
by the deceased to different authorities did not yield any result.
In the meantime, emboldened by the lack of any action by any
authority, some family members of the accused threatened the
deceased to withdraw her complaint to the police. The                B
deceased retaliated by lodging another complaint with the
police on 19.09.2013. (date is disputed by the State) The
petitioner has further claimed that from 05.08.2013 till
22.10.2013 no steps were taken by the concerned authorities
to provide the deceased with any security; no action was taken       c
against the accused and no steps were taken to transfer the
deceased from her place of posting i.e. Tikiri to another
location. The petitioner has further alleged that on 27.10.2013
the deceased was set ablaze and she was removed to the
hospital with 90% burn injuries; eventually, the deceased
                                                                     0
succumbed to the burn injuries sustained by her in a hospital
at Vishakhapatnam on 01.11.2013. Referring to the several
newspaper reports published with regard to the incident in
question the petitioner has alleged that perpetrators of the crime
enjoyed political patronage and the accused had close
proximity to a Member of Parliament and also a minister. The         E
petitioner has stated that notwithstanding the several criminal
acts committed, the accused was moving around freely;
receiving his salary and had even been granted a promotion
in service. Consequently, the petitioner has sought a direction
for the transfer of the investigation of the case involving the      F
death of ltishree Pradhan from the State agency to the Central
Bureau of Investigation and the monitoring of such investigation
by this Court.

    3. The writ petition filed on 12.11.2013 has been                G
responded to by the State of Odisha by means of a counter
affidavit dated 02.01.2014. According to the State, on the basis
of the complaint dated 18.7.2013 filed by the deceased against
Netrananda Dandasena, Tikiri P .S. Case No. 60 dated
18.07.2013 under Sections 354/409 of the Indian Penal Code           H
    700      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A was registered. The State, in its counter affidavit, has set out
  in seriatim the action taken on the basis of the complaints/
  representations submitted by the deceased to different bodies
  and authorities of the State. It is also submitted that the
  complaints lodged by the deceased against the family
B members of the accused have been acted upon and Ti kiri P.S.
  Case No. 62 dated 19.07.2013 and No. 70 dated 16.08.2013
  have been registered against the family members of the
  accused. In the counter filed, it has been further stated that in
  respect of the incident involving the death of ltishree Pradhan,
c Tikiri P.S. Case No. 92 dated 28.10.2013 has been registered
  and Netrananda Dandasena was arrested in connection with
  the said case on 30.10.2013. According to the State, the
  promotion of Netrananda Dandasena was pursuant to the
  recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee
D made some time in December, 2012. The dismissal of the
  Inspector-in-Charge of Tikiri Police Station and an Assistant
  Sub Inspector attached to the said police station from service;
  the dismissal of two officials of the Education Department
  posted at Rayagada and also the dismissal of accused
  Netrananda Dandasena from service by invoking proviso (b)
E to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution has also been highlighted
  as incidents of consequential action taken by the State besides
  the payment of extra gratia of Rs. 10 lakhs to the parents of
  the deceased.

F      4. Shri Suresh Chandra Tripathy, learned counsel for the
  petitioner has vehemently urged that the present case
  demonstrates the lack of concern for the rights of a young
  woman who was compelled by circumstances to accept
  employment at a place far away from her home. She had
G bravely resisted the attempts of the accused, Netrananda
  Dandasena, to sexually exploit her and mustered up courage
  to formally complain against the accused. Such complaints
  were lodged before the local police station and also made to
  the district police officials i.e. Superintendent of Police, District
H Collector as well as statutory bodies committed to protect
 SUDIPTA LENKA v. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. 701
             [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
                                       .
human rights and her individual rights (State Human Rights            A
Commission and State Women Commission). The deceased
had even approached the Director General of Police and finally
she had approached the Chief Minister of the State. Her
repeated and frantic pleas failed to evoke requisite response
from any of the aforesaid authorities. Despite the several            B
complaints lodged by her the accused was roaming free. It is
the inaction on the part of the authorities that had emboldened
the accused to commit the acts resulting in her death. The
sequence of events following the death of ltishree Pradhan have
been, according to the learned counsel, equally appalling. Apart      c
from some superficial and knee jerk actions like dismissing
some lowly placed employees from service the investigation of
the criminal case has not proceeded meaningfully. Though the
accused, Netrananda Dandasena, had been arrested on
30.10.2013 no explanation has been forthcoming as to why he           0
could not be apprehended earlier. The second person involved
in the incident leading to the death of ltishree Pradhan i.e. the
person who had poured kerosene on her is still at large and
his identity is yet to be ascertained. According to the learned
counsel, all this is on account of the fact that the accused enjoys   E
political patronage; he is close to an elected Member of
Parliament. It is also submitted that in her final dying
declaration made in the hospital at Vishakhapatnam, which was
recorded by a local TV channel, and thereafter telecast, the
deceased had named the Chief Minister of the State as being
involved/responsible for the incident leading to her death. All       F
such facts are stated in the report of the Enquiry Committee of
the National Commission of Women which is a part of the
record of the case. According to learned counsel, the present,
therefore, is a fit case where the investigation should be
transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation and                G
proceeded with under the close supervision of this Court.
     5. In reply, Shri L. Nageswara Rao, learned Additional
Solicitor General who has appeared for the State of Odisha,
has, at the outset, submitted that the deceased had made three        H
dying declarations. The first dying declaration was recorded at
    702      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A   10.45 p.m. on 27.10.2013 by the Medical Officer of the Public
    Health Centre at Tikiri, the second was recorded at 1.05 a.m.
    on 28.10.2013 in the District Headquarter Hospital at
    Rayagada and the third on the same day before the Tehsildar,
    Rayagada. The aforesaid three dying declarations are to the
B   same effect, namely, that the deceased was set ablaze by a
    person whom she did not recognize and before doing so the
    person had asked her to withdraw the case against accused
    Netrananda Dandasena, which she refused. It is submitted that
    the above dying declarations make it clear that two persons are
c   involved in the crime i.e. Netrananda Dandasena and another
    unknown person who had actually set the deceased ablaze. The
    learned counsel has submitted that on 22.02.2014 chargesheet
    had been submitted in Tikiri P.S. Case No. 92/2013 against
    Netrananda Dandasena under Sections 449/450/302/120-B of
    the Indian Penal Code and the investigation is being kept open
0
    to bring to book the other person who is alleged to have set
    the deceased ablaze. Learned counsel has further submitted
    that on a conspectus of the facts of the case, the persons
    associated with the incident can be categorized in three groups
E   - the first being persons who are actually involved in the crime;
    the second are the officials and bodies before whom complaints
    were filed by the deceased and the third is the person(s) who
    had allegedly tried to protect the accused. Insofar as the
    persons involved in the crime are concerned, according to the
    learned counsel, Netrananda Dandasena has already been
F   chargesheeted and presently he is in custody. The investigation
    is being kept open to bring to book the unidentified person who
    is stated to have set the deceased ablaze. So far as the
    officials and functionaries of the State, at different levels, who
    were approached by the deceased from time to time and who
G   had allegedly not taken proper and prompt action, it is
    submitted by the learned counsel that the said aspect of the
    case not being relatable to the actual commission of the crime,
    cannot, in any case, be a subject matter of a reference to the
    Central Bureau of Investigation. At best, the aforesaid issue
H   could be a matter of administrative inquiry and consequential
 SUDIPTA LENKA v. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.                  703
             [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
action on that basis. Insofar as the issue of political or other /.\
influential persons shielding and protecting the offender(s) is
concerned, Shri Rao has drawn the attention of the Court to the
details of the investigation with regard to the allegations of
phone calls made by one Shri Jayaram Pangi, M.P., Karaput
Constituency to the deceased to withdraw her case against the B
accused. The attention of the Court has been drawn to the
report of the CFSL, Hyderabad to which place the seized
mobile of the deceased alongwith the Sim card(s) were sent.
The report, it is mentioned in the chargesheet, is in the
negative. Insofar as the alleged involvement of the Chief c
Minister is concerned, Shri Rao has drawn the attention of the
Court to the facts found on investigation as recorded in the
chargesheet which show that the video recording of the
statement of the deceased· made in the hospital and telecast
on 05.11.2013 being in Odiya was been sent to an Odiya D
Professor of Ravenshaw University, Cuttack and also to the
State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhubaneswar for
transcription of the exact version of the said statement. On due
examination and analysis, it was found that the deceased in her
statement had stated that "SI YE" (meaning 'he' in Odiya),
amongst others, was responsible for the incident. It is stated E
that the said expression has been understood to be a reference
to C.M. i.e. the Chief Minister. It is further submitted by Shri Rao
that there is no material, whatsoever, to even remotely connect
the Chief Minister to the incident except the fact that the
deceased had submitted a written representation dated F .
05.08.2013 to the Chief Minister also. Shri Rao has contended
that the chargesheet in the case having been filed and the
matter being before the Court and furthermore the investigation
being kept open under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. to bring to book
the other culprit there is no reason why the matter should be G
entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation which would
virtually amount to reopening of the investigation. In this regard
Shri Rao has relied on the judgment of this Court in Disha vs.
State of Gujarat and Others1 (para 21).
1. c2011) 13 sec 337.                                                H
    704         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A       6. From the resume of facts stated above the following
    events leading to and surrounding the death of ltishree Pradhan
    would be significant to be taken note of.

          (i)     Prior to her death the deceased had submitted
                  numerous complaints to different authorities
B
                  complaining of different instances of unlawful
                  conduct of the accused and expressing
                  apprehensions of harm at the hands of the accused.

          (ii)    Tikiri P.S. Case Nos. 60, 62 and 70 had been
c                 registered on the basis of such complaints against
                  the accused Netrananda Dandasena and his family
                  members and chargesheets have been submitted
                  in the said cases.

D         (iii)   The accused however remained at large; no
                  protection was offered to the deceased; neither
                  was she posted out of Tikiri.

          (iv)    The deceased was set ablaze on 27.10.2013. Her
                  dying declarations, three in number, implicates
E                 accused, Netrananda Dandasena and one
                  unknown person as being the perpetrators of the
                  crime leading to her death.
           (v)    Tikiri P.S. Case No. 92 has been registered in
F                 connection with the said incident. The accused,
                  Netrananda Dandasena has been arrested on
                  30.10.2013. Chargesheet has been submitted on
                  22.2.2014 against Netrananda Dandesena and the
                  investigation has been kept open under Section
                  173 (8) Cr.P.C. against the other unidentified
G
                  accused.
           (vi) Two police officials namely Sujit Kumar Say,
                Inspector-in-Charge and Muralidhar Pradhan,
                Assistant Sub Inspector, Tikiri Police Station have
H               been dismissed from service by order dated
 SUDIPTA LENKA v. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.                   705
             [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
             05.11.2013 of the Home Department, Govt. of             A
             Odisha.

      (vii) Two officials of the Education Department namely
            Dharanidhar Behera, BEO Rayagada and llC BEO
            Kashipur were dismissed from service by order            B
            dated 05.11.2013 of the School & Mass Education
            Department, Govt. of Odisha.

      (viii) The promotion of accused Netrananda Dandasena
             was made alongwith 23 other officials by an order
             dated 15.10.2013 on the recommendations of the          c
             Departmental Promotion Committee dated
             1.12.2012. He has since been dismissed from
             service by order dated 05.11.2013.
      (ix)   No material has been unearthed in the investigation     D
             of the case to show that Shri Jayaram Pangi, M.P.,
             Karaput Constituency had made any phone calls to
             the deceased to withdraw the case lodged by her
             against Netrananda Dandasena.
      (x)    No incriminating material has been found in the         E
             course of investigation of the case nor any material
             has been laid before us to show the involvement of
             any other person, wielding political or bureaucratic
             power and influence, in connection with the incident
             that had occurred.                                      F

      (xi)   A sum of Rs. 1O lakhs as ex-gratia payment has
             been paid to the parents of the deceased which
             has been duly accepted.
                                                                     G
      7. Two issues arise for our consideration. The first-whether
after filing of chargesheet under Section 302/1208 IPC against
the accused Netrananda Dandasena and keeping open the
investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P .C. there is any
justification to entrust further investigation of the case to the
Central Bureau of Investigation. Irrespective of the above, the      H
    706       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2014] 3 S.C.R.

A second issue that will require consideration is whether any
  direction for determination of the liability of any officer or
  authority of the State who had the occasion to deal with the
  matter is called for?

          8. On the question whether a criminal case in which a
B charge sheet has been filed by the local/state investigating
   agency can/should be referred to Central Bureau of
   Investigation for further investigation there is near unanimity of
   judicial opinion. In Gudalure M.J. Cherian vs. Union of lndia 2
   and Punjab & Haryana High Coutt Bar Association vs. State
C of Punjab3 , it has held that after the chargesheet is filed the
   power to direct further investigation by Central Bureau of
   Investigation should not be normally resorted to by the
   Constitutional Courts unless exceptional circumstances exist
   either to doubt the fairness of the investigation or there are
D compulsive reasons founded on high public interest to do so.
    Vineet Narain vs. Union of lndia4 , Union of India vs. Sushi/
 · Kumar Modi5 and Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'La/an' (8) vs. Union of
   lndia 6 are not decisions on the same line as the issue in the
   said cases was with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by
E the Monitoring Court to order further investigation of a case after
   chargesheet had been filed by the Central Bureau of
   Investigation to which body the investigation already stood
   entrusted. Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat7, really,
   carries forward the law laid down in Gudalure M.J. Cherian and
F Punjab & Haryana High Coutt Bar Association (supra) which
   position finds reflection in para 60 of the report which is in the
   following terms :
          " ....... Therefore, it can safely be concluded that in an
G 2. (1992) 1 sec 397.
  3. (1994) 1 sec 616.
  4. (1996) 2 sec 199.
  5. (1998) a sec 661.
  6. (2006) 6 sec 613.
H 1. c201oi 2 sec 200.
 SUDIPTA LENKA v. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. 707
             [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
    appropriate case when the court feels that the A
    investigation by the police authorities is not in the
    proper direction and in order to do complete justice
    in the case and as the high police officials are
    involved in' the said crime, it was always open to the
    court to hand over the investigation to the B
    independent agency like CBI. It cannot be said that
    after the charge-sheet is submitted, the court is not
    empowered, in an appropriate case, to hand over the
    investigation to an independent agency like CBI."

      9. The position has also been succinctly summed up in C
Disha (supra) to which one of us (the learned Chief Justice)
was a party by holding that transfer of the investigation to the
Central Bureau of Investigation or any other specialised
agency, notwithstanding the filing of the chargesheet, would be
justified only when the Court is satisfied that on account of the D
accused being powerful and influential the investigation has not
proceeded in a proper direction or it has been biased. Further
investigation of a criminal case after the chargesheet has been
filed in a competent court may affect the jurisdiction of the said
Court under Section 173 (8) of tl~e Code of Criminal Procedure. E
 Hence it is imperative that the said power, which, though, will
always vest in a Constitutional Court, should be exercised only
in situations befitting, judged on the touchstone of high public
interest and the need to maintain the Rule of Law.
                                                                    F
      10. The events relevant to the present adjudication may be
cdnveniently divided into two compartments - one before the
death of ltishree Pradhan and the second subsequent thereto.
In this regard we would like to say that all human tragedies, man
made or natural, may appear to be avoidable. To understand          G
such phenomenon as pre-ordained is an attitude of self-defeat,
if not self deception, and therefore must be avoided. At the
same time determination of human culpability in not
successfully avoiding an event of disaster must be made by the
test of exercise of due care, caution and reasonable foresight.
                                                                    H
    708      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2014] 3 S.C.R.

A This, according to us, is how the events surrounding the case
  will have to be judged.

          11. Insofar as the facts and circumstances following the
    death of ltishree Pradhan is concerned, in view of the
    chargesheet filed and the departmental action taken against the
8
    erring officials, we do not feel the necessity of any further
    direction in the matter, at this stage. We are, therefore, inclined
    to take the view that the power of this Court to refer a matter to
    Central Bureau of Investigation for further investigation, after
C   filing of the chargesheet by the State investigating agency,
    ought not to be invoked in the present case. Instead, the course
    of action that would be now mandated by law against the
    accused Netrananda Dandasena should be allowed to reach
    its logical conclusion at the earliest. At the same time the
    investigation that has been kept open against the unidentified
D   accused should be completed without delay. We direct
    accordingly and cast the responsibility in this regard on the
    Superintendent of Police, Rayagada. However, we make it
    clear that the trial of accused Netrananda Dandasena shall not
    be held up on that count or on any other count and the same
E   shall proceed forthwith and be concluded within the earliest
    possible time.

        12. The events preceding the incident of death, however,
  stand on a slightly different footing. The same, prima facie,
F disclose some amount of laxity and indifference. Therefore, even
  while noticing that disciplinary action has been taken against
  certain officials of the State, we are of the view that the State
  should hold a detailed administrative inquiry into the matter to
  ascertain whether any other official or authority, at any level, is
G responsible for not attending to the complaints, grievances and
  demands raised by the deceased either in the matter of action
  against accused Netrananda Dandasena or in providing
  security to her or in transferring her from Tikiri, Rayagada
  District. On the basis of the findings and conclusions as may
  be reached in such inquiry, we direct the State to take
H
  SUDIPTA LENKA v. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. 709
              [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
necessary action in the matter. We also make it clear that we             A
have not expressed any opinion with regard to the liability or
culpability of any official or functionary of the State in this regard.

     13. We accordingly dispose of the writ petition and place
on record our appreciation for the services rendered by the               8
young law student in seeking to vindicate the fundamental rights
of the deceased and for the painstaking efforts expended by
her to uphold the Rule of Law.

R.P.                                    Writ Petition disposed of.